Based on Mathew Schmalz's commentary, I posed the same dilemma to my own readers and, like Schmalz, received the same kinds of comments. I also offered by own compassionate solution.

http://www.ethicsstupid.com/recent-posts/my-choice-80708.html

How do you question justice and mercy? Did her victims have that option? It seems that Miss Susan gave up those rights to compassion when she took those lives. I personally have met and talked with this woman. She is not very nice at times and has an evil side to her. Even after all of those years Susan still cannot hide who she truly is. This needs to be left between her and God. That is where the real judgement lies. God's judgement is more mightier than anyone else's.

How do you question justice and mercy? Did her victims have that option? It seems that Miss Susan gave up those rights to compassion when she took those lives. I personally have met and talked with this woman. She is not very nice at times and has an evil side to her. Even after all of those years Susan still cannot hide who she truly is. This needs to be left between her and God. That is where the real judgement lies. God's judgement is more mightier than anyone else's.

"Particularly appropriate if one believes that justice requires the courts lowering themselves to the same status as those they judge have committed murder.

In fact, to a far lower status. The death penalty is the coldest, most calculated murder of all. Susan Atkins at least can argue that she was young, naive, under the influence of a man she believed had almost messianic status (and under the influence of a cocktail of hallucinogenic drugs).

The death penalty denies grace. It is murder committed in the name of reason, by the very people we turn to through respect for their capacity to make complex moral analyses.

A truly religious person, just as any other truly moral person, cannot support the death penalty. Retribution is an evil word."

This is the best commentary on the subject of legalized murder I've seen in a long time. You have a great understanding of what decency really is. Thank you.

Susan atkins should pay for her crimes, and the only way to keep the justice is for her to die in prison. She does not deserve to taste any kind of freedom. Sharon Tate and the rest of the victims had no way out, Susan Atkins should not have it either...

In thinking about the responses of Anon in UK and Robert James who I take to be from the UK too (could be mistaken), it struck me that for people from a country that used war and subjugation to control more than half the world and then abused the people they had conquered, and who also went on Crusades, and exploited the natural resources of the world, to forget their heritage is pretty damn comical.

No, Susan Atkins doesn't deserve any mercy. She has been sitting in jail for too long, and spent too much of our tax money.

I am sick of seeing her spend 1 more penny of our money. If we cannot execute her, then let her go to save us millions of dollars. She is near death anyway.

I am not sure why the board of parole doesn't understand this simple math. Probably they think tax money just fell from the sky.

I think that we should show her at least one more mercy. Reinstate her death sentence and execute her in a merciful way. Then she wont suffer.

Not that I'm saying I think she deserves being let out, mind you. I tend to lean against the idea, from what little I know of the real circumstance.

Though Mercy might do some hearts some good.

" Carla:

Let the murderer rot in prison. Let her die unshriven. Let her go to hell."

Funny, I kind of thought that was the exact opposite point of Christianity, there.

Besides, I think she probably got herself 'shrove,' in the course of her conversion, anyway. Which I thought was supposed to mean no Hell for her, on that kind of basis, anyway.

But, well, not my religion. I'm glad of it, sometimes.

Carla:

"Put your Catholic compassion to use for the man whose wife and unborn child were bludgeoned to death by the woman who said to Tate she would give her "no mercy," no mercy for what Tate asked for, the child in Tate's womb. Tate was eight and one half months pregnant."

Well spoke.

There's something truly psychotic in Schmaltz's thread. See his bio. on the net. Went to Catholic divinity school.

Let the murderer rot in prison. Let her die unshriven. Let her go to hell.

Pray for Roman Polanski, Mr. Schmaltz, write to him, and get the charges against him dropped. He believed the girl was eighteen, not sixteen. Put your Catholic compassion to use for the man whose wife and unborn child were bludgeoned to death by the woman who said to Tate she would give her "no mercy," no mercy for what Tate asked for, the child in Tate's womb. Tate was eight and one half months pregnant.

Write to Roman Polanski, Mr. Schmaltz, and do not trouble yourself or us about the murderer who stabbed and stabbed and stabbed to death his wife and unborn child. Give your compassion to him.

Let the murderer rot in prison. Let her die unshriven. Let her go to hell.

Here is something interesting,Leslie Van Houten 2007 Parole Hearing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcHu7q69Cb4

She will be eligible to apply for parole again in 2009

Patricia Krenwinkel has been denied parole 11 times, with her next hearing set to take place in 2008.

Reportedly, Krenwinkel writes both poetry and music, plays the guitar, plays on a prison volleyball team and gives dance lessons. She also participates in a service-dog training program

Vincent Bugliosi makes some valid points.
She has lost a leg, she has terminal brain cancer
and she's already out the prison and in a hospital.

Wow semantics. He even states that shes not going anywhere, that she has a few months to live.

Ok what's the point? To make us feel good?
To make him feel good?

She's suffering which is complicated for me.
On one hand I want her to suffer, and on the other my more compassionate side says set her free, hell she's not going anywhere, if they let her she can't leave the hospital. Not sure what the point is here.

What would Roman want?

Video of Vincent Bugliosi discussing why he supports compassionate release for Susan Atkins:

http://www.hotpotatomash.com/2008/07/video-exlusive.html

It's not like those people were not going to die sometime. So she shortened their lives a little. What's the big deal?

Tell her she can go and then shoot her in the back when she starts to leave. Just another prisoner trying to escape. Who needs capital punishment when we can shoot escaping prisoners? In the back.

"Then one day shes in your living room and it turns out that she really is a psychopathic killer,
what now? Well now your heart is really bleeding, all over that nice oriental carpet."

Well, I think that's the premise of keeping her in prison for the rest of her life in the first place, though in this case I'm not sure she's healthy enough to actually raise a finger.

Mike,
Collective conditioning is an issue and you make some valid points. I did mention the helicopter pilots and their efforts. In fact the trial came about because of their report and the members of the unit who did not participate.

I still don't see how this has any baring on Atkins other than the argument that she was brain washed by Manson. This might have had to do with her acts of murder and it might not have.

Bringing in the war crimes of Nazis is kind of stretching the point, is it not?
It's a clever way to steer the debate away from the facts. Countless nazis used this defense and some got away with murder and a lot went to jail and a fair amount of the murderous thugs went to the gallows.

She was stone sober in the court room during her trial and she showed no remorse. She still has not shown any remorse as far as I can tell.
There are countless psychiatric reports on her that disagree with your opinion that she is normal. From what I have read about her she is extremely inelegant, highly manipulative sociopath.

Bottom line this was a simple case of murder in the State of California, if the state wants to grant her a parole it's the states right to do so.

I wont like it, but I don't live California.
Somehow I think she will remain in prison until she dies. It's better for all that this is the outcome.

By the way if she does get which one of you bleeding hearts is willing to take her in?

What happens if you were wrong?
You know that she was BSing everyone, which is what all the psych reports say.

Picture this if you will; you have taken her in and for a time it's all nice and cosy.

Then one day shes in your living room and it turns out that she really is a psychopathic killer,
what now? Well now your heart is really bleeding, all over that nice oriental carpet.

...If that's what you will....

Let her die in jail.
She laughed in court when it was described how she stabbed Sharon Tate and her unborn baby.
She deserves to rot...alone and in jail

I suppose, that if you believe in such divine forgiveness in that manner, and especially in the notion that there is but one life for each person, followed by one final and irrevocable judgment based on what someone believed at the time, then it would be inconsistent to want to apply the death penalty.

In principle, I'm not strictly opposed to the death penalty, not on religious grounds, if it's really necessary. But in practice, it simply doesn't serve Justice or any good purpose, ...it's even more expensive to execute someone than to jail them for life.

Starting from there, I don't think what happens to this woman really bears on whether or not she should have been executed, anyway: nor do I think profession of a certain religion in and of itself bears on anything. If she'd renounced her former ways in the name of Buddhism or the Goddess, would we be having this conversation?

As for Mercy, well, what do we expect to happen if she's let out, now? Or is not?

What do we want, and why?

"When she received a death sentence, the verdict seemed particularly appropriate. When her punishment was later changed to life imprisonment with possibility parole, it seemed to be a gross distortion of the justice process."

Particularly appropriate if one believes that justice requires the courts lowering themselves to the same status as those they judge have committed murder.

In fact, to a far lower status. The death penalty is the coldest, most calculated murder of all. Susan Atkins at least can argue that she was young, naive, under the influence of a man she believed had almost messianic status (and under the influence of a cocktail of hallucinogenic drugs).

The death penalty denies grace. It is murder committed in the name of reason, by the very people we turn to through respect for their capacity to make complex moral analyses.

A truly religious person, just as any other truly moral person, cannot support the death penalty. Retribution is an evil word.

" Were I you, Mr. Schmaltz, I would clear out the cob webs in my thinking on justice, mercy, forgiveness."

Farnazi, you make the "clearing-out" seem so easy!

But if "clearing out cobwebs" were easy, why would Scripture treat it as such a problem? It wasn't for fun that Solomon offered to split that baby in two. No, he still had something to learn....

So, too, with the story about Napoleon, cited earlier in this thread: by acting instantly on that mother's lesson of mercy, the Emperor showed his gratitude. He must have had quite a few cobwebs to clear, and the story shows us one way he learned to do this.

" Were I you, Mr. Schmaltz, I would clear out the cob webs in my thinking on justice, mercy, forgiveness."

Farnazi, you make the "clearing-out" seem so easy!

But if "clearing out cobwebs" were easy, why would Scripture treat it as such a problem? It wasn't for fun that Solomon offered to split that baby in two! No, he still had something to learn....

So, too, with the story about Napoleon, cited earlier in this thread: by acting instantly on that mother's lesson of mercy, the Emperor showed his gratitude. He must have had quite a few cobwebs to clear, and the story shows us one way he learned to do this.

" Were I you, Mr. Schmaltz, I would clear out the cob webs in my thinking on justice, mercy, forgiveness."

Farnazi, you make the "clearing-out" seem so easy!

But if "clearing out cobwebs" were easy, why would Scripture treat it as such a problem? It wasn't for fun that Solomon offered to split that baby in two! No, he still had something to learn....

So, too, with the story about Napoleon, cited earlier in this thread: by acting instantly on that mother's lesson of mercy, the Emperor showed his gratitude. He must have had quite a few cobwebs to clear, and the story shows us one way he learned to do this.

M. Schmaltz:
Justice or mercy? That is the pressing question in what seems to be a coda in the story of the 1969 Manson family murders

&

Developing a way of talking about forgiveness also has social import if for no other reason than America has always been more comfortable talking about retribution. The decision in the Susan Atkins case appropriately belongs to relatives of the victims and the State of California.
_________________________

From a Jewish perspective the death penalty is unacceptable. That is why, in Israel, only one person Adolf Eichmann has been executed since the founding of the state. Though an atheist, I firmly stand with Judaism in my opposition to the death penalty.

Unlike Christianity, Judaism does not draw a radical separation between justice and mercy. Indeed, the two are barely separate concepts as is indicated in the Hebrew for these terms. JUstice is the process of setting the world right. Justice is not decided by the victims' relatives, nor is sentencing.

The extent to which victimss' relatives are currently permitted to influence sentencing is alarming, a throwback to honor/shame revenge/mercy culture.

