Guest American Woman Posted June 24, 2008 Report Posted June 24, 2008 I might have agreed with you if it wasn't for the fact that she is already facing the death penalty! Within the next 12 months, her doctors expect her to die from inoperable brain cancer or other complications of the disease! Her health is likely already in decline and will worsen as the disease progresses; it's not like she' going to go off to live it up in the nightclubs and out on the golfcourse like O.J. Simpson! So who gains by keeping her in prison at this stage of her life? Is every crime issue only about vengeance and retribution to religious conservatives? I'm sure as hell no religious conservative either, but life in prison without parole should BE life in prison without parole. The fact that she's dying from cancer should have nothing to do with it. Furthermore, comparing her to OJ Simpson is just plain silly since he wasn't found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. As I said before, as long as cases like this come up, as long as life-without-parole sentences are overturned for any reason, a large number of people are going to continue to support the death penalty. And repeating yet again: "justice" and "vengeance" are not synonymous. Quote
WIP Posted June 24, 2008 Report Posted June 24, 2008 I'm sure as hell no religious conservative either, but life in prison without parole should BE life in prison without parole. The fact that she's dying from cancer should have nothing to do with it. Is that just for strictly legalistic reasons? Because on principle, none of the hardliners seems to be able to make a case why it would be wrong or harmful to society to let her die outside the prison gates! Furthermore, comparing her to OJ Simpson is just plain silly since he wasn't found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. Wrong! O.J. was found guilty when the Goldman and Brown families took him to civil court. The damages awarded were based on a judgement that he was guilty of murder. The only reason why he is a free man today is because the U.S. has double jeopardy laws, so they couldn't retry him for murder after the D.A.'s office botched the prosecution of the criminal case. In Canada there are no such double jeopardy laws, and they would have kept bringing him back until they got the judgement they wanted, just as the Guy Paul Morin case and Dr. Henry Morgenthaler, who was continually tried and acquitted for operating private abortion clinics for decades! As I said before, as long as cases like this come up, as long as life-without-parole sentences are overturned for any reason, a large number of people are going to continue to support the death penalty. It's a sad commentary on the public-at-large if they can't distinguish between a case like this and letting Charlie go free! And repeating yet again: "justice" and "vengeance" are not synonymous. They are in this case! Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted June 24, 2008 Report Posted June 24, 2008 Wait a sec.She was sentenced to life in prison. Therefore she was sentence to be incarcerated until she died in prison, whether by natural life span or by illness. She needs to serve that out. As I said earlier, make accommodations like those conjugal houses but dont let her out . Her victims sure didnt get a last chance to smell the roses, neither should she. (i sure as hell am no religious conservative) Well, at least you're willing to extend some degree of mercy! Haven't heard it from many hardliners so far. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
DogOnPorch Posted June 24, 2008 Author Report Posted June 24, 2008 I have to agree with that.Release should not be an option. However, based on her good behaviour some considerations for her last days could and should be accommodated. Give her and her family one of those conjugal trailers for instance. Susan Atkins was involved in at least 6 homicides for the Family. She has been allowed full conjugal rights. She's had children while in prison...married more than once. She's even written a book. Three meals a day, to boot. WIP: I finally got around to watching the video clip and I voted to let her go! People do change over time. I'm not sure what her level of complicity was when she was a participant in the Manson Family murders back in 69 when she was a brainwashed cult-member, but she has not been a danger to anyone during the almost 40 years of incarceration. Al Capone wasn't much danger while in prison, either. Atkin's level of complicity goes so far as stabbing an 8-1/2 months pregnant woman multiple times after hanging her from a rafter. While Sharon Tate lay dying, she pleaded for mercy and the life of her unborn child. Atkin's notorious reply re: "no mercy, bitch"...she even went so far as to taste Sharon Tate's blood. Then Atkins wrote 'Pig' in Tate's blood on the front door. This plus the other murders at Cielo Drive that night... As the predictable question goes: 'Would you want her living next door to you?' Or from the victim's side: 'When's Sharon Tate and the rest going to get their parole?' Oddly enough, the daughter of Rosemary LaBianca, Susan LaBerge, tried to get Charles 'Tex' Watson out on parole back in 1990...pretty screwed up...Stockholm Syndrome type-stuff. ------------------------------------------ Wow-what a trip! ---Susan Atkins after tasting Sharon Tate's blood. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest American Woman Posted June 24, 2008 Report Posted June 24, 2008 (edited) Is that just for strictly legalistic reasons? Because on principle, none of the hardliners seems to be able to make a case why it would be wrong or harmful to society to let her die outside the prison gates! "Legalistic reasons" are enough when we are talking crime and sentencing. That's what it's all about, after all. When one is given life without parole, that's what it should be. What purpose does such a sentence serve if it's changed somewhere along the line? Wrong! O.J. was found guilty when the Goldman and Brown families took him to civil court. The damages awarded were based on a judgement that he was guilty of murder. The only reason why he is a free man today is because the U.S. has double jeopardy laws, so they couldn't retry him for murder after the D.A.'s office botched the prosecution of the criminal case. In Canada there are no such double jeopardy laws, and they would have kept bringing him back until they got the judgement they wanted, just as the Guy Paul Morin case and Dr. Henry Morgenthaler, who was continually tried and acquitted for operating private abortion clinics for decades! You're the one who's wrong. OJ was found not guilty of first degree murder in criminal court and guilty of wrongful death in a civil court. Two very different charges, two very different courts. "Double jeopardy" has nothing to do with it while "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a more serious charge in the first trial vs. "preponderance of the evidence" for a lesser charge in the second trial does. It's a sad commentary on the public-at-large if they can't distinguish between a case like this and letting Charlie go free! There's nothing sad about it. A sentence only means something if it's carried out. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with "letting Charlie go free" and everything to do with her actions and her verdict. QUOTE American Woman: And repeating yet again: "justice" and "vengeance" are not synonymous.They are in this case! Wrong. You may accuse people who believe in justice of wanting vengeance, but it's nothing more than your accusation. Edited June 24, 2008 by American Woman Quote
WIP Posted June 24, 2008 Report Posted June 24, 2008 "Double jeopardy" has nothing to do with it while "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a more serious charge in the first trial vs. "preponderance of the evidence" for a lesser charge in the second trial does. I don't think you were paying attention, but I pointed out a weakness in our system because the state can come back with the same charges if they fail to win a prosecution. Except for O.J.'s lawyers, I haven't heard any legal experts make a case for his innocence. They had ample evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the reason they failed was because of the inept prosecution conducted by two attorneys who had such bad rapport with the jury that they could not even make eye contact with them, and a politically motivated D.A. who gave in to Al Sharpton's demand that O.J. be tried before an inner city black jury even though a jury of his peers should have been taken from the exclusively white residents of his neighbourhood in Bel Aire! And if it was in Canada, there would have been a second criminal trial that would have found him guilty of murder! Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Guest American Woman Posted June 24, 2008 Report Posted June 24, 2008 (edited) I don't think you were paying attention, but I pointed out a weakness in our system because the state can come back with the same charges if they fail to win a prosecution. Except for O.J.'s lawyers, I haven't heard any legal experts make a case for his innocence. They had ample evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the reason they failed was because of the inept prosecution conducted by two attorneys who had such bad rapport with the jury that they could not even make eye contact with them, and a politically motivated D.A. who gave in to Al Sharpton's demand that O.J. be tried before an inner city black jury even though a jury of his peers should have been taken from the exclusively white residents of his neighbourhood in Bel Aire! And if it was in Canada, there would have been a second criminal trial that would have found him guilty of murder! I most definitely was paying attention. Read what I said, because it's true. The fact that he was found guilty of lesser charges requiring lesser evidence has nothing to do with his first trial. It's interesting to hear that you know for a fact that there was ample evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, though. As for second trials, what grounds would there have been for a second trial in Canada? Dislike of the first verdict? And how do you know how a second trial would have turned out? But my original statement stands: comparing Atkins to OJ Simpson is just plain silly since he wasn't found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. Edited June 24, 2008 by American Woman Quote
WIP Posted June 25, 2008 Report Posted June 25, 2008 I most definitely was paying attention. Read what I said, because it's true. The fact that he was found guilty of lesser charges requiring lesser evidence has nothing to do with his first trial. What are you talking about "lesser charges!" He was found guilty of murder in the civil trial and that's why an award for damages was granted. It's interesting to hear that you know for a fact that there was ample evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, though. Well, let's review then: O.J.'s blood was found at the murder scene and his ex-wife's blood was found on one of his socks, and those were just two of dozens of forensic evidence that made it a closed case for anyone other than members of an almost all-black jury who were motivated by a desire to punish the LAPD rather than O.J. Simpson! As for second trials, what grounds would there have been for a second trial in Canada? Dislike of the first verdict? And how do you know how a second trial would have turned out? In Canada, they could have kept bringing him back to court until they got the guilty verdict desired. In the Guy Paul Morin case, it took the third