I thought this had been settled last year, but Susan Atkins is back again asking for another parole hearing, and it has been granted. Atkins is the follower of Charles Manson who slaughtered the 8 1/2 month pregnant actress Sharon Tate in 1969. She was sentenced to death for the crime, but the death sentence was commuted to a life sentence. After being denied a parole last year, she is once again asking. According to the Los Angeles Times:
"In early 2008 Atkins was diagnosed with brain cancer. With one leg amputated and the other paralyzed, Atkins has only six months to live, doctors say. Atkins petitioned for so-called compassionate release, igniting a debate about when mercy is appropriate."
The prosecutor in the Manson case, Vincent Bugliosi, thinks Atkins should be granted parole. He says it is wrong to say "just because Susan Atkins showed no mercy to her victims, we therefore are duty-bound to follow her inhumanity and show no mercy to her." I like to think I'm a pretty humane person, but I just can't agree with Bugliosi on this one.
According to Atkins, Tate " asked me to let her baby live. I told her I didn't have mercy for her." But she didn't just show no mercy, Atkins had no feelings of remorse for her crimes. She laughed as she told her jailmates about stabbing Sharon Tate in the belly and watching the knife quiver like jello. She was proud of her vicious crime.
Frankly, I don't really care how sick she is now. She was supposed to die in prison many years ago, and I don't have any problem with her dying in prison now, or six months from now. She does not deserve to be free even for 10 minutes before her death. I can't feel sorry for this vicious killer.
There are some who think she should be released to save the state of California some money. That is not only a terrible reason to grant parole to someone, but it probably isn't even true. She has no money, and the state will have to take care of her living and medical expenses whether she's free or in prison. In fact, it would probably be cheaper to leave her in prison.
Does this killer deserve sympathy and freedom because she has a terminal illness? Should she be released in her September 2nd parole hearing? I say no. What do you say?
I think this case, along with the aging of the other Manson family members into pathetic old fogies is perhaps a test for those of us who believe-- as I do-- that the death penalty should be repealed in favor of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. It's easy to kill someone who has committed a horrible crime when emotions are still high and family members are demanding "closure". But what happens decades later, after emotions have cooled, when even the prosecutors have forgiven and the criminals themselves have aged-- as we all surely will-- into sad old codgers? Do we have the balls as a society to continue to hold them-- just hold them, the punishment long past-- for these most heinous of crimes?
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt in my mind that some, though not all, of the Manson family are genuinely remorseful for crimes committed in a time I'll never fully understand.
If this were a Christian country we would probably turn the other cheek and release them.
But there are damned few Christians in this land. And the Mansons should stay in jail until they die.