Forgiveness: In Judaism, one has morality and law. Anyone who has been injured may forgive the one who injured him, should do so. Forgiveness has nothing to do with justice. It is a personal act.
Only the humans injured can forgive the humans who injured them. You do not have the right to forgive the rapist of someone else's daughter. Neither do her parents or anyone who knows her. Only the daughter may forgive. God does not forgive human beings for crimes against other human beings, but only for crimes against the deity.

Atkins, from a Jewish perspective, cannot be forgiven because her victims are dead.
------------------------
The concerns of parole boards generally include signs of genuine remorse, rehabilitation. "Compassion" would not appear to have bearing on this case. Everyone dies. Atkins is not alone in this. Conversion to any religion is not a requirement and IMO is irrelevant.

Finally, and most important, a sentence of life imprisonment without benefit of parole precludes consideration of parole. End of discussion.

Were I you, Mr. Schmaltz, I would explore the case of Roman Polanski, worry less about the murderer of his wife and unborn child.

I would also clear out the cob webs in my thinking
on justice, mercy, forgiveness.

I dont even think her illness should be an issue. Was Sharon Tate's pregnancy? If being pregant is not enough to stop from being stabbed to death are we really supposed to feel compassion for her cancer? I think its karma

To Anon in UK, Robert James, and Pam

Oh, I did "deal" with your statements by pointing out that they were ignorant and uninformed.

As for the suggestion that your unwelcome comments are not wanted, you don't get it. We do have the First Amendment, so we welcome all sorts of comments, even your stupid and ignorant ones. We do not, however, welcome stupidity. Well, perhaps as Pam suggested, we might have tolerated it all too well for the past 7 years.

But the point is that the privilege of the write of habeas corpus has taken on more of an individual character in US development of the law and the recent decisions of the Supreme Court show how powerful it is. Following Magna Carta, the writ was that of the King.

So Pam, you know a little but not a heck of a lot ... certainly not enough. Read Boumediene for a good historical recap.

As Fran put it quite well, you make sweeping collective generalizations without having the cognition of common sense to know that you being just as idiotic on that score as when you perceive that there must be a collective sense of mercy.

This is not anything to do with mercy. It is a difficult choice for the system to make. The system in this case is comprised of a parole board and eventually a trial court judge and then appellate judges.

You can throw into the mix, victims (family members), advocates of all sorts, and "experts" on society, criminology, medicine, etc.

There is no collective "Americana" at work here. Again the three of you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of a federal system and the sovereignty of the State of California in this matter subject only to conformance to the Constitution of the United States.

Anyhow, enough of trying to educate people whose lack of knowledge on a subject is no impediment to their expression of a "learned opinion" on it.

Happy 4th of July to you all.

Jeff,

With regard to whether or not Atkin's is a bonafide sociopath is debatable. Psychiatrists who work for the state could very well be biased to make a case against release. Neuroscience has started to scan the brain and look at the characteristics of serial killers to see how they compare to a sampling of, for lack of another term, normal brains. I'm not aware if such a scan was made of Atkin's brain.

The correlation between Atkin's crimes and the crimes of most of the soldier's at My Lai goes to social conditioning. A few of the soldiers refused to take part, even when threatened with being shot, so why did most of the soldiers commit murder and a handful did not?

Many people can wind up in cults, tribes, the military, etc and be conditioned to commit murders and atrocities. Manson had the ability to condition people like Atkins to commit a heinous crime. The Jim Jones cult is another example of this type of conditioning.

All the Nazis, Stalinists, Maoists and Khmer Rouge murderer types were not all sociopaths, but they committed atrocities. They probably do not suffer from guilt because they were "just following orders" as was said so many times at the Nuremberg Trials. They probably feel the people they killed deserved it to this day.

Atkin's is probably not a sociopath and probably has a brain as normal as most of the population. That is what is unsettling and disturbing to people, so they need to see her as a breed apart.

The Manson family was just a micro version of the larger cults and movements that condition people to kill for what ever reason. "Homo homini lupus" as the old Roman saying goes.

Below is about the Leopold and Loeb case. Leopold was paroled and would have been considered a sociopath by the psychiatrists who examined Atkins.

"In 1944, Leopold participated in the Stateville Penitentiary Malaria Study, in which he volunteered to be infected with malaria.[16] Early in 1958, after 33 years in prison, Leopold was released on parole.[2][3] While in prison he mastered an astounding 27 different languages. That year he wrote an autobiography titled Life plus Ninety Nine Years.[2][3] Leopold moved to Puerto Rico to avoid media attention, and married a widowed florist.[2][3] He died of a heart attack on August 30, 1971 at the age of 66.[2][3] He donated his organs.[2]"

If she has "found" God good for her but she does not deserve to ever get out of prison under any circumstances. She and the other's are getting what they deserve, and that's too good for them. She had no mercy for her victims, you sow what you reap.

Mike,
I don't mean that two wrongs make a right.
I was alluding that war is a messy business.
It's horrible and bad things happen.

Cally's company committed a war crime.
It was not right to show him or the members of his company any mercy. However this happened.

I was also alluding to the issue that even though the topic is on the subject of mercy, it is in context to Atkins's and her crime.

This county is dotted with the graves of criminals like Atkins who died in prison. Why should she be given leave to die in the imaginary home she does not have. She become a ward of the state.

The issue for me is not one of mercy as in her case as she already had this granted by having the death sentence rescinded. The issue I think is that she is clearly a sociopath. You don't let known sociopath's who are convicted murderers lose on society just because they are dieing.

IT really doesnt matter if she is released or not if she truly has or hasnt found God, forgiveness is only up to God, we can forgive people for things they do but that only demonstrates our character. it has nothing to do with the other person, but its the things like this the terrible things you could never see yourself forgiving someone for.We are supposed to forgive people for everything they do. Not forgiving them only burdens ourselves not them. Forgiveness is only another test of your character that life throws at us.

I have thought about this for many years. Not the idea of release, but rather the forgiveness side, which now, in view of the potential for release, becomes much clearer. First, I am not for Atkins release. I now believe that is for the State to decide. But I no longer believe it is the role of the relatives of victims to decide this either. Every few years, one of the Manson clan comes up for parole, and everytime we revisit the horror. The state should put this to bed, because it is obvious the relatives have no power to put it to bed - relatives either must forgive and let it pass, or become perpetually involved. And the constant reminder is injustice. Forgiveness is for ourselves, when we give it unasked. This is not a bad thing. It helps us move on. And it is not forgiveness if the other need ask for it. Has Atkins asked for forgiveness? Perhaps she really has converted. But that does not matter. _Justice_ and _Retribution_ no longer affects her. So either way, the State's decision will have little impact.

Being that Miss Atkins was so compassionate and merciful to her victims , she should have the same shown. HA. Let her rot right where she is.

She has NEVER EVER stated any remorse OR said I am sorry to those families that she & the others MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD..so in that I say "NO".

Seems obvious that she will get release when she's dead. There is no reason what so ever to let her live outside of prison. If life imprisonment is to have any deterent effect at all, she must serve out the remainder of her sentence. If she were sorry for her crimes, she'd not even ask to be let out.

A note from the world of natural faith.

As a matter of natural consequence all get new, young and healthy bodies and go to the 'next life in the next world' upon their deaths here in this world. God is nowhere to be found here and God is nowhere to be found there either. That means that Manson will face those he murdered, advantage them. It's just a matter of time. Justice is a matter of natural consequence that man only dreams of controlling using the presumed mercy of supernatural beings that are nowhere to be found.

The full story is at hoax-buster.org for those who can look at a picture and see what is pictured.

Matt has hit the nail on the head. I copy his post below.
-------------------------------
Matt:
It's very interesting that they always say, "I've found Jesus/Buddha/Mohmammed/Etc. and I'm now a good person so I should get out of jail."

One would think that if a person has truly gained the gifts of religion: self-understanding and compassion and a sense of the plight of others, he or she would say, "I've found Jesus/Buddha/Mohammed/Etc. and I'm not a good person and I realize the horror of what I've done and pain I have caused, so I should stay here in jail."

But it never works out like that, does it? Funny that the author never bothered to consider that.

July 1, 2008 1:18 PM
---------------
I can only add two things: 1) if I were in a position to grant clemency, I would automatically NOT give it to anyone who tried to argue that they deserved it. Mercy is, by definition, undeserved. If you insist that you be forgiven, then you obviously have not yet learned your lesson. And 2) death penalty opponents should be the first to oppose clemency in capital cases, because it totally undermines their entire argument. A life for a life.

Matt has hit the nail on the head. I copy his post below.
-------------------------------
Matt:
It's very interesting that they always say, "I've found Jesus/Buddha/Mohmammed/Etc. and I'm now a good person so I should get out of jail."

One would think that if a person has truly gained the gifts of religion: self-understanding and compassion and a sense of the plight of others, he or she would say, "I've found Jesus/Buddha/Mohammed/Etc. and I'm not a good person and I realize the horror of what I've done and pain I have caused, so I should stay here in jail."

But it never works out like that, does it? Funny that the author never bothered to consider that.

July 1, 2008 1:18 PM
---------------
I can only add two things: 1) if I were in a position to grant clemency, I would automatically NOT give it to anyone who tried to argue that they deserved it. Mercy is, by definition, undeserved. If you insist that you be forgiven, then you obviously have not yet learned your lesson. And 2) death penalty opponents should be the first to oppose clemency in capital cases, because it totally undermines their entire argument. A life for a life.

If people can find it within their hearts to forgive her for the horrible things she has done because they believe she has truely changed, then good for them.

Even if she truly has become a different person and is no longer a danger to society, that does not change the fact that she is responsible for those murders, and must be punished accordingly for them.

Fall back to the greater good: Atkins' comfort or the comfort of the victims families? I think the latter, which leads us back to: it's up to the family whether or not to forgive.

To Jeff:

The question was about "mercy." Nixon and the military had mercy on the soldiers who murdered civilians and committed atrocities.

I do not understand what your "two wrongs make a right" argument is about with regard to atrocities committed on both sides during the Vietnam War. So in your philosophy, an atrocity on one side cancels out the atrocity on the other side?

From a legal standpoint you are absolutely correct. If you break the laws and statutes of this country, then you receive the punishment for the crime.

I really do not care one way or the other if Atkins is granted a mercy parole. If it is about the law and her incarceration, and the law allows for her medical release to die, then if all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed she should be legally allowed to die at home.

If it is a matter of politics and public opinion, then it is not going to happen. If public opinion was against the soldiers at My Lai, then they would have gone to prison. People at the time felt they were being scapegoated.

My point is that public opinion should not have any influence on how military or civilian laws are administered if they are on the books.

If people want the laws changed, then there is a process to do that.

All of the causuistry surrounding murders, lesser crimes (rape of a child?) and whether severe punishment of the "perpetrator" serves as deterrence or whether retribution is a "good thing" fails, in my mind, to look at the fundamental fact that society is a grouping of invididuals, each individual has his or her own spiritual evolution to make, and the end state of spiritual growth, again in my mind, is to be able to forgive.

Conjuring up the meaning or import of this woman's behavior at trial is as much a farce as what she apparently acted out. Who is to know what this woman's state of mind or soul was at the trial. Trials are horrible dramas created in a nexus of big egos (lawyers, judges, juries and the alleged perpetrator), proceduralisms that are as infuriating as the worst of mind warp totalitarian self-justifications, and the stress of not knowing the outcome (not to mention harsh treatment by correctional officials).

