Another Parole Hearing For Atkins

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?

Compassion For Susan Atkins ?

In 1969, Susan Atkins was a member of the cult headed by Charles Manson. She and several others entered the Sharon Tate mansion one night, and murdered the 8 1/2 month pregnant woman and several others. Atkins was among the most vicious of the killers, showing her victims no mercy.

I am old enough to remember the killings and the trial of the killers. Atkins never showed any remorse for her brutal actions. She always acted like she thoroughly enjoyed the killing and the noteriety of the trial. She even bragged about the killings to jailmates, and laughed about how the knife jiggled in Tate's pregnant belly.

Although she never showed any compassion or remorse, Susan Atkins now wants the state of California to show her some compassion. She has contracted brain cancer and only has about six months to live according to doctors. Her attorney is asking for "compassionate parole".

The request has split the prosecutors who tried the case -- Stephan Kay and Vincent Bugliosi. Kay opposes her release, while Bugliosi supports it. A state panel will meet today to decide the issue.

While I respect Vincent Bugliosi, I cannot agree with him about this case. Maybe I'm becoming mean in my old age, but I think Atkins should die in prison. The state of California should show her the same compassion she showed her victims -- NONE.

UPDATE - Atkins parole was denied.