Susan Atkins

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:28 pm

I am curious to know your reactions to Susan Atkin's request to the parole board for a compassionate release. She is the member of Charles Manson's cult who killed Sharon Tate. She is now dying of a brain tumor and has just a few months to live.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:38 pm

Well, I sympathize with Susan's situation but I still feel that she needs to remain behind bars, regardless of whether or not she is repentant. Being "regretful" that you murdered someone will not compensate for the victim's life. She should have been executed, so her remaining behind bars is not even enough to pay for what she has done. When we take a human life without justification then we need to pay for it with something of equal value, our own life. That balances out the scales of justice, an eye for an eye.

I feel bad for her situation but I feel worse for Sharon Tate and her baby. Susan's brain cancer has no bearing on her release as far as I am concerned. It's a sad situation all around. Susan has caused a lot of pain and her own death will pay for the crimes that she has committed.

-1bigsteve (o:

Nadzieja · Post by **Nadzieja** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:24 pm

I personally don't feel she should be let out. It's pretty bad when a woman will kill a pregnant woman. As far as I can see she had no compassion for her, just let her lie there and die. It's like the comment I heard a long time back that all the Nazi criminals should just be let go and not hunted because they were old. The old & infirm were their first targets when they were young, so they should have always been hunted.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:56 pm

Well, the fact is, my personal feelings are irrelevant. The Compassionate Release provision is now the law, part of the California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3076. See page 50 of http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Regulations/Adul ... 5-2007.pdf

The relevant portion reads: The director may recommend at any time to the sentencing court the recall of an inmate’s commitment pursuant to Penal Code Section 1170(d) for one or more of the following reasons:

(a) The inmate is terminally ill and is not condemned or sentenced to life without possibility of parole.

The fact that Atkins has been eligible for and denied parole numerous times in past years - plus the fact that her condition is terminal - make her a candidate for Compassionate Release whether I like it or not.

Interestingly, the compassionate release statute appears to have existed in some form for about 16 years or so based on the statutory history (which is given there on pg. 50.) So Susan Atkins isn't the first inmate to benefit from it, nor I suspect will she be the last barring repeal.

The ancient custom of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth even yet applies in Susan Atkins' case. No matter which way you decide to slice the pie, the fact of a death sentence is still very real. If she is granted release under Section 3076, the central fact will not change. Death is death, and hers appears imminent. I don't dismiss or set aside the fact of her crimes at all. The state of California has held her to account for her actions now nearly 40 years. Before too very long, she will have to account before God. What more as a society can we ask for than that?

joe · Post by **joe** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:36 pm

Nope. No way. No how should she be released. There are two other gals who were spared the death penalty. If any of them should be released it's Leslie Van Houton who "has proven to be a model prisoner in the 30 years since her incarceration for the brutal murder, completing all available prison programs and assisting other inmates with these programs. She has earned two college degrees and has maintained a clean disciplinary record in prison" (parole board decision). She is eligible for parole in 2009.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 1:48 am

Susan Atkins was spared the death penalty in 1972. Now she wants to die somewhere other than prison. How many times will the results of her trial be abrogated? Do we think her judge and jury were just kidding?

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:14 pm

Oh man, Ellen, you are asking a loaded question here...

The release of Susan Atkins is something that I have very mixed feelings about. I have a great deal of compassion for anyone who has been diagnosed with terminal cancer, not to mention having one of their legs amputated. However, I think there would be a huge public outrage if Susan were granted a compassionate release. There is a great deal of hatred, not to mention little or no compassion, for this woman, throughout society; if you view any of the YouTube video regarding Susan Atkins, you'll find a lot of hateful comments revealed in the comment section. Therefore, I highly doubt, once released, if a compassionate release would be granted, that Susan would reach her destination, alive. Not only that, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the people who decide to grant her a compassionate release, would be putting their own lives in danger.

Susan was not a child, at the time she committed murder, she was 21 years old! She was old enough to know what the consequences of her actions would be, if convicted. (Actually, Susan should consider herself to be a very lucky woman, given the fact that the California Supreme Court abolished the death penalty in 1972.) Susan has no one to blame, but herself for spending the last 37 years in a prison cell. Yes, Charlie Manson was a huge influence on Susan, as well as all of the men and women in his 'family'. The members of Manson's 'family' were heavily into using drugs, and they were definitely brain washed by Charlie. However, the bottom line is that, ultimately, we are all responsible for our actions.