The fact of her unrepentant state of mind is really not germane to whether we, you, me and my friends, should find an understanding of human frailty, and be able to accept the other's behavior.

This is not to condone her actions. It is to look at one's self and ask whether, for one's self and as a policy matter for society, should we be continuing to impose harsh penalties on someone who clearly is not going to commit another crime equal to the one he or she was condemned for.

Not to mention the role of human hormones and myriad other variable that go into one's behavior in youth compared with behavior in adult hood. Of the growing evidence that the cerebral cortex, in so far as we can be aware of what we think, is more an explainer of decisions than an actual decisionmaker. Can you justify extreme punishment someone for "unconscious" acts or behaviors? How do we really define the line between mental illness and criminal conduct. "Scienter", the touchstone for criminal "mens rea" is probably a mirage left over from an earlier age when we knew little of the brain's functionings.

Which brings me (by vicus of recirculation) back to the beginning. Individual spiritual growth aims -- whether we know it or not -- toward acceptance and forgiveness. At least that is how I see it.

[Arjuna said:

You people who are so cold and unforgiving, you have absolutely no idea what it is like to be locked in a concrete and steel cage for forty years. Enough. You have more compassion for dogs than you do for humans. She has turned herself around. That is what all you phony Christians say that you admire. Let her die on the outside, after breathing a few breaths as a free person.
Your coldheartedness will come back to you.]

Ahh a bleeding heart. I am cold and unforgiving this crime deserves that emotion. This sociopath should remain in prison for the rest of her life period. Your right I do have more compassion for my dog than for Atkins. My dog loves everyone without an once of hate or thoughts of murder.
Hes kind and loving and does so selflessly.
Unless of course your a squirrel or a rabbit.

I do have compassion for humans, just not psychopathic serial killers.

Arjuna please reflect on your statements and anyone else who thinks this way. Think of the victims and their families. Think how Sharon Tate never lived to see her child born. How this child never was able to breath the 'free air'. Think of the last horrible moments as Atkins was cutting open Sharon's womb, while she was still alive. Think about the fear and the pain as Atkins repeatedly stabbed her and then stopped to relish in her handy work. Think about this night in that house.

Do you think the US government should let Roman Polanski back in the country? His crime was sleeping with a 16 year old whom he thought was 18. I bet you you have a lot to say about this.

Nope. No mercy for her victims; none for her.

Nope. No mercy for her victims; none for her.

I am against the death penalty, but she should die in prison.

I don't think atkins "deserves" mercy -- mercy is not deserved. But I think we should be inclined to be merciful, as christians, as human beings. So I would show Atkins mercy. Those who reject that idea out of hand -- I am not sure where they are coming from. It certainly doesn't seem consistent with christian teachings. It seems immature.

But I would not release her, since deterrence in the criminal justice system requires a life sentence without possibility of parole should be just that.

To release Susan Atkins would render the sentence of life without parole meaningless.

I find the answer to this riddle in the The Ash Wednesday service in the Episcopal Church, that advises us to neither deny our faith nor advertize it for the world to see, to keep it in our hearts and minds. It is personal, between you and God, and seeking personal gain as a reward for faith may be all too human, but it demonstrates a lack of commitment to what you purport to believe. If Ms. Tate's prison authorities have recommended her freedom as the result of their objective observations of her renewal, that is one thing. If Ms. Tate seeks release as a reward for finding faith, that is another. Faith is not easy.

To Robert James and Anon II UK, you have chosen a curious forum for diatribes against US citizenry, lumping us all together in thought, action and belief. Clearly, if you take the time to read the opinions expressed here, you would know we are diverse in our beliefs. And, as opinion polls and voting patterns have suggested for several years, we are, many of us, as disgusted with the blunders of our foreign policy, in which the UK has been pretty much in lockstep, as you say you are. Peace be with you. Peace be with us all.

This is all a matter of perspective.

Should George Bush find himself behind bars with a death sentence commuted to life in prison for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were no threat to us, I for one wouldn't want to see his sentence commuted just because he was a well behaved prisoner and became terminally ill.

But this case pales in comparison to the gruesome slaughter Bush has wrought. Still, it is pretty gruesome, and the public just won't have any of this mercy business.

Unfortunately, in our country, being called "Muslim" is an epithet. Muslim lives are devalued, as evidenced by devoting column space to this nonsense while the wholesale slaughter continues unabated and unquestioned by Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham.

You'd think the recent 60 Minutes report about the extermination of Christians who have lived in Iraq in peace for two thousand years would cause a blip among the Christo-fascist Crusaders and catalyze some soul-searching on what lasting damage has been wrought in our name, but no, it's nothing but silence and diversion.

A year before the Tate-LaBianca Murders, the My Lai Massacre occured. This was the "mass murder of 347 to 504 unarmed citizens of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), almost entirely civilians and the majority of them women and children, conducted by U.S. Army forces on March 16, 1968. Some of the victims were sexually abused, beaten, tortured, or maimed, and some of the dead bodies were mutilated."

"After a 10-month-long trial, in which he claimed that he was following orders from his commanding officer, Captain Medina, William Calley was convicted, on September 10, 1971, of premeditated murder for ordering the shootings. He was initially sentenced to life in prison. Two days later, however, President Nixon made the controversial decision to have Calley released from prison, pending appeal of his sentence. Calley's sentence was later adjusted, so that he would eventually serve four and one-half months in a military prison at Fort Benning."

To Mike:
What does this have to do with Atkins?
Do you bring this up to show that Justice is not fair. Wow that's a revelation. It has no baring on Atkins crimes or her incarceration.

Calley's company was caught and I dare say that this kind of thing happened all to much in Viet Nam and it was done by both sides.
You failed to mention the helicopter pilots who witnessed this and tried to stop it, and saved some of the villagers.

You also failed to report that almost all the solders involved with this war crime had horrible lives. Most developed serious psychological problems and the guilt and anguish of their actions on that day came back to haunt them in spades.

Cally was sociopath and it was crime that he was turned loose, he showed no remorse or empathy for his victims. I think he became a used car salesman. Life is full irony.

NO MERCY!!! If she was another color and sex this discussion would not be taking place. She may be sick but she was able to live long enough to get sick her victims and an unborn child was deprived of that opportunity.

i consider myself as progressive a thinker as there is, and i say "No." her crimes were too heinous, and her behavior after too atrocious. no amount of exemplary living can make up for what she did.

As a former prosecutor and now a criminal defense attorney I can attest to the validity of the phrase "everyone finds God in jail." After all, there's not much to do in jail or prison, so attending religious classes and services are at least an opportunity to change the routine. Prison chaplains are to be commended for their tireless efforts with society's cast-offs. And, despite the obvious cynicism of the above quoted phrase, I encourage all of my clients who are awaiting sentencing to do everything they can, including attending religious services, while in jail in the hope that I can impress the judge with my client's efforts at rehabilitation. And every now and then it works. Whether the client truly embraces God is of no moment.

Relative to Ms. Atkins, any mercy to be received will be delivered by God if she has truly embraced Him/Her. That a convicted murderer undergoes a true transformation while serving his/her sentence is laudable, but no basis in and of itself for a commutation of sentence. Her illness is of no moment whatsoever - it will merely shorten her sentence and hasten the day she receives mercy from her Lord and Savior. Alternatively, if her religious conversion is merely a ruse . . . .

p

The decision to release this woman is up to the courts, not the families of the victims. If you carjacked me would it make sense for my parents to decide the terms of your punishment?

Mercy? Nope.

Is justice blind? If this was a man would we be considering this? How about if this was a black man or hispanic man who gutted the pregnant white actress?! Give me a break! This is exactly why executions should be halted in this country--aside from its ineffectiveness--because it is not delivered equitably. And in this case, where the murderer had her sentence mitigated, she asks that it be mitigated again. You do the crime, you do the time. The Good Lord found by this woman will not abandon her because she's behind prison walls. Next.

No mercy was shown to the victims; she should die in prison.

She should get out of prison when her victims can get out of their coffins.

The opinion expressed is another in the long line of socio-academic notions that evince a disconnect from the realities that attend such personal horrors.

The author's contention that the criteria for deciding the issue should, "transform[s] discussion of the Manson family murders into a serious consideration of OUR OWN often conflicted relationship to justice and mercy" trivializes the horrific impact of the crimes on the victims and their survivors and converts a human tragedy into a socio-political fungible.

Perhaps resolution of the "mercy" issue should not be based on OUR conflicted ideas of justice and mercy, but reserved to the victims' families including Roman Polanski who's wife Sharon Tate and their unborn eight month's old son were among the victims, without requiring that they articulate a rationale acceptable to anyone else , much less put to a vote.

As a Christian, one may hope and pray that Ms. Atkins has accepted Jesus and God into her life. However, that she may or may not have truly changed as a person is not at issue; her crimes were such that appropriate punishment lies beyond the realm of rehabilitation.

Mercy? Society should show her the mercy that she demonstrated she deserves - none. The judgment against her should stand irrevocable due to the nature of her crimes.

If God has mercy on her soul, she shall be redeemed. As a Christian, this judgment is the only one that should matter to her; the only mercy she should be seeking is from her savior.

"...America has always been more comfortable talking about retribution."

I can't speak for all of America, but speaking for myself, it is important to talk about justice.

It is a good thing if Atkins has truly repented. It is unfortunate that she is now terminally ill. But justice does require us to be responsible for our actions, and to pay a price, if need be. Describing her acts on those long ago nights in August 1969 as heinous simply doesn't capture the terror and torment she inflicted on those innocent souls.

The death penalty was fitting for the crimes. That she had her sentence commuted to life was exceedingly merciful. The people of California owe her nothing.

The main reason for incarceration is not justice, but fear. I fear Susan Atkins. If she is no longer capable of the actions she was convicted of, her release might encourage someone else who is. So, I think she should remain imprisoned till she dies.

The Manson murders happened when I was a kid, so I decided to do some research on it last night. I spent about 2 hours on the Internet.

It turns out we're sort of being sold a bill of goods here. Prison psychiatrists have examined Susan Atkins before each of her many parole hearings and they have consistently rated her as a threat. A sociopath. A chameleon. Someone who is extremely skilled at deflecting and blaming and excusing. One report even said her skills were "practiced at a higher level" meaning that a guy who deals with criminals every single day was impressed as just how skilled she was at doing whatever pleased her at the moment regardless of rules and what other people might want and then making up excuses for her behavior.

I don't really think she's going to hurt any one. But I don't think we should let people like that walk among us. I don't want her out walking the street, even for a short period of time. My kids use those streets.

PS - Most "feel sorry for the poor criminal" activists are poor deluded souls. Nice people I'm sure, but gullible.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
If you believe these most fundamental tenets of Christ's teachings, apply them.
If you do not, stop calling yourselves Christians.
Revenge is a natural reaction. Overcoming the desire for it is the mark of true nobility.

She has already received mercy, in her life sentence.

No mercy. Neither she nor the rest of the Manson Clan showed Sharon Tate and her unborn child any mercy when they brutally murdered them and smeared their blood all over the walls. No mercy-she should die in prison.

