Do you think it was right for Susan Atkins to not be released from prison on "compassionate release" terms?
Is she a cold-blooded murderer that does not have the right to be out in public ever again?
Or was she just a vulnerable victim of someone that pretented to care for her (Manson), but just mislead her?
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Ask Sharon Tate and her unborn, nearly full term fetus who Susan murdered, then used her blood to write 'pig' on the wall with. Sorry, Susan didn't show any compassion for the people she was slaughtering like cattle. And she is currently getting a lot more 'compassion' at the hands of the state than she showed those people who have been in their graves for 40 years. She doesn't deserve to see the light of freedom in her last days. Her and crazy Charlie and the rest of them should have been put up against a wall and shot a long time ago. They ought to withhold her pain medication and let her suffer in agony until she croaks.
- StanLv 51 decade ago
This is probably the hardest question I've ever tried to answer here, and I've answered hundreds. Her crime was among the most vicious in all of modern American history, and she was 100% responsible for her actions. The notion that she was brainwashed by Manson doesn't hold a drop of water - she was an adult, and she knew right from wrong. Her life sentence was and is completely justified.
And by the way, [Edit] what she did was not a "Mistake"! When you multiply 3 by 5 and get 16, that's a mistake. A person of high moral character can make a mistake. But when you engage in a bloody and murderous carnage, that's a vile, contemptible, sickening crime. And it means that you're a vile, sickening, and contemptible person.
On the other hand, what purpose does it serve to keep a dying woman imprisoned? She poses no threat to anyone or anything. She has apparently long since become a different person. There is no benefit to society, or to the families of those she murdered (except perhaps to satisfy their sense of vindictiveness, which is not a legitimate cause), by keeping her imprisoned until she draws her last breath.
When a question like this arises, I always say let's err on the side of kindness and compassion. Let her go.
- DawnDavenportLv 71 decade ago
I'm going to say no but for only one reason: the family member who would agree to take responsibility for her would also have to assume her future medical bills. Otherwise the state will have to absorb the cost. The CA taxpayers have been flipping the bill for her for nearly 40 years now. Let someone else do it for a change. The woman is bed-ridden with terminal brain cancer, has had one leg amputated, is paralyzed on one side of her body, cannot sit up in bed and can barely utter a coherent sentence. She will never be out in public again. Technically released or not she will spend her remaining days in a hospital or hospice. The only issue is who gets stuck with the rest of the bills. She and many of the others may have been vulnerable but I'm tired of them blaming everything on Manson. They were not computers programmed by Manson. They had the freedom to make their own choices and the decision to do what they did was theirs. Atkins could have left at any time. But no, she helped hold Gary Hinman hostage for two days before he was killed. Two weeks later she went to the Tate house, entered, rounded up people at knife point, tied up Frykowski, stabbed him in the leg as he tried to escape, probably held Sharon down so Tex could stab her, wrote "PIG" in blood on the door. Then she willingly went out with them the next night when the LaBiancas were killed. She was no victim.
- geegeeLv 61 decade ago
She was to spend the rest of her natural life in prison. The state of CA has said that she will receive the same care in prison that she would receive outside of prison & the taxpayers will pay for it! That seems compassionate enough to me! Almost every person in the world has been misled by someone else, but most have not gone so far as to kill innocent people. They know enough to draw the line, she didn't back away from killing. It was only when she was caught that she had remorse, as do most people when caught doing an evil deed! I'm sorry, I feel that she is where she should be & that's where she should die! If she has any family left, they will be allowed to be with her at the end of her life to comfort her. That's more than those she helped kill had with them.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- najarLv 43 years ago
actually, i've got by no potential heard of that factor era in the previous. Conservatives, interior the area of politics tend to not permit their thoughts get interior the way. transforming into emotionally charged ends up in making undesirable coverage. case in point, formative years weight problems. fairly of addressing the real problems with formative years weight problems, liberals have compelled quickly nutrition eating places to not comprise a toy interior the toddlers meal. Oh yeah, which will slender down those toddlers.
- CiticopLv 71 decade ago
How much compassion did Susan Atkins for the people she killed?
She did the crime, she can do the time. I agree with the decision.Source(s): 8+ years Law Enforcement
- Jay KLv 51 decade ago
Go ahead and let her see the sun set over the California ocean. Put her in a place of serenity until she passes.
- ibelieveLv 41 decade ago
It is what it is~~ 11-0 decision. The Board of Parole Hearings does not disclose its reasons.
- Marq JPAALv 71 decade ago
She's acknowledged the mistake she made, seen what caused her to make the mistake, and understands the consequences (long prison term).
Unfortunately, fundagelical Christian America loves to punish people without mercy -- while expecting mercy for their *own* transgressions.
- cc1010Lv 41 decade ago
Yes. What she did was truly sick and disgusting. She showed no remorse of what she did when she was first convicted. I think she deserves it. Old age won't change my mind.