All of the convicted murders who were involved in the Tate/LaBianca blood-bath, except Charlie Manson, have expressed remorse for their crimes, and have turned their lives around. Yet none, to this day, have been granted parole by the California Parole Board. Why not? There has to be a reason, or reasons, why the people who are on the California Parole Board decide to keep all of them behind bars.

Susan lost her life, 38 years ago, when she thrust a knife into the body of Sharon Tate, which killed Sharon and her unborn child. What would be the point in releasing her at this time? So she can die at home with her family by her side? Susan's home has been a cell at California Institution for Women for the past 37 years, so, how in the world can a home outside of CIW be a familiar, comfortable, setting to her? Granted, dying of terminal cancer in a prison cell is scary, but it is not nearly as horrifying as the death she inflected upon her victims.

The request for a compassionate release has already been approved by the California Institution for Women in Corona. However, Suzan Hubbard, California's director of adult prisons is recommending that convicted murderer Susan Atkins be denied a compassionate release on the basis of terminal illness; a decision which contradicts officials at the CIW. Her recommendation is advisory. The Board of Parole Hearings must decide whether to take up Atkins' case, and her original sentencing court in Los Angeles County would make the final decision.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/20/man ... pstoryview

By the time Susan Atkins' request for a compassionate release would be approved by the state Board of Parole and signed by a Los Angeles County Court judge the entire process may be in vain. She may very well end up dying in the hospital before a compassionate release can be granted; perhaps this would be the best possible situation for all concerned - Susan would in essence have her wishes fulfilled by not having to die in prison, and the families of the victims, as well as society at large, may find a partial peace, knowing Susan's compassionate release request did not go through after all.

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:50 pm

I'm sorry...I have no compassion for her whatsoever. Did she show any compassion for her victims? NO!!

She needs to stay where she is until she takes her last breath.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:43 pm

I don't have any compassion for her. Where was her compassion when she killed Sharon Tate? She didn't ask to die either.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:45 pm

No compassion for her either, let her die in prison where she belongs. She had no compassion for Sharon and her baby, even laughed about it at the trial.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:09 am

It looks like Susan Atkins has been denied a release from prison. It looks like she will die while in custody. She is unable to talk much and is paralyzed on the right side.

-1bigsteve (o:

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:01 pm

Well, I think the Parole Board's decision to deny her a compassionate release is the best for all concerned. Susan is much better off staying where she is, and the victim's families are most likely relieved in knowing that her sentence of life imprisonment was followed through on.

I don't know as though her husband has the slightest idea of what he would be faced with, had the decision for a compassionate release been approved. Does he have any kind of medical training what so ever?

He told the Parole Board that Susan had her left leg amputated, she is paralyzed on her right side, she is so debilitated that she can not even sit up in bed, she can't snap her fingers, but she can put sentences together three or four times a day. Source: http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM ... ng38KTCNwQ.

It seems to me that Susan's husband is not seeking what is best for his wife, he is only interested in himself and what HE desires for her. Susan's condition is only going to get worse.

See: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/braincancer.html & http://www.oncologychannel.com/braincancer/index.shtml.

When you stop and think about it, the Parole Board's decision of denying Susan a compassionate release, is the kindest and most humane thing to do for her, because she will now, mostly likely, be provided with the medical care necessary for her condition.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:07 pm

Very well put Judy. I also think Susan Atkins is better off, medically speaking, in the prison hospital. She will be better cared for there than at home.

-1bigsteve (o:

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:33 pm

Thanks, Steve.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:00 am

Here is a detailed biography on Susan Atkins - interesting read:

http://www.mansonfamilytoday.info/atkins-biography.htm

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:42 pm

I say let her go. Being vindictive won't bring back Sharon Tate. Yes, her crime was monstrous. But she has repented and done all she can to atone for it. She's dying and her family, who are innocent, want to be with her in her last days. (Admittedly, nobody has ever murdered a loved one of mine and I don't know whether or not I would be able to forgive anyone who did.)

Character is a lot more unstable than we would like to think. Under the influence of a charismatic figure, who knows what any of us might do -- for good and/or ill.