You corresponded with her for two years?
Interesting.
And you found out ---what?

This is a good example of the need of a revised Christian papadigm--from the focus on God (always perfect and the possessor of unconditional grace) to a realistic focus on us, mankind. We are not and never will be perfect and we should not castigate ourselves because we can not manifest or sustain unconditional grace. I have to work hard just to remember that I can't do anything to warrant God's love/grace. When I do it frees me to make fearless choices with the intend of good or evil. We are responsible for making the choices and living with the consequences. No one can commit an action, any action, and expect a pass when things don't work out or you get caught. I leverage the example of Job. He did the best he could stayed faithful and left God's business to God. So, if this woman has heard the forgiving voice of God...good for her. She has received perfect grace from the perfect source, she should not expect it from me or anyone else.

dewdrop2:
She's alive. That is mercy. She's serving a life sentence for a horrible crime which she was found guilty of having committed. That is justice.

That says it all very well.

dewdrop2:
She's alive. That is mercy. She's serving a life sentence for a horrible crime which she was found guilty of having committed. That is justice.

That says it all very well.

I thought her getting free medical and dental on the taxpayer dime was mercy enough. Suffer, kiddo!

An interesting story about a mother pleading with Napoleon to spare her condemned son's life. The emperor said the crime was dreadful; justice demanded his life. "Sir," sobbed the mother, "Not justice, but mercy." "He does not deserve mercy," was the answer. "But, sir, if he deserved it, it would not be mercy," said the mother. "Ah yes, how true," said Napoleon. "I will have mercy."

A year before the Tate-LaBianca Murders, the My Lai Massacre occured. This was the "mass murder of 347 to 504 unarmed citizens of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), almost entirely civilians and the majority of them women and children, conducted by U.S. Army forces on March 16, 1968. Some of the victims were sexually abused, beaten, tortured, or maimed, and some of the dead bodies were mutilated."

"After a 10-month-long trial, in which he claimed that he was following orders from his commanding officer, Captain Medina, William Calley was convicted, on September 10, 1971, of premeditated murder for ordering the shootings. He was initially sentenced to life in prison. Two days later, however, President Nixon made the controversial decision to have Calley released from prison, pending appeal of his sentence. Calley's sentence was later adjusted, so that he would eventually serve four and one-half months in a military prison at Fort Benning."

The fact that she was spared the death penalty is mercy enough.

As a fellow human being, Susan Atkins deserves mercy. Whether that mercy takes the form of releasing this terminally-ill convicted murderer out of prison is another question.

Remember, it's not humans who do the redeeming of which you speak-- you're right, no human can ever do anything to make up for his or her wrongs. God is the only one who can offer such unmerited grace and forgiveness, justification and righteousness, propitiation and sanctification. You know, the Gospel story stuff. Peace.

Mercy is for the just and unjust alike. It is not about who they are, but about who we are. What is Jesus' message, if not mercy?

But mercy does have social relevance in that it admits the fundamentally limited nature of any human moral calculus.
------------
What does this mean? Literally? Doesn't mercy figure in a "moral calculus"?
------------
Developing a way of talking about forgiveness also has social import if for no other reason than America has always been more comfortable talking about retribution

The new retributive discourse is relatively recent. Not too long ago, rehabilitation was the "goal," but with no practical applications, it seemed.
-------------
Mercy and forgiveness are two different constructs, and the latter is especially fuzzy. That said, IMHO, no one other than the victims is in a position to "forgive" Atkins and her fellow murders. Since all the victims are dead forgiveness is a non-issue.

Mercy is an issue. Before I could weigh in on this, I'd need to know whether persons charged with "similar" crimes have been given what Atkins has asked for. Of course, "similar" is a stretch in this case. I'd also like to know what factors informed the decision to parole such killers, if, in fact, they were paroled.

She said Charles Manson was her family.
Put her in the cell with Manson and let
her live out her life in cell with him.

No, she should not be freed.

The reason is that the U.S. is moving slowly, inexorably away from capital punishment. If she is freed, it will undermine the argument that life in prison without parole has the same bearing on society as the death penalty.

I know some people wish compassion on her, but to do so would undermine efforts of death penalty opponents. For the sake of our society, let her rot.

The question you ask goes to the heart of religion, can a person be redeemed? To my way of thinking the answer to that question is yes and if I'm not mistaken the teachings of all monotheistic religions agree with me. That said the argument narrows to are we as a society willing to accept that redemption is possible or do we really mean to exact revenge for the savagery that humans are capable of? With regard to this woman, her crimes were heinous and her attitude toward her victims was chilling, but as has been noted she has found her place in the kingdom of God from whom all mercy is believed to flow. So I say allow her to die in peace, treating her as we would like to be treated, rather than continuing to try to drain that last measure of revenge from her plight because as it has been said many times for thousands of years only God can judge. Whether she dies in prison or she dies in a hospice, the malady that consumes her will take her none the less. It is my belief that the measure of my life will be how I have treated others and it is with this in mind that I come to this conclusion. I know it will not be popular but I stand here just the same. I can't say that if she had murdered a member of my family I would be of the same mind but I pray that I would be strong enough to do so.

There is so much more I could write but I'll leave it there. Thanks for the opportunity!

To Pam: Thanks for enlightening Anon II

To Robert James: Thank-you for taking the time to elaborate and providing additional perspective.

To Anon II: "In a fashion is all too typical of furreners telling us what is wrong with us, you try to lecture Americans from the UK." - When you want aliens to keep our lectures to the US to ourselves... we will gladly do so... just as soon as you stop interfering or meddling with non-American peoples with non-American governments beyond your boundaries. Until then, you are fair game... so deal with it.

As it pertains to the bitter and poisonous comments of others... if you really want stand for justice, I would like to suggest that you apply and distribute it justly and not according to wealth, position or privilege. In light of the past 5 years alone, your nation has blood on your collective hands at a scale much greater that a single Susan Atkins. If your heart is incapable of showing no mercy for her, why should people of other nations feel mercy for you? Perhaps the level of mercy or condemnation you feel towards her should provide others with precedent as we consider your crimes against humanity? My hope, of course, is that this might trigger a merciful change in someone's heart... as well as an encouragement to apply "justice" justly.

No.

No, let her die in prison, which, in and of itself, is more merciful than that given to the victims. Certain things cannot be forgiven.

Yes I'm sure Susan Atkins can write an intelligent letter.
And I'm sure she is smart enough to claim to be a Christian now so she deserves forgiveness. If she is a real Christian and truely regrets her crimes, she will realize that she should serve out all her time and expect forgiveness in the next life, not this one. She is fooling people with a phony conversion.

Does she deserve mercy? Probably. Does she deserve to be let out of prison? Most definitely not. Some crimes are of such a magnitude that "life in prison" ought to mean just that.

How can we trust that she is reformed and let her out. SHe could go back to the way she was.

If mercy had to be merited, then none of us would ever receive it.

denis arvay:
Life is sometimes simpler for us atheists. She's harmless now, and will soon die, so release her under supervision. No need to babble endlessly about "grace" and other spiritualistic nonsense.

July 2, 2008 6:50 AM
==============

qualifying yourself as atheist makes the complete sense out of the rest of your misguided opinion.

how come there are so many atheists becooming believers in Christ to the miniscule Christians who become athiests?

denis arvay:
Life is sometimes simpler for us atheists. She's harmless now, and will soon die, so release her under supervision. No need to babble endlessly about "grace" and other spiritualistic nonsense.

July 2, 2008 6:50 AM
==============

qualifying yourself as atheist makes the complete sense out of the rest of your misguided opinion.

how come there are so many atheists becooming believers in Christ to the miniscule Christians who become athiests?

Life is sometimes simpler for us atheists. She's harmless now, and will soon die, so release her under supervision. No need to babble endlessly about "grace" and other spiritualistic nonsense.

CORRECTION -

changed? maybe but lets face it - - there arent many innocent citizens living their lives IN PRISON WHERE SHE'S BEEN for her to attack? right?

No mercy!

changed? maybe but lets face it - - there arent many innocent citizens living their lives for her to attack? right?

because she's feeling bad she deserves a penalty lift?

when i have a headach i still have to shoot off payment to the power company or my light gets turned out.... i cant tell my banker i'm feeling bad so i cant pay my mortgage this month. ... and i'm a pretty decent person.

PUNISHMENT was her reward.... THIS IS HER PUNISHMENT!!! let it be... Let her make her amends with the Almighty God who is the One who truly knows her heart. If its in the right place she's got nothing to worry about. Someone might remind her that to get to God she has to go through Jesus Christ.... "no man cometh to the Father but through me...."

her punishment was prison.
when does prison not mean prison?

does she have the power to bring lives back that she is responsible for?

others are DEAD! SHE GOT TO LIVE.... IN PRISON!!!!

I'm not conflicted about this at all...no problem with my moral calculus ... it's HER moral calculus that went haywire. let her spend ALL her days in prison. I really don't care what arrangement she
has with Jesus and if she's evolved into a whole and worthy self,
that's what she was supposed to be all along. Now that she's
achieved 'normal' and not feeling all that well, we're supposed to
give her her walking papers? I'm glad she isn't a monster anymore.
There, that takes care of compassion. Justice? Not yet.

What is it about conversion of prisoners to some form of fundamentalist Christianity that is different? Lots of convicts have become good Muslims in prison but this never affects their sentence.

Susan Atkins directly participated in the stabbings of the victims. As far as I know, they are still dead. The act that she's lived on taxpayer dollars for this long is "mercy" enough.

She's alive. That is mercy. She's serving a life sentence for a horrible crime which she was found guilty of having committed. That is justice.

She's alive. That is mercy. She's serving a life sentence for a horrible crime which she was found guilty of having committed. That is justice.

If she has found God and religion, then it should be mercy enough that she goes to heaven when she dies. Alive here on Earth, she has been shown enough.

Ultimately, this is a question of public policy, not of personal mercy. In that context it makes no sense to release her. It would undermine the argument that "life in prison without parole" is a plausible substitute for the death penalty, and thus strengthen the case for the death penalty as the only appropriate sentence for some crimes.

Atkins' crimes were of an exceptional order. It is heartening to learn that she has become a better person in prison. But she sealed her fate a long time ago, and she ought to live it out now.

As usual, religion is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

I personally think all religion is bunk. But if you wanna follow the bible, it says give to Ceasar what is his. That means pay your debt to the state -- and that debt surely means prison time as well as taxes.

Also, anyone who hears god's voice or has visions is mentally ill and needs to be locked up.

No mercy at all or ever !!!

Well there are a lot of respected man runnign around on the street who have commited similar crimes only with higher death tolls.
Decorated US soldiers that is who have commited warcrimes who havent been reported.

I'm not argueing for Atkins to be set free. I'm not really sure if its a good idea but I think a cicilized society has to consider it.

But I am argueing against the notion that murder is an absolute Taboo which prevents mercy or understanding. Thats just not true. We have to come up with better arguments to justify keeping someone in prison or setting them free.

No mercy at all or ever !!!

No mercy at all or ever!!

