Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Cry Me A River

So.  Susan Atkins was denied a 'compassionate release' from prison.

Cry me a river.   I'm struggling to understand why 'there was no basis for this denial' according to one of her attorneys.

Really?  Murdering, or rather, stabbing to death, an eight and one-half month pregnant woman is ... forgivable after forty years? 

Uh.  No.  It isn't.  Although I'm sure her attorneys want to cry foul, that the parole board is in over their collective heads or didn't want to 'handle this hot potato' ... I'm fairly certain they [the parole board] got it right.

I don't feel an iota of sorry for Susan Atkins.  Or her husband.  I'm fairly certain that Sharon Tate would love to be alive today, spending time with her grown child or children.  I'm fairly certain that Sharon Tate would want to be alive even if she was paralyzed on one side ... and suffering brain cancer, because, if even if she were now on her deathbed with only a few months to live ... she at least would have lived her life.

Call me cold-hearted, heartless, mean.  Susan Atkins is right where she belongs.  If the family wants privacy to say their goodbyes, let them do so in the hospital or prison infirmary.  Susan will be getting more than she deserves.

The State of California will spend more money to defend the current life without parole prison sentence handed down to Susan Atkins and the parole board's denial ... yet another great waste of time and money.

Next Day:  I've been reflecting on this post since I clicked the 'save' icon.  The thought has crossed my mind that mperhaps I am too harsh, or maybe I'm not seeing the entire picture. 

But here's what gets me ... what difference does a compassionate release make to her [SA]?  She is in hospital now.  It's not likely she'll return to her prison cell if her condition is as grave as it is portrayed ... isn't she already released?  Sharon Tate'slast living relative holds Sharon and the memory of that unborn baby close to her heart and continues to live with the tragic and horrendous memories of Sharon's death ... I think a compassionate release would make a large difference in her life. 

 

 

4 comments:

dsonney01 said...

Thank you! My sentiments exactly. My friend and I were amazed that anyone could consider a pardon of any nature. I am old enough to remember all of this and it was damn scary, tragic and brutal. those of us that lived in LA area were absolutely living in fear. Dannelle

frankandmary said...

I don't think you are cold-hearted or mean.  I am the first one to scoff when a killer whines about cold food or inadequate TV time within prison walls.  I know full well their victim's chance at meals & TV are long gone, along with  LIFE.  
I know correctional facilities don't often "correct" & I am more concerned with recidivism than punishment.  I don't think there is any true punishment for what Atkins did. I'd let her draw her last breath in free air if she'd killed my loved one 40 years ago.  In an odd way that would make me feel better. I know I am in the minority with that feeling, but I can tell you I'd personally feel worse if she was begging to spend her last days with her family & not able to do so.  If I considered her a possible recidivist, I'd not feel the same, but I do not.  ~Mary

mlraminiak said...

I SO agree with Mary.  

In the end, though, I'm not sure what kind of point her lawyers are trying to make.  She's in a hospital now, she'd be in a hospital if she was given a "compassionate release."  What difference does it make?  

Too bad the state of California will not be able to "pick their battle" here, because I'm sure it will not be worth the money it will cost for them to have to go to court on this one...  I'd rather see them spend the money on something that would make a difference.  But then, I don't live in California...

Lisa  :-]

sunflowerkat321 said...

The thing that comes to my mind is that every legal decision that is made sets a precedent on which future cases can be argued.  Perhaps releasing her now is the compassionate thing to do.  But where does the next defense lawyer try to go with this precedent?  Murder needs to be inexcusable...period.  The killer made a choice in committing the crime and is entitled to no more than the consequences that come with it. What more can we do to attempt to guarantee that another does not suffer the fate of Sharon Tate?