What do you think of Susan Atkins not being released from prison?

Question

She mudered celebrities with Manson family members.

Now she wants to be let out early because she is terminally ill ( brain tumor)

she has like 3-6 mos to live.

Her parole was denied. DO you think its right?

I sure do!!!! I think she and her family should suffer because of her actions made a lot of other people suffer.

Gov arnold said he couldnt imagine anyone doing such a thing and denied her parole.

what are your thoughts? how would you feel if your pregnant sister was murdered ? how would you feel if you found out you were on the manson's muder list?

I have a friend who works in a prison and he has NO problem with bringing back the death penalty and neither do I?

Answer 1

From what I understand if she got the "compassionate release" the family member she was released to would be responsible for her continuing medical bills.  Otherwise the taxpayers have to flip the bill.  This woman is in the late stages of terminal brain cancer.  She's had a leg amputated and reportedly is paralyzed on one side of her body and can barely put together a coherent sentence.  Regardless of whether she is released or remains in custody she will be bed-ridden in a hospital.  I say release her to her husband or another family member and let them spring for the rest of her medical bills.  California taxpayers have been paying for her food, shelter, medical care, etc for nearly 40 years now.  Let someone else do it.  Of course I would be horribly grief-stricken and devastated if my pregnant sister was murdered but remember there were eight other people besides Sharon who were murdered by the "Manson Family".

Answer 2

The Californian Tax payers have spent 1.4 million dollars in the last yr. or so on her medical treatment. Its time to quit beating a dead dog and let her family deal with her bills.As for her doing a "Revenge Rampage" She's bed ridden and can barely talk! Don't get me wrong, Her crimes were horrendous but the tax payers have spent more than enough for her "debt to society"   << added>> The governor had no say about her release!! The Ca. dept. of Parole board made the decision!!

Answer 3

What would be the point of getting out?  Her life is behind bars now; let her finish it there.

Answer 4

She did her crime,

She got her time.

If she is let out to live the remainder of her life who's to say that she won't go on a revenge rampage? Let her serve the remainder of her sentence just like any other soulless rat would have to.

Answer 5

I think they were right to deny her parole, but on the other hand how much money of tax payers has she wasted? If she is sick maybe  her family can deal with her if they feel like it. My problem with the death penalty is that a good number of people get put in jail and are wrongly accuse and innocent. But I think if its obvious that, said person has done a crime that requires such drastic actions as the death penalty, then yeah go ahead. Whats the point of keeping serial murders in jail?

Answer 6

Her crimes were ruthless and bloody. If we are moving towards banning the death penalty then at least let's make life in prison mean what it says.

I say "no".

Answer 7

d**n fine response to the same question here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

( looks for ma name :)

Answer 8

She was sentenced to life in prison. So when she is dead, they can let her out to be buried. Pretty simple. We wouldn't need a death penalty if the so called justice system would stop playing catch and release.

Answer 9

Sharon Tate begged her for her life and said she was eight months pregnant and begged Susan Atkins not to kill her. She told Sharon Tate she didn't give a - about her or her baby and then killed her.

She should be given the same consideration she gave her victim. None.

I completely support the decision to deny her any sort of release.