The mind is a very complex device,and is not understood by many of us. For example my mind is not informing me of how some other persons mind can switch over from barbaric behavior to that of thinking it is now a servant of something called God and that they are for example,a ''christian''.
As with many other barbaric people,to do what is socialy not acceptable and then to be sorry,or change is not exactly normal.
What is to stop this same mind to again change once they are released,and commit again barbaric crimes? Why should civil society have to take that chance?
No,sorry,they have had their chance.Other peoples lives are not some ''punchbag,''knifebag'' for those who cannot control themselves.

The mind is a very complex device,and is not understood by many of us. For example my mind is not informing me of how some other persons mind can switch over from barbaric behavior to that of thinking it is now a servant of something called God and that they are for example,a ''christian''.
As with many other barbaric people,to do what is socialy not acceptable and then to be sorry,or change is not exactly normal.
What is to stop this same mind to again change once they are released,and commit again barbaric crimes? Why should civil society have to take that chance?
No,sorry,they have had their chance.Other peoples lives are not some ''punchbag,''knifebag'' for those who cannot control themselves.

The mind is a very complex device,and is not understood by many of us. For example my mind is not informing me of how some other persons mind can switch over from barbaric behavior to that of thinking it is now a servant of something called God and that they are for example,a ''christian''.
As with many other barbaric people,to do what is socialy not acceptable and then to be sorry,or change is not exactly normal.
What is to stop this same mind to again change once they are released,and commit again barbaric crimes? Why should civil society have to take that chance?
No,sorry,they have had their chance.Other peoples lives are not some ''punchbag,''knifebag'' for those who cannot control themselves.

It's refreshing to see a few who truly understand terms like "mercy" and "Christian".
For those worshipping the subjective concept of "justice" (as opposed to protecting society) or those who pride themselves on their love of vengeance, I truly pity you.
Release her to her family's care.

Susan Atkins has been receiving mercy with every breath she's breathed since her death penalty was commuted. That's more compassion than she gave her victims and the families that had to endure her gloating testimony. I'm glad that Atkins has the comfort of having grace and God's love, but it's inconceivable that she could possibly ask for more of us here. Her death in prison, rather than by execution, is compassionate and just and merciful, for her and the families of her victims. She'll have medical care and family and clergy visits. Why would a terminal diagnosis change anything?

No one DESERVES mercy. What makes any action an act of mercy is that it is freely given, not earned, not deserved. Otherwise, it would not be merciful, but merely a reward or punishment.

And whether Susan Atkins is released to die at home or dies in prison will say far more about us as a society than about her as a murderer.

If the vengeful, judgmental comments above reflect America, then what that says about us is that we are an angry, vengeful people incapable of forgiving those who trespass against us.

Susan Atkins received her grace in 1971, when she was tried and sentenced, and her mercy on February 18, 1972, when the State of California abolished the death penalty. I am truly sorry she made such terrible, irrevocable choices in August of 1969, but we cannot blind ourselves to the fact that she did make these choices, when other young women and men ostensibly under Manson's influence did not. Drugs? C'mon. Many, many, many people took and continue to take psychedelic drugs without gleefully, joyfully participating in the stabbing, shooting, and bludgeoning deaths of seven people. I am not religious, but since Susan Atkins is, she should get down on her knees every day and thank God for allowing her the time to reflect on her crimes. She needs no more from society than that.

I have to be sarcastic when I hear about convicts who "lead a good life" in prison thus having changed for the better. It's not like they have much of a choice: Let's see, what defenseless pregnant woman do I choose not to kill today because I am now a good person?

Once in prison her behavior was controlled by others (which is what prisons are for) and therefore can't claim responsibility for her good behavior. It would be too easy. And we saw how things turned out when she was solely responsible for her actions.

Unless the victims' relatives choose to give her her freedom, I don't see why she should live out her last days in freedom. If she's that sick what difference is it going to make anyway? She is fortunate her life was spared by a compassionate change of the law. Her failing health doesn't change what she did.

If you put her on the street, how is she going to support herself. She did not have sufficent time to accumulate the work record needed to draw Social Security benefits, and I know of no income she might have. I seem to recall the Mansion family was specifically denied the right to profit from their crimes. So throw her out on the street and hope some welfare system picks her up for her remaining days, or keep her in prison and move her into a prison hospital ward where she will get some care.
I also oppose releasing her on the grounds that we must mean it when society sentences someone to life in prison. It might help her in another life, but it makes no difference to the sentence if she found Christ, Mohammed or Buddha. Life imprisonment isn't mitigated by joining some religion. A tragic case, indeed, but who is truly the real victim here?

If you put her on the street, how is she going to support herself. She did not have sufficent time to accumulate the work record needed to draw Social Security benefits, and I know of no income she might have. I seem to recall the Mansion family was specifically denied the right to profit from their crimes. So throw her out on the street and hope some welfare system picks her up for her remaining days, or keep her in prison and move her into a prison hospital ward.
I also oppose releasing her on the grounds that we must mean it when society sentences someone to life in prison. It might help her in another life, but it makes no difference to the sentence if she found Christ, Mohammed or Buddha. Life imprisonment isn't mitigated by joining some religion. A tragic case, indeed, but who is truly the real victim here?

I also don't quite understand how release from prison would be "merciful". It seems neither here nor there.

In general, I do believe the Manson murders have been oversensationalized. Van Houten and Beausoleil should have probably been released many years ago.

There is no point in dogmas regarding keeping people in prison either. America needs to come to grips with the 1960s and the nature of psychedelic drugs, which is not to say that we should "go soft" on people who do awful things when brainwashed.

It's just that there continues to be a desperate lack of honesty in these areas in society, and it can be perceived as a lack of mercy.

You people who are so cold and unforgiving, you have absolutely no idea what it is like to be locked in a concrete and steel cage for forty years. Enough. You have more compassion for dogs than you do for humans. She has turned herself around. That is what all you phony Christians say that you admire. Let her die on the outside, after breathing a few breaths as a free person.
Your coldheartedness will come back to you.

She deserves as much mercy as she and her "family" showed their victims. Absolutely none.

After I finished your article, I resolved to never waste another moment reading about Susan Atkins or any of the other members of the Manson family. I don't really care what happens to them, as long as they stay in prison, where they can't hurt anyone else. There are many millions of people on this planet in dire circumstances who are far more worthy of compassion. From now on, let's all think about them instead.

Everyone deserves mercy, applied wisely, at all times.

Sharon Tate and her unborn child were terminally ill for a matter of seconds. Susan Atkins will have a long terminal illness to reflect. Let her stew in jail were a murderer belongs.

The whole Manson 'Family' should have been shot!

Bangkok

I would grant her mercy.

There is absolutely no way they'll allow Susan Atkins, a classic psycho killer if ever there was one, has already avoided the death penalty.

That should be all the mercy she ever receives.

Tough call. As someone who grew up only reading about these murders, I would say, "yes". It was a life time ago. She's lost her life to prison, let her go with a little grace and happiness BUT if I were a family member of one of her victims, I would say, "too bad. You deserve this for what you took from this world."

Good evening Professor Schmalz -

Not long ago, in our relatively quiet town in Colorado, a young teenage boy brutally murdered the mother of his 16-year-old girlfriend. The two had sat that night discussing the orchestration of the murder at a local diner with two friends. The mother's body sat in the trunk of the car in the garage for over a month before the crime was discovered. In the meantime, the teens went on a spending spree with her credit card and oddly sought to purchase a house.

I say this because the young man in question was a member of the Youth Group at the church I attend. Everyone, of course, was horrified by the crime, and sought to comfort the mother and father of the young man. When the pastor finally came to the point one Sunday where he finally spoke of the crime, he spoke to the need for compassion for the young boy. I could barely sit in the pew without shaking, I was so angry. He never spoke about the need to mourn the victim or comfort her family.

I have long contemplated my strong emotional response and my inability to feel any compassion toward the young man or his accomplices. I still don't feel like participating in any church letter campaigns so he doesn't feel so lonely in his cell.

And then I read your letter on justice and mercy and the need to at least contemplate the idea of forgiveness and compassion in the midst of some of life's most difficult situations. And I ever so faintly realize, but perhaps have not come full circle, that the need you articulate for a serious discussion on our conflicted relationship with justice and mercy is a very vital one. Does this young boy deserve mercy and compassion? Does Susan Atkins? I agree that this decision is appropriately in the hands of the relatives of her victims (and really, ultimately in the hands of the victims themselves). But does mercy belong in the repertoire of a just society, even with all the pain it has endured, that must carry on once Susan Atkins is gone?

Yes, Professor Schmalz, it does. And thank you for so eloquently starting the dialogue.

Kristin Shewfelt

Ask Sharon Tate if it's okay to release her. If you get an answer, follow her wishes.
Appealing to a mythological deity and the opinions of its delusional followers is tantamount to requesting permission from Bugs Bunny.

I BELIEVE THAT OUR LORD FORGIVES. HE HAS HEARD HER CRY FOR MERCY. DRUGS ARE EVIL, OUR CHOISES ARE SOMETIMES EVIL IN HER CASE VERY MUCH SO. IF IT IS GODS WILL SHE WILL BE OUT.IF IT IS GODS WILL, HIS MERCY IS SUFFICENT.

She needs to sit. She can be good unto death. She is not worth a single keystroke.

The quality of mercy is not 'strained, it falls from Heaven like the dew.

I haven't waded thru all the comments but there seems to be quite a lot of the "Let her rot where she is." sentiment. Must we always be about unremitting retribution to the very, very last? Doesn't seem very Christian...

If her behavior in prison has been exemplary and her reform as thorough and complete as it is possible to discern, I would be open to this kind of release. You're going to need some compassion yourself someday. Yes, yes, I know you didn't stab a mother and unborn baby to death but tell me you don't need forgiveness and, finally, mercy for some of the things you've done, particularly the nasty things only you know about. Well, you and God. What would it cost you to show a little generosity of spirit? What would it cost you not to?

It never ceases to amaze me how many incarcerated felons "find religion" while imprisoned! Most are not even sorry for what they did... just sorry they got caught doing it.

1 July

Dear Mathew,

A good and thoughtful article about something most people rarely think about. I wish I knew the appropriate thing to do.

My heart; however, veers towards letting the sentence of life play itself out. She is fortunate to have redeemed herself in time to save her soul and to inspire others.

I am confident her victims would have preferred the same opportunity.

How heart-breaking.

Michael

Mercy and Justice. We poor mortals certainly have a strong sense of these especially when it applies to ourselves. But only God can show perfect mercy and perfect justice. Even the most wise earthly judge can only try and do his conscientiously best and still get it wrong.
When Christ forgave the good thief on the Cross, He bestowed on him mercy in the next life. But the thief still had to face the justice of this life and pay for his evil deeds, suffer the agony of the cross and die.
Whether the religious conversion of Atkins is sincere and will bring upon her God's mercy in the next life is for God to know and judge. God sees everything. Atkins still must pay for her crimes according to the law of justice of our land, as unsatisfactory as that may be (but it is a lot more merciful than being nailed to a cross). If she is trying to live a good life now, so much the better for her and those around her in prison. Let her good behaviour in prison for the rest of her life be part of her rehabilitation, be part of her healing. Perhaps her example may help someone in prison to turn to repentance, that is, change one's thinking. May God have mercy on her.

For Atkins: She doesn't "deserve" mercy, but it can be granted by the state of California if the victims' families agree that she should be released.

