Posted on 07/03/2008 2:34:01 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Few if any murders carry the horrifying cachet of the Manson murders in 1969. The deaths of seven people on two nights at the end of a tumultuous decade combined all of the political and cultural baggage of the era — drugs, counterculture, celebrity, cults, and pure evil in the form of the perpetrators, especially Charles Manson himself. Combining mass murder and serial murder, the Manson Family has played on the imaginations of Americans for almost 40 years, while its members routinely apply for parole and get rejected.
Now one of them faces death, although much different in nature than the deaths she herself inflicted on her victims. Susan Atkins, probably the most committed of all the Tate/LaBianca murderers to Manson himself, has terminal brain cancer and is not expected to live out the year. She wants to be released so that she can die at home, presumably with family and friends. Matthew Schmalz asks in Newsweek whether mercy or retribution should take precedence (via Shaun Mullen):
Justice or mercy? That is the pressing question in what seems to be a coda in the story of the 1969 Manson family murders. At issue is the request by Susan Atkins, now 60, for compassionate release from prison on the grounds of terminal illness.
Apart from Charles Manson himself, Atkins was the public face of the Manson family during the Tate-LaBianca murder trial. She had bragged about mercilessly stabbing the pregnant Sharon Tate and laughed when details of the murders were presented in court. When she received a death sentence, the verdict seemed particularly appropriate. When her punishment was later changed to life imprisonment with possibility parole, it seemed to be a gross distortion of the justice process.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Come on people, we should sit around a campfire with her, sing goom-by-ahh then chain her to a tree and watch her die slowly.
Prison!
She and the others were already shown compassion when their death sentences were vacated by the CA Supreme Court.
Yes, that’s how I feel. She’s already dying, I don’t think it matters where she is when she dies. God will judge her for her crimes soon. She won’t be committing any more.
Die in prison just like any other criminal would.
Why do you think that?
Prison!
She would be wise to take a page from Tex before she goes.
Truth is, this murdering animal should have been executed long, long ago.
I say prison but most likely even if she is in prison she will die in the local hospital. Isn’t is interesting how family means something when criminals are dying or asking for probation?
The entire Manson gang should never walk on free soil.
Thanks.
No release. But if her friends and family want to be there at her prison deathbed when she passes on, that could possibly be arranged.
Prison! Why should she be treated any better than the treatment she gave Sharon Tate and an unborn baby? Prison is even too good for her but...yes, she should stay in prison!
Assuming, of course, she has any.
Prison with a webcam in her cell.
Prison. Case closed.
I don’t care if she dies without pain meds to be honest. These people cut up a full term pregnant woman. Let her rot.
She should die in prison with pictures of her victims all around her.
I remember Manson’s krap, along with his cohort’s, all too well. The sentence was “for life” and that is what it should be. For life-—maybe, is not a category.
Prison.
And she should watch Charlie die
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.