by Mary 63 Replies latest social current
Superfine asks "is there any reason to keep her imprisoned"?
Um, uuuuhhhhh, like - maybe - Helter Skelter?
The question is not whether she can kill again, the question is that society has placed a debt upon her former crimes...it will not be served until she stays in prison until her dying day.
she can stay in... and while they are at it they can transfer Charlie boy into the general population... if the state of California wont kill him maybe one of the other guests will.
Hill
For those who are not familiar with the case:
Manson and his followers committed a series of nine murders at four locations in California, over a period of five weeks in the summer of 1969. Atkins, known within the Manson family as "Sadie Mae Glutz," was convicted for her participation in eight of these killings, including the most notorious, the "Sharon Tate/LaBianca" murders.
Five people were murdered at the Beverly Hills home belonging to Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate: Tate (who was eight months pregnant), Steven Parent, Jay Sebring, Wojciech Frykowski, and coffee heiress Abigail Folger. Polanski, Tate's husband, was in Europe finishing work on a film project.
Forensic evidence indicated that the murders were brutal. Just prior to leaving the residence, Atkins wrote "Pig" on the front door in Sharon Tate's blood. [4]
While in jail, Atkins befriended two middle-aged career criminals, Virginia Graham and Veronica "Ronnie" Howard, to whom she confessed her participation in the Tate/LaBianca murders, for example telling the women that she stabbed Tate and that she had tasted Tate's blood. They subsequently reported her statements to the authorities. [11] This, combined with information from other sources, led to the arrest of Atkins and others involved in the Tate/LaBianca murders (Van Houten, Krenwinkel, Kasabian and Watson).
Atkins agreed to testify for the prosecution in exchange for the prosecution not seeking the death penalty, and she then testified before the grand jury as to what had transpired on the nights of August 8 and 9, 1969. [12] .
Atkins told the grand jury that she stabbed Frykowski in the legs and that she held Tate down while Watson stabbed her. She also testified that Tate had pleaded for her life and that of her unborn child, to which Atkins replied, "Woman, I have no mercy for you." She also denied her earlier statement to Howard and Graham that she had tasted Tate's blood. [citation needed] Prior to the trial, Atkins discontinued her cooperation with the prosecution and repudiated her grand jury testimony, although years later she would state that this testimony was truthful and accurate as to what transpired in the Tate home. [citation needed]
Atkins has claimed over the years that her participation in the crimes led by Manson was passive and that she didn't actually kill anyone. However, in her grand jury testimony she admits to active participation in the crimes.
Mouthy said: I would rather see Homolka caught & imprisoned
Grace, I would like to see that b*tch have alot more done to her than be imprisoned. Karla Homolka is the poster child for why I'd like to see Canada have the death penalty. Haven't you heard? Karla baby is now living in the Carribean with her new husband and baby. Take one guess who footed the bill for this sick murderer to be living in a tropical paradise after being involved in Canada's most notorious murder case??
As for Susan Atkins, I'd have to say, 'no', I don't think she should be released. While I'm all for rehabilitating prisoners where possible, there are just some crimes that are so horrific that no amount of good deeds can possibly justify the release of the guilty party. I'd have to say I think this is one of them.
She needs to complete her sentence.
I lived in Los Angeles in June 1969 when the Tate and Labianca murders happened. The city was paralyzed with fear. When I drove on the freeways and looked at all the cars, I thought to myself, "the killer(s) could be in the car next to me. Who knows?"
:Her lawyer later complained that prosecutors broke a promise to her of leniency for breaking the case.
That is not the case. Susan Atkins swore to turn evidence in exchange for leniency. When time came for her to do it, she refused. SHE broke her promise, not the prosecutors. It was Linda Kasabian who turned evidence and got leniency. She was not one of the actual killers. I believe she drove one of the cars.
Susan Atkins should rot and die in prison. For those who want to show her mercy, I suggest they read Helter Skelter by Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi to see just how sick and brutal and unnecessary those murders were. Thirty seven years doesn't bring any of the dead back, as one poster has already pointed out.
Farkel
Does Sharon Tate have any surviving family members? I think they should ask them how they feel about it.
I don't think she could pose a significant risk to society now; if she's dying and that can be attested to by two doctor's reports, let her out. Her crime was over 3 decades ago. She was a very young person then, and most likely is a totally different person, with a different understanding, than she was then. Not that that makes it right, or can bring anyone back, but I think justice should be tempered with mercy at some point. She has paid a valuable price in terms of years of her life, and I guess if she's near at the end of her life, maybe we could at least offer mercy to her family members who would want to be w/her in the last moments of her life?
I don't know. Hard to say. Now Homolka... that is something else. That judgment caused Lady Justice to bow to her knee and sob!
CG
Does Sharon Tate have any surviving family members? I think they should ask them how they feel about it.
Thats how I see it too.
BTS
let her die in jail and let her last wish and dignity be taken away from her , like she did to S Tate