For Anon II who got so upset about an anonymous poster for the UK criticizing this country: don't use the fiction that this country is a country of laws, not men. Not today, it isn't. The last 7 years are proof of that. Also, Anon II, where do you think Habeas Corpus came from? It sure wasn't original with the writers of the Constitution. No, buddy, the document known as the Magna Carta signed by the king of ENGLAND in 1215 produced the right of Habeas Corpus and influenced the American constitution when it was written.

Leave her there until its over. Then she can make peace.

For Atkins: She doesn't "deserve" mercy, but it can be granted by the state of California if the victims' families agree that she should be released.

For Anon II who got so upset about an anonymous poster for the UK criticizing this country: don't use the fiction that this country is a country of laws, not men. Not today, it isn't. The last 7 years are proof of that. Also, Anon II, where do you think Habeas Corpus came from? It sure wasn't original with the writers of the Constitution. No, buddy, the document known as the Magna Carta signed by the king of ENGLAND in 1215 produced the right of Habeas Corpus and influenced the American constitution when it was written.

Leave her there until its over. Then she can make peace.

This is cowardice, not at the suggestion of granting mercy, but at not advocating it. This piece is a waste of space trying to straddle a fence and god forbid make the victims or law enforcement angry. In essence, this says, "well I think Ms. Atkins is deserving of consideration of mercy, I am too cowardice in advocating it because of the cherished stature anyone who claims victimhood holds in this country. Thus, I do not have the courage to advocate such an unpopular stance because A LOT of people will disagree with me." Champ, I will spell it out for you - SHE DESERVES MERCY. Washington Post would do well not to allow such useless drivel in the future.

This is cowardice, not at the suggestion of granting mercy, but at not advocating it. This piece is a waste of space trying to straddle a fence and god forbid make the victims or law enforcement angry. In essence, this coward says, well I think Ms. Atkins is deserving of consideration of mercy, I am too cowardice in advocating it because of the cherished stature anyone who claims victimhood holds in this country. Thus, I do not have the courage to advocate such an unpopular stance because A LOT of people will disagree with me. Champ, I will spell it out for you - SHE DESERVES MERCY. Washington Post would do well not to allow such useless drivel in the future.

She has always asked for mercy and always wanted to be set free. Nothing is new. She has said that Manson was love and gave unconditional love, and unmerited love. This is the same person with the same mind set from 1969. The fundamentals still govern her conscious. You can not kill so violently and expect mercy.

Look, our society and its current leaders are guilty of multiple murders and such serious crimes against Humanity, they are so obligated to show mercy not just for her but throughout the world. This nation will soon be in the same predicament to other nations and there better be reasons they have to show mercy on us!

Presumably, everyone who is in jail serving a life sentence for murder will die someday. With regard to letting an inmate out for time with family just because they are dieing, how will the Governor decide who gets preferential treatment and who does not? It is a fact that not everyone will get time with family when they are dieing so who gets this unbelievable, incredible privilege? If I were the governor, it would not be Atkins.

If we let Atkins out to go see family or friends, then we might as well let every lifer out if some doctor says they only have days, weeks, or months left to live. For Atkins represents a particularly brutal crime that does not deserve this kind of recognition. This is not about mercy. This is about the benefits of an option the Governor has being awarded to someone. You don't give the big bonus to the worst performer. That is not about justice or mercy. It is about the potential mis-carriage of justice and a perversion of the whole concept of mercy.

What is the criterion that the Governor will use? I can't read his mind but common sense says that this kind of privilege won't be bestowed in this case since it would make a mockery of the whole concept.

No, she does not deserve mercy - at least not mine - God can do what she wants.

Why? You make your decisions and you live (or die; as is the case of many George Bush decisions for US armed services men and women) with the consequences of those decisions.

"She had bragged about mercilessly stabbing the pregnant Sharon Tate and laughed when details of the murders were presented in court."

No, she does not deserve mercy - at least not mine - God can do what she wants.

Why? You make your decisions and you live (or die; as is the case of many George Bush decisions for US armed services men and women) with the consequences of those decisions.

"She had bragged about mercilessly stabbing the pregnant Sharon Tate and laughed when details of the murders were presented in court."

If she's terminally ill I don't see the harm in releasing her. I would do it not at all for her but for her family, which certainly had nothing to do with what she did. I don't know what family she has living. I would only release her if she has siblings, nieces or nephews still living that she could be with until her own passing. I'm guessing her parents are deceased. If she has no family to go to then i would not release her.

"My plea is for a well-articulated decision that transforms discussion of the Manson family murders into a serious consideration of our own often conflicted relationship to justice and mercy."

My friend, you have too much time on your hands.

To Robert James:

"I do not expect Americans to be introspective. I only expect them to be dangerous, unintelligent and moralising inside and outside America.

If you think that is an arrogant statement..."

No, I think it is a stupid and ignorant statement. You generalize about an entire nation about which you know nothing. You use anecdotal statements to extrapolate national attitudes.

You talk about the American justice system as if it were a monolith. I bet you don't have a clue about the structure of the court system, the federal district courts, the Circuit Courts of Appeal, the ALJ set up, the state courts with their trial sessions, jury trial sessions, intermediate courts of appeal and final courts of appeal, all operating under the supremacy clause. (Bet you don't have a clue what that is either).

Have you read the Boumediene decision or the Parhat case just released?

Until you have, and indeed until you have read about 200-300 more cases at the core of American jurisprudence, please, please, keep your ignorance to yourself.

I would show this woman as much compassion as she and her cohorts displayed when butchering an eight and a half month pregnant Sharon Tate as she begged for her life - None.

Enough Christianist hogwash. Free her if you think she's done the time; forget it if you don't. But no more of this "Lordy Lordy I's Forgiven" garbage.

We must stop our sentimentality when it comes toward religionism. If there are humanist reasons to spare Atkins, so be it. But "god" had nothing to do with this.

Stabbed a pregnant woman to death? Laughed about it, then decided she had paid her debt?

I'm not against mercy and retribution, but there are more deserving people in the very same prison she is in...people who have done less criminal things and who have just as sad a story.

Compassion is a critical part of any society. But so is justice.

I have no doubt, with all the documented flaws in our justice system, that there are plenty of innocent people in our prisons.

Our humble compassion should first be focused on that retribution. The retribution of the innocent should always come before the retribution of the heinously guilty.

Write those story's. There are tens of thousands of them, if not more. You could make a career out of nothing but that.

You divide the issue into one of 'Justice or Mercy'. I presume that by use of the word 'Justice' you mean continuing imprisonment.

I do not know if the lady should be released or should remain in prison. However, why don't you ask: why should she remain in prison? What are the pros and cons? What benefits will flow to society if she remains behind bars. What will happen if she is released?

Is their an unrelenting element of vindictiveness that does not permit Americans to realise that sometimes enough is enough?

When I look at American society I often think that you are violent and vicious and that the legislative punishments enshrine an unrelentingly vicious streak that prevents the people of America from having a sense of proportion.

What is the point of punishment? How should the length of sentences be determined? Does society ever get it wrong? If so, what do those of you who believe in the death penalty or life long imprisonment have to say when an innocent person is convicted? I suspect that you do not care about righting wrongs but you do care about ensuring that punishment is meted out even if it is to the wrong person.

When does American society question its unchallenged beliefs? Afterall, if you can't question the basis of your beliefs then you cannot identify weaknesses in your attitudes and your system of justice.

I do not expect Americans to be introspective. I only expect them to be dangerous, unintelligent and moralising inside and outside America.

If you think that is an arrogant statement just remember that you invaded Vietnam because you did not want a communist government and because of your crazy domino theory which was shown to be rubbish. You used the CIA to ensure that Salvador Allendez of Chile was executed after he was validly elected and the consequence of the coup which you sponsored was to subject Chile to the cruelty of the unrestrained military who killed those people that they did not like willy nilly.

You elected the worst president in history twice and he invaded Iraq on grounds that have been shown to be spurious. Only Americans could not see how shallow and unconvincing those grounds were. Then you said: well the invasion was worthwhile and justified in any event.

The only thng that concerns America is the cost of the war and the dead American soldiers who are sent home.

I say America is dangerous and silly and that it does not understand justice because it does not stop to analyse critically the decisions that it makes.

You imprison people in Guantanamo Bay without charge and your legal ground is little more than classifying them as combatants and calling them terrorists notwithstanding that many of them were later shown to have been sold to the Americans and to be innocent. These people have been quietly released in their hundreds.

America gets it wrong. It is dangerous.

When you contemplate invading bombing Iran just stop for a moment and ask yourself how many Iranians you are entitled to kill?

I am not sure what Ms. Atkins' terminal illness involves, but the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation have verified that she does not have long to live. When California abolished the death penalty, Ms. Atkins became parolable.
Now, whether she deserves mercy is up to the governor ... who does not have a history of clemency. The feelings of families of the victims will be considered by the governor by law.

"How did all the right-wing nuts leave Roman Polanski out of this. Inquiring minds want to know." George P. Webster (8:03p.m.).

"And what does Roman Polanski have to say? I'd like to know what he thinks, and wouldn't want to hurt him in any way" (alabama, 12:57 p.m.)

Yes, George, I've been asking myself the very same thing, and here's what I finally think: if Polanski ever read this thread, he'd probably shoot a re-make of "Deliverance" as set in a gated community outside of Washington, with everyone riding around in SUV's. The ultimate horror flick, scarier than the Manson family murders themselves, teeming with crucifixions performed by pious-sounding Christians.

Mercy Mercy, Sharon Tate and unborn child, her friends and then the next morning an elderly couple murdered in cold blood by Susan Atkins and her friends.

Now she wants mercy because she wants to see her family before she dies.

If she is let out to die at home instead of on the cold floor of a prison cell, then we need to release all our inmates because there is no justice for the dead.

She was and is a cold hearted murder who showed the most lowest of life form behaviour at her trial.

She escaped the death penalty and was given the opportunity all those she murdered never had, the chance to live to an old age, an in one case denied an unborn child the right to enter this world and live and explore life.

She lived her life and chose her path now she needs to die by it in her cell. Oh yes we will put her in a fancy prison medical ward.

Harshness for the cold hearted as an example to future groupies and individuals with criminal intent on their minds.

I concurr that the decision rests with the relatives of the victums!!

Susan Atkins has yet to express her personal remorse to the Tate/La Bianca families, particularly those surviving relatives of Sharon Tate.

If she truly understood and articulated God's unmerited favor as grace, she would have expressed her feelings to those people, and not to theology professors who are impressed by her celebrity killer status.

She is dying in relative comfort and ease (especially when compared to the way Sharon Tate died.) I think Susan Atkins is currently experiencing God's mercy and kindness in the greatest way possible.

Someone should stab her in the stomach with a fork and call her a pig while "Helter Skelter" plays on a continuous loop in the background. A few years ago that was her idea of great fun. It may bring her comfort now.

No she does not deserve any kind of consideration at all. Did they give Sharon Tate and the LaBiancas any kind of consideration, or their families when they slaughtered them.

She is a convicted murderer, she got life in prison and that is what it is, so be it.

No she does not deserve any kind of consideration at all. Did they give Sharon Tate and the LaBiancas any kind of consideration, or their families when they slaughtered them.

She is a convicted murderer, she got life in prison and that is what it is, so be it.