murder trial with a phony jailbird witness to get the guilty verdict they wanted. Many analysts who sifted through the entrails of this debacle after Morin was freed on the basis of unmatching DNA evidence, believe that Morin was charged with the abduction, rape and murder of Christine Jessop because he was a weird loner who the other neighbours didn't like. Since there was nothing else to go on, the Crown made him their pidgeon and framed a case around him. Now, just in case there's a lawyer or a law student here who decides to burn me for saying we have no protection against double jeopardy -- to be factually correct, we have protection in the Charter of Rights, but the problem is that the prosecution is allowed to appeal a decision to acquit the defendent. A real double jeopardy law has no further recourse to try the person on the same charges. But my original statement stands: comparing Atkins to OJ Simpson is just plain silly since he wasn't found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. And he is a free man because of a legal technicality, not because of innocence! I'm not interested that much in the nuts and bolts of the legal system; what I'm talking about is that O.J. walks out on to the golfcourse enjoying his life as a free man, though he is a murderer. For the purpose of comparison, I was making the point that Susan Atkins opportunity to enjoy her freedom upon release is negligible due to her health. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
capricorn Posted June 25, 2008 Report Posted June 25, 2008 If health is the yardstick used to determine whether a lifer should be released, why not release all those who have a serious heart ailment...or asthma....or emphysema...or other life threatening conditions. I know we're talking cancer where life expectancy can be estimated, more or less. Yet with some illnesses, death can come without warning. Why would cancer patients get preference over other sick lifers? Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
WIP Posted June 25, 2008 Report Posted June 25, 2008 If health is the yardstick used to determine whether a lifer should be released, why not release all those who have a serious heart ailment...or asthma....or emphysema...or other life threatening conditions. I know we're talking cancer where life expectancy can be estimated, more or less. Yet with some illnesses, death can come without warning. Why would cancer patients get preference over other sick lifers? Good point! But I'm basing my opinion on the many stories I've heard over the years about Susan Atkin's conduct in prison, including her work on behalf of other inmates. If it was just a matter of poor health of a recalcitrant, incorrigible murderer, I would agree with you. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Guest American Woman Posted June 25, 2008 Report Posted June 25, 2008 What are you talking about "lesser charges!" He was found guilty of murder in the civil trial and that's why an award for damages was granted. No, he wasn't found guilty of murder. He was found guilty of "wrongful death," and that's a lesser charge than "first degree murder." Quote
DogOnPorch Posted June 25, 2008 Author Report Posted June 25, 2008 Apparently there's some disagreement within the system re: Atkin's release. CORONA, Calif. — California's director of adult prisons says she is against releasing former Charles Manson follower Susan Atkins from prison on compassionate grounds.The decision by Suzan Hubbard contradicts officials at the California Institution for Women. They have recommend that the 60-year-old Atkins, who suffers from terminal brain cancer, be released to die in the care of her family. http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...3WCyGTPRmyi4e0w Here's a bit of morbid curosity... 636 Cole Street San Francisco: where Susan Atkins met Charles Manson... http://www.charliemanson.com/places/jm-cole-street.htm 636 Cole Street San Francisco on Google Maps/Street View. It's the yellow townhouse (note Google Maps says 656 Cole Approx). Not much has changed...eeeep. ---------------------------------------------- You n' me in my garbage dump... ---Charles Manson Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
guyser Posted June 25, 2008 Report Posted June 25, 2008 In Canada, they could have kept bringing him back to court until they got the guilty verdict desired. Double jeopardy exists in Canada. To compare Susan to OJ is ridiculous. There is no comparison between her conviction and the bungling DA's handling of OJ's case. Quote
guyser Posted June 25, 2008 Report Posted June 25, 2008 Well, at least you're willing to extend some degree of mercy! Haven't heard it from many hardliners so far. I wouldnt call it mercy. More like accommodation for her family. Quote
WIP Posted June 25, 2008 Report Posted June 25, 2008 Double jeopardy exists in Canada. Like I said before, we have it in a strictly legalistic sense! If it is possible to keep bringing someone back to court under the same charges, then it offers no protection against harassment from the government, and it's hardly worth the paper it is written on. To compare Susan to OJ is ridiculous. There is no comparison between her conviction and the bungling DA's handling of OJ's case. That's not what I was comparing, read it again! The point was that unlike O.J., Susan Atkins will not be able to enjoy her freedom in good health, for an indefinite period of time, nor does she have the money to live it up in style like O.J. does! Her ability to enjoy freedom upon release would be very limited! Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted June 25, 2008 Report Posted June 25, 2008 No, he wasn't found guilty of murder. He was found guilty of "wrongful death," and that's a lesser charge than "first degree murder." No it does not mean a lesser charge! It's not my fault that a civil court charge for damages makes no distinction between the cause of death: A "wrongful death" occurs when a person is killed due to the negligence or misconduct of another individual, company or entity. A wrongful death claim may arise out of a number of circumstances, such as in the following situations: * Medical malpractice that results in decedent's death; * Automobile or airplane accident; * Occupational exposure to hazardous conditions or substances; * Criminal behavior; * Death during a supervised activity. http://injury.findlaw.com/personal-injury/...wrongful-death/ So why was O.J. convicted of causing wrongful death? He didn't get drunk and run them over in his Bronco; he stabbed and hacked them to death! That sounds like murder to me, regardless of what the legal definitions are! Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Guest American Woman Posted June 25, 2008 Report Posted June 25, 2008 (edited) The point was that unlike O.J., Susan Atkins will not be able to enjoy her freedom in good health, for an indefinite period of time, nor does she have the money to live it up in style like O.J. does! Her ability to enjoy freedom upon release would be very limited! OJ wasn't found guilty of murder and sentenced to life without parole. There is no comparison. To say 'we should release her because she wouldn't enjoy life like OJ is' or because 'she doesn't have the money to live it in style like OJ does' is ludicrous. How can you use someone who was found not guilty and isn't in prison as a comparison to someone who was found guilty of first degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison? The fact that you think her having a more limited ability to enjoy life than OJ does is an argument in favor of releasing her is so far out there that I can only point out that OJ could drop dead of a heart attack tomorrow, or any time before Atkins dies, and there would go your argument. Edited June 25, 2008 by American Woman Quote
Guest American Woman Posted June 25, 2008 Report Posted June 25, 2008 (edited) No it does not mean a lesser charge! It's not my fault that a civil court charge for damages makes no distinction between the cause of death:A "wrongful death" occurs when a person is killed due to the negligence or misconduct of another individual, company or entity. A wrongful death claim may arise out of a number of circumstances, such as in the following situations: * Medical malpractice that results in decedent's death; * Automobile or airplane accident; * Occupational exposure to hazardous conditions or substances; * Criminal behavior; * Death during a supervised activity. http://injury.findlaw.com/personal-injury/...wrongful-death/ So why was O.J. convicted of causing wrongful death? He didn't get drunk and run them over in his Bronco; he stabbed and hacked them to death! That sounds like murder to me, regardless of what the legal definitions are! Look up the definition of first degree murder now. Look up the sentences for first degree murder. Then tell me again how the charges are equal. Tell me again that you wouldn't be any more upset to be charged with and found guilty of first degree murder than you would a wrongful death. Because no matter what it sounds like to you, he wasn't found guilty of "murder," he was found guilty of "wrongful death;" they are two very different charges, with first degree murder being the more serious of the two, and requiring more than a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, it's easier to get a "wrongful death" conviction than it is a murder conviction. That in itself would make it a lesser charge. Furthermore, usually only family members can bring up a wrongful death suit; it's not a criminal suit. Edited June 25, 2008 by American Woman Quote
WIP Posted June 25, 2008 Report Posted June 25, 2008 Look up the definition of first degree murder now. Look up the sentences for first degree murder. Then tell me again how the charges are equal. Tell me again that you wouldn't be any more upset to be charged with and found guilty of first degree murder than you would a wrongful death. Because no matter what it sounds like to you, he wasn't found guilty of "murder," he was found guilty of "wrongful death;" they are two very different charges, with first degree murder being the more serious of the two. Outside of the courtroom it makes no difference! Just answer one thing then if you believe this is so important: did O.J. deliberately kill his ex-wife and Ron Goldman or not? The differences exist because he was tried in civil court and not in criminal court the second time! That link I put up showed that for the purposes of awarding damages, no distinction is made regarding motive for causing death. The simple fact is that O.J. is a free man today not because he is innocent, but because he had a superstar legal team facing an incompetent prosecution. It's because of this fact that prosecutors are usually outmatched by big name lawyers that many district attorneys have hired a lawyer from outside the D.A.'s office to prosecute a celebrity............. like Mike Tyson for example! Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Guest American Woman Posted June 25, 2008 Report Posted June 25, 2008 (edited) Outside of the courtroom it makes no difference! Just answer one thing then if you believe this is so important: did O.J. deliberately kill his ex-wife and Ron Goldman or not?The differences exist because he was tried in civil court and not in criminal court the second time! That link I put up showed that for the purposes of awarding damages, no distinction is made regarding motive for causing death. The simple fact is that O.J. is a free man today not because he is innocent, but because he had a superstar legal team facing an incompetent prosecution. It's because of this fact that prosecutors are usually outmatched by big name lawyers that many district attorneys have hired a lawyer from outside the D.A.'s office to prosecute a celebrity............. like Mike Tyson for example! It doesn't matter one bit whether or not I believe O.J. deliberately killed his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. He was found innocent in a court of law! That's the difference between him and Atkins. You can think whatever you want about OJ, but he wasn't found guilty; by law he is not guilty. So there's no comparison between him and Atkins. Can you really not see that?? I mean really, should we let every person found guilty of murder out of prison since OJ isn't in prison? -- only those who couldn't live as good a life as he does, though, according to your arguments for Atkins' release. You don't see how ridiculous your argument is?? The difference between his first trial and his second is in civil court "without a doubt" isn't part of the process, only a "preponderance of the evidence." It's easier to get that kind of conviction. But this is about Atkins, who WAS found guilty. We can't start letting prisoners go just because you feel OJ should be in prison too. Do you honestly think otherwise?? Edited June 25, 2008 by American Woman Quote
guyser Posted June 25, 2008 Report Posted June 25, 2008 Like I said before, we have it in a strictly legalistic sense! We have double jeopardy. It is in the law statutes of this land. One cannot be retried for the same charge. If it is possible to keep bringing someone back to court under the same charges, then it offers no protection against harassment from the government, and it's hardly worth the paper it is written on. Since it isnt possible......it is worth its weight in gold. That's not what I was comparing, read it again! The point was that unlike O.J., Susan Atkins will not be able to enjoy her freedom in good health, for an indefinite period of time, nor does she have the money to live it up in style like O.J. does! Her ability to enjoy freedom upon release would be very limited! Like I give a shite how much moolah she has to enjoy it? Should that be a consideration in any kind? She is in jail until she dies. She should not get beyond the gates for a chance to smell the air. I am saying make an accommodation for her family in the trailer like cottages they have on prison grounds. Tell her family to bring food and drink (no alcohol). I say her family is to be given a chance to hug her in person and say good bye. I am not saying Susan should be given a chance to do anything. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted June 25, 2008 Author Report Posted June 25, 2008 (edited) Like I give a shite how much moolah she has to enjoy it? Should that be a consideration in any kind?She is in jail until she dies. She should not get beyond the gates for a chance to smell the air. I am saying make an accommodation for her family in the trailer like cottages they have on prison grounds. Tell her family to bring food and drink (no alcohol). I say her family is to be given a chance to hug her in person and say good bye. I am not saying Susan should be given a chance to do anything. As mentioned several times...she already has conjugal visitation. She ironically has had two children and has been married more than once. She's wrtten a book and runs her own website. Not bad considering the deal Tate & crew got. In the continuing irony department: here's Charles Manson's prison PX receipt from Oct 2006...notice how he drinks 'Folger's Coffee'. In case you're not up on the murders, one of those killed was Abigail Folger, heiress to the Folger's Coffee fortune. Charlie has a sense of humor it seems. ----------------------------------------------------------- The murders forced L.A.'s counterculturalists to confront the possibility that not everyone with long hair under 30 was their brother... ---Michael Walker Edited June 25, 2008 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
guyser Posted June 25, 2008 Report Posted June 25, 2008 As mentioned several times...she already has conjugal visitation. No one is saying she hasnt. I am saying, use the conjugal "houses" or whatever they are called and allow an extended visit with her family as her death draws near. Compassion for her family, not her. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted June 25, 2008 Author Report Posted June 25, 2008 No one is saying she hasnt. I am saying, use the conjugal "houses" or whatever they are called and allow an extended visit with her family as her death draws near. Compassion for her family, not her. My point is that she already has that and more. Her 2nd husband...her lawyer...spends plenty of private time with her. Since it was Sharon Tate she butchered, I'd go with the opinion of the Tate family. When Sharon gets out...Susan should get out. ------------------------------------------------------ What mercy, sir, did you show my daughter when she was begging for her life? What mercy did you show my daughter when she said, 'Give me two weeks to have my baby and then you can kill me'?.... When will Sharon come up for parole? Will these seven victims and possibly more walk out of their graves if you get paroled? You cannot be trusted. ---Doris Tate @ Charles 'Tex' Watson's parole hearing Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
guyser Posted June 25, 2008 Report Posted June 25, 2008 My point is that she already has that and more. Her 2nd husband...her lawyer...spends plenty of private time with her. Since it was Sharon Tate she butchered, I'd go with the opinion of the Tate family. When Sharon gets out...Susan should get out. IIRC , conjugal visits are restricted to a legal spouse in California. So her sessions with her lawyer, would occur in a room with guards . That is different. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.