She is being show mercy by being fed three meals a day, allowed to excercise daily, provided a bed, and allowed to correspond with the outside world. I believe that God forgives sins, but other than being treated more humanely than her victims, her debt to the families of those suffering will never be paid. If her Christian conversion is legitimate, she will live a better life above. Asking for it here is out of the question.

Barry Goldwater remarked that Richard Nixon should've died in prison.
Is it too much to wish George W Bush may suffer divine retribution, in our lifetimes?

How did all the right-wing nuts leave Roman Polanski out of this.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Pardon, commutation, clemency, reprieve ("compassionate" or otherwise), amnesty, reduction--these are all acts available to judges and magistrates.These terms come from Roman law (well before Christ, Mohammed, or Buddha), all of them designating various instances of "mercy". No legal code could function without them.

Why all this "mercy"? Primarily, exercises of "mercy" show that "sovereigns" have the last say, as indeed they must, to be "sovereign" in the first place.

"Mercy," then, is "legal," and hence "political," in a secular way, even in theocratic systems bound to religious codes.

Atkins, then, or her lawyer, are making political moves when they plead for "compassionate reprieve". I think it's an interesting move,; itt may gain in standing as our prisons become more and more brutal and brutalizing.

Its difficult to imagine the families of the victim and the suffering they endured due to the horrific acts of Charles Manson and Susan Atkins. Ms. Atkins have had years to contemplate her actions; years in which the victims did not receive due to their brutal slayings. As a mother, I recall often the beauty of my pregnancy and the amazing blessing that was bestowed upon me by God. What kind of person kills a pregnant woman? A blessing which was taken away from Sharon Tate and her family. Do I believe she is "reformed"? There maybe a possiblity , because as one faces their own mortality we often look instrospectively at the decisions we make throughout our lives and yearn for peace within ourselves. A part of me believes that she does not deserve mercy but the christian side remembers the biblical verse which states " vengenance is mine says the lord" and God is the ultimate juror of our lives. I pray she is remorseful but only her and God knows her soul and if she is a christian she must answer to our lord and saviour for her those crimes. I am not without sin and how sins are measured is still an ongoing question that has yet to be resolved within my faith.

Its difficult to imagine the families of the victim and the suffering they endured due to the horrific acts of Charles Manson and Susan Atkins. Ms. Atkins have had years to contemplate her actions; years in which the victims did not receive due to their brutal slayings. As a mother, I recall often the beauty of my pregnancy and the amazing blessing that was bestowed upon me by God. What kind of person kills a pregnant woman? A blessing which was taken away from Sharon Tate and her family. Do I believe she is "reformed"? There maybe a possiblity , because as one faces their own mortality we often look instrospectively at the decisions we make throughout our lives and yearn for peace within ourselves. A part of me believes that she does not deserve mercy but the christian side remembers the biblical verse which states " vengenance is mine says the lord" and God is the ultimate juror of our lives. I pray she is remorseful but only her and God knows her soul and if she is a christian she must answer to our lord and saviour for her those crimes. I am not without sin and how sins are measured is still an ongoing question that has yet to be resolved within my faith.

To Anon in UK

In a fashion is all too typical of furreners telling us what is wrong with us, you try to lecture Americans from the UK.

Contrary to what you say, this has nothing to do with giving her a "second chance." The whole point of the nonsense piece by Schmalz is that she is terminally ill and that there is some sort of compassion in letting her die somewhere other than in prison. The point is that it is perceived to be compassionate to let her die outside home - presumably coming from the false notion that she has a place or home outside prison. It's just rubbish.

Then you conflate that nonsense with something to do with President Bush.

Well, Mr. Anon from UK with no written Constitution, we fought people like your ancestors to establish our written Constitution. And it says that GWB is President until January 20, 2009 unless impeached or otherwise incapable of serving.

50% of the country (Democrats) probably would happily see him gone, and 86% or so think the country is on the wrong track. 73% don't support his policies. I'd be willing to bet that about the same number, 27% support letting Adkins out as support GWB's policies. Yet, we don't make decisions that way in this country.

We have process, law and a government of laws, not of men.

Coming up on July 4, you might not understand that, but it's important to us.

Yet, we can talk about these type of issues because ultimately, it is the discourse that may or may not bring about change that we as a people wish to effect.

Please go tell Gordon Brown how to run the UK instead of pontificating here.

I would guess that those numbers

Sharon Atkins should die in prison. She should have been put to death, and has received "mercy" in that her sentence was commuted. Neither time served nor sickness unto death should obscure the brutality of her crime. While I believe that should she ask Christ for forgiveness, her sins are forgiven, that does not negate the penance required on Earth (and perhaps in Heaven) for the hideous crimes she reveled in.

Perhaps the only way Susan Atkins will ever understand forgiveness is to NOT be forgiven; to understand the concept of mercy by denying it to her...A killer's ill? Dying? Give them care and sustenance and that's IT. Roger

I do not understand why you hold your people to such different standards? You turn a blind eye to the people responsible for leading you into a irresponsible war which has led to massive killings and disfigurements on a scale far greater than Manson and his followers ever committed... and yet you continue to allow them to remain in the most powerful positions in the US without any form of punishment. Why can't you hold your leaders to be equally accountable as Susan Atkins? If you want "justice", you should apply it equally to all of your citizens.

Isn't hearing God telling her her sins have been forgiven, and her 'quite sophisticated, and self-conscious, articulation of Christian understandings of grace as “God’s unmerited love”' just a little too sophisticatedly self-serving? The Big Guy upstairs has cleaned the slate for her, so there's no need to feel any uncomfortable guilt.

What I don't see the author mentioning coming up in his correspondence with Atkins is anything about remorse or atonement.

So is it good social policy to let an unrepentant killer out of prison simply because she's learned to talk some Christian talk?

Correction: justly allow someone...

Why is it so many American's confuse justice with vengeance? This woman was young and impressionable when she committed her crime. Yes, it was horrid. Yes, she deserved to be punished. But, why can you people not learn to forgive and move beyond and justly someone a second chance?

If faith helped Adkins face herself, and she didn't take her own life, then she was spared twice from death. That's fitting. But mercy to prove how wonderful we are in our mercy would be something small. Marcy has to be, in part, unconditional, when we recognize another's humanity, and yes, in part, conditional, subject to whether we are fools for granting it.

This is just too funny to be true.
From the dictionary:

schmaltz also schmalz (shmälts)
n.
1. Informal
a. Excessively sentimental art or music.
b. Maudlin sentimentality.
2. Liquid fat, especially chicken fat.

So, we have someone named Schmalz writing a maudling piece of sentimental nonsense that is essentially liquid fat, yeah maybe even chicken fat.

He writes: "Besides, crimes like the Tate-LaBianca killings are so heinous that they can never be “redeemed” even by radical personal change. But mercy does have social relevance in that it admits the fundamentally limited nature of any human moral calculus.

Developing a way of talking about forgiveness also has social import if for no other reason than America has always been more comfortable talking about retribution. The decision in the Susan Atkins case appropriately belongs to relatives of the victims and the State of California. My plea is for a well-articulated decision that transforms discussion of the Manson family murders into a serious consideration of our own often conflicted relationship to justice and mercy."

What complete circular gobbledygook! If the crimes can never be redeemed, then what the heck is this all about? As someone else asked, what has any of this got to do with religion?

And what do we make of the sentence: "But mercy does have social relevance in that it admits the fundamentally limited nature of any human moral calculus."?? Well, Schmalz is just liquid fat. The great bard said it more sweetly: The quality of mercy is not strained. It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath. It is twice blest. It blesseth him that gives and him that takes."

In contrast, we have schmalz -- liquid fat gobbledygook.

If the decision belongs to the victims and the state of California, why is a schmalzy plea from this nitwit?

This is not about mercy or compassion at all. A life sentence means life ... or does it? If a person is sentenced to life in prison, then one day, we shall expect, shall we not, that the person will die in prison? And of what cause will she die? Will it be age, disease, illness, or something else?

The correct answer is that if an inmate is ill, she should be treated - as anyone else would be. If I live outside prison and am terminally ill, I get treatment. I don't get any other consideration.

Basically Schmalz is confusing schmalz with compassion and logic. Nitwit!

Ms. Atkins has already been granted mercy. The California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Anderson effectively commuted all death sentences handed down prior to 1972, including Atkin's, to life imprisonment.

Without the benefit of that merciful act, Ms. Atkins would not have lived long enough to die of the natural disease process that will apparently take her life.

Why is there this presumed nexus between religious belief and rehabilitation?

As a christian, I understand the concepts of mercy and forgiveness. And I hope that the victims families have forgiven the perpatrators of this crime, as that is required for entrance into heaven. But I don't think that letting Ms. Atkins out of prison due to illness or anything else is appropriate. Being terminally ill is hard, no matter where you reside. But the very Bible she reads tells us that there are punishments for crime. Saying "I'm sorry", doesn't always cut it. Ms. Atkins is not the first person to commit a crime, get saved in prison, only to die there. And hopefully she won't be the last. No real Christian wants to see people go to hell. I hope that Ms. Atkins has a peaceful end to her life, but she is where she is supposed to be.

I do not believe she deserves mercy since her crimes were just too horrible.

You have to stop and think though. What separates her murderous rage from all the other murderous rages of Muslims, Christians and other religions? Just the leader? Funny, why does this god let us murder in his name? If he was going to talk to her, why not BEFORE she committed her crimes?

The answer is obvious to anyone who really thinks with an open mind about religion. If there is a god (and if we are going to assume there is one, why not many), he/she/it/they do not care much about us tiny specs of cosmic dust.

It's difficult to decide about this without some detailing about what percentage of other convicted murderers gain early release because of their illness and nearing death.

Many of the response about this topic are based solely on hate and revenge and other twisted thinking ... such as whether she had shown mercy for those she killed.

In other words, just because she didn't ... society shoudn't either? That's more twisted than her original thought process.

Sadly, the decision will come down to politics, not mercy or kindness. In other words, can the decision-maker(s) take the political "heat" that would come with such a release.

It's difficult to decide about this without some detailing about what percentage of other convicted murderers gain early release because of their illness and nearing death.

Many of the response about this topic are based solely on hate and revenge and other twisted thinking ... such as whether she had shown mercy for those she killed.

In other words, just because she didn't ... society shoudn't either? That's more twisted than her original thought process.

Sadly, the decision will come down to politics, not mercy or kindness. In other words, can the decision-maker(s) take the political "heat" that would come with such a release.

The only way she should be released is to be sent to Oregon where she can have a physician-assisted suicide. As Elizabeth Taylor (in the role of Cleopatra) said, "I forgive you. Now drink the cup."

Ms. Atkins may believe that she has earned divine forgivenss and has paid for her heinous acts.

None of that matters. She was a willing participant in the bestial torture and slaughter of innocent victims, and regardless of the time that has elapsed, her guilt can never be diminshed.

She may feel entitled to sympathy and mercy. Nonetheless, people in hell want ice water too.

Let her finish her sentence, as she owes that to those whose lives she so brutally ended.

Ms. Atkins may believe that she has earned divine forgivenss and has paid for her heinous acts.

None of that matters. She was a willing participant in the bestial torture and slaughter of innocents victims, and regardless of the time that has elapsed, her guilt can never be diminshed.

She may feel entitled to sympathy and mercy. Nonetheless, people in hell want ice water too.

Let her finish her sentence, as she owes that to those whose lives she so brutally ended.

Google Image Sharon Tate and tell me that someone who could do what Atkins did deserves any sort of mercy.

She already got off easy. She should have been executed years ago.

Find out which is the cheaper option and pick it

She showed no mercy for her victims. I don't see why she should be entitled to mercy.

Who cares.

You asked for comments, so I thought I’d put some conclusions down that I have drawn form over 65 plus years of living and thinking:

It appears that humans are beings with an inordinately strong need to aggregate, to belong. Given that we are born without claw, keen sense of smell or hearing, tough exterior, or extreme reflexes, intelligent collective cooperation seems to have become our primary survival skill. Collective cooperation requires us to live and work with one another in social structures with minimum friction.

Humans appear to be comprised of opposites – of good and evil. We are born with the full capability to express both. As we become socialized we learn “acceptable” behavior, behavior that allows us to aggregate peacefully – the basis for our social norms, our morays and our laws. Having free will, it is our choice to decide exactly how we are going to act, which side we will express – good or evil, and to what extent we are willing to accept the responsibility of the consequences of our actions i.e. how socialized are we willing to be?

A few of our companions on this journey appear to lack the ability to internalize social convention and do not feel compelled to obey our laws or act within the framework of our social norms or morays. These individuals have been classified as sociopaths or psychopaths (collectively: psychopaths). Once their disruptive behavior appears, we actively remove them from society to prevent further disorder. Our very existence depends upon it.

Removal may take several forms: limited incarceration, life in prison or death. Either one effectively retains the social harmony and protects the other individuals within the social group.

You said: “In 1974, Susan Atkins claimed that she heard God’s audible voice saying that her sins had been forgiven. Since then, Susan Atkins has led an exemplary life in prison.” I would ask: did she refuse personal forgiveness but instead ask that God’s mercy be shown her victims? Has she truly expressed remorse or acknowledged that she was responsible for her murderous acts and the resulting consequences? Or is she simply insisting that she has had auditor hallucinations combined with an ego tripping claim to have been singled out vocally for forgiveness by God. Has she truly changed? Given the presence of hallucinations, ego centric claims and total absolution of responsibility, I suspect not. But at 65 plus I have learned that I can be very wrong and am surprised daily.

Susan Atkins is rare – a female sociopath or psychopath; but a sociopath/psychopath never the less and can not change. She can be convincing but change is no more possible than an eyeless person suddenly being able to see.

The question of release is not a matter of mercy; it is a matter of social harmony and protection. If it is mercy you want, forgive her on your own – that is merciful, that is Christian. But do not release her with all the attendant risks and problems just to “show mercy”. Remember, she has clearly demonstrated that she can and did kill wantonly – for pleasure – and, in all probability will do so again if the opportunity arises.

So now she has a terminal illness and the question becomes does she deserve mercy? Perhaps no more than all of the other folks who are dying in prisons – incidentally they all are; its called life. We all die someplace.

OK, so someone wants to show her mercy (as they define it). Are they willing to step forward, accept Susan into their homes to live with their families and be responsible for the extensive, unpleasant, expensive palliative care she will need as she becomes increasingly incapacitated? Remember, she will have no income, no social security, no MEDICARE and may, by now, be institutionalized – unable to be comfortable outside of prison. Or do they expect to just feel good for a while then abandon her to deal in society as best she can?

And, if she has not truly repented, is this person willing to possibly be terrorized within their own homes? Psychopaths excel in head games – they love it. And what happens if she decides to kill again? Will that same person (if they are not the victim) be willing to accept responsibility for their misguided decision and serve the life sentence for her instead?

Keep her isolated. That is far more merciful towards her, society and the family of her next thrill . . . just thoughts.

Ms. Adkins was not sent to jail by God, but by a judge, a representative of society. Society has determined that Ms. Adkins should spend the rest of her life in jail, away from society for her terrible crimes. Finding God is fairly easy, if you believe the Bible, because it says that God is everywhere, even in jail. But in this context God is irrelevant, since men sent her to jail. So suck it up, Ms. Adkins. You have lived a life on taxpayers mercy and we are mercifully willing to let you continue until your sentence is complete. Think about it; free medical care until you die.

"Compassionate release" has piqued my curiosity. It's not a pardon or a straight parole, and it's not a "commutation" (though the sentence remains in place, as is does for Scooter Libby). It came into being quite recently--with the rise of the AIDS epidemic. As currently processed, it almost never takes effect: the procedure itself is cumbersome, taking at least six months to effect, at which point the applicant is almost always dead. It apparently started as a reward for prisoners sharing information not to be otherwise gained (more effective, it seems, than the practice of "waterboarding").

So how does this help our discussion?

"Compassionate release" is indeed an act of judicial or penal mercy for terminally ill prisoners, and for folks circulating in their immediate vicinity--guards, fellow-prisoners and such, for whom the agony of the dying prisoner is especially distressing.

Quite apart from the notoriety of Ms. Atkins' case, then, her petition contributes to a broader movement seeking to improve our prison conditions in general.

This movement matters: our prison populations are growing exponentially, and we haven't maintained the minimal standards of care. We are degrading our own people, and even if we think they deserve this--not so long ago, after all, an African-American was accounted 3/5ths of a person--the social costs are incalculable.

Which brings us to a closing word about "mercy": It's not just a theological value, it's an attitude or perspective, a way of thinking outside the box, a kind of discipline. Mercy can only be learned, and it isn't easy to learn. And since I haven't really learned it myself--call me a rank beginner in the practice of that art--I wouldn't presume to "teach" it, only to start some homework in the subject

Response to comment by "what"

Atkins and Charles Manson were not given a sentence of life without parole. They were sentenced to death. Unfortunately, CA's death penalty law was declared unconstitutional, so their sentence was switched to life, not life without parole or life and never get out, but just plain life. Which explains why every few years these scum bags come before a board a apply for parole/release. Poor Sharon Tate's mother has to show up and argue why they should not be released. Fortunately, CA has a death penalty law now.

Absolutely

Bush can order the murder of a million of Iraqis and he still is president and gets $500.000 a year and yet we are concerned about two or three wrongful murders. what hypotcriscy. russ

Mercy is what she did not give to Sharon Tate.

none for Ms. Atkins

She does not deserve any mercy. She showed no mercy in killing Sharon Tate and her unborn child and showed no remorse for doing so. Charles Manson and Susan Atkins are poster kids for what is right about capital punishment.

Let her die in prison. That's where she belongs. If she wants forgiveness let God deal with her.

Susan Atkins can be provided the care needed if indeed she is terminally ill, in prison. Given the her behaviour during trial, she thought all this a big joke, the victims and their families need to be remembered even after almost 40 years.

Our lives are products of choices we make and Susan made a very bad choice. All adult behaviour is deliberate.

Mike D wrote: "I've never heard of a crime I can't imagine committing myself." -- Goethe. Me neither. Amen."

So, Mike D., you've imagined gleefully stabbing a pregnant woman over and over?

Hope your anti-American rant means you are in Europe, or worse. Stay there. This is a great college study. Most folks would grade it a "no brainer."

Many have found God in jail or prison and we are not opening the doors to let them out.

reconciling religious concepts such as grace and forgiveness with any society's justice system is always a difficult intellectual exercise.

I would offer this thought: It is possible for God to forgive (and only God has the power of ultimate forgiveness) and it is concurrently possible for society to ask its members to pay an appropriate penalty for violating its most sacred laws.

In this case "Thou Shalt Not Kill (Murder) has evolved from a Biblican commandment into part of our justice system. Whether by the standards of her newfound God or of members of the society whose laws she violated, Ms. Atkins is entitled to ask for forgiveness and both of her judges are entitled to respond as they see fit. One is not a prerquisite for the other and Ms. Atkins should expect to be judged by two diffenent standards, religious and secular.

Chris,
Nobody to my knowledge has suggested that Atkins be put to death. She was given life without parole for a reason. She committed a hideous crime.

She is sick, I am sorry for her suffering, but this does not mean she should get a get out of jail card. If she really has been born again in the biblical sense then she would except her fate and hope she does not end up in hell.

If your a bleeding heart then OK set her free and while we are at it lets take her to the beach so she can kick the sand between her toes and watch a sunset. Hows that for compassion.

NO. NO Mercy for any of Manson's followers, much less for charles manson.
THEY HAD NO MERCY when they tortured their victims till they died! how soon we forget?

As a father, when my child misbehaves I discipline her. It is through my love for her that I help her understand what she did wrong in the hopes that she will learn from her mistakes. When necessary, my love demands that I punish her, through loss of a toy or a privilege, to better assure that she gets it. It is in the suffering, however minor in the case of my daughter, that character is developed. I love her, show her mercy and continue to care for her needs, but I DON’T let her off the hook. This would exhibit a lack of caring for her, not love.

I believe God acts in much the same way. Check the Old Testament for many examples of God showing love for his children and a desire for them to live righteously by encouraging their repentance through suffering. Like it or not, it’s the best medicine.

Give Ms. Atkins love, caring, even forgiveness, but not freedom. God doesn’t obligate us to do that. Let him throw open the prison doors for her like he did for Paul if he so desires.

Plus, if Ms. Atkins has truly found God (and God knows if she has), then she is in the perfect place to continue her repentance, and utilize the good character that she has developed over the years, by spreading the Gospel. Jesus didn’t come to save the righteous but the wicked. What better place to find people to save than in prison.

Of course she does not deserve mercy. Let her rot in jail!

I can accept that even the worst of us deserve forgiveness. I can also accept that this person is at this point in their life no longer a threat to anyone else and has helped many people throughout their life. What for me overrides any thought of releasing them is the belief that some acts once committed condemn the perpetrator to a life separate from the rest of us and therefore this person cannot be allowed to rejoin society. In this case their forgiveness takes the form of the good works they have done while held apart from the rest of us and hopefully this will be enough to grant them some peace as they depart from this existence.

"Atkins has already received considerably more mercy than did her victims."

That's what makes it mercy to let her out, friend. The easier on the sensitivities it is to impart to the perpetrator, the less it is actually "mercy." Mercy is easy to grant to somebody you're not that upset with. Therein lies what separates the men from the boys in practicing spiritual principles, if you'll pardon the gendered expression.

But Americans, utterly uncognizant of the parable of the women caught in adultery ("Let he who is without sin...", or of the forgiven master who turns around and abuses his servant, or simply the old saying about glass houses, love revenge and retribution above all when it comes to justice.

"I've never heard of a crime I can't imagine committing myself." -- Goethe. Me neither. Amen.

As far as this woman being released from prison, this shouldn't even be a discussion. Her crime and hideous and it doesn't matter that she claims to have "found God". Sharon Tate will never walk this earth again and her poor baby never even got a chance to do so. That fact that she has accepted God into her life only means that He forgave her...what about Sharon Tate's family and friends??

Absolutely, the answer should be no. Her terminal disease is karma biting her in the butt!!

I find it sad how much anger there is in these responses. It is also sadly intriguing how the people who are the most incensed by this woman's murder rampage are the most rabid proponents of her being put to death (i.e. murdered).

Murder is murder. Whether the state does it, a soldier does it or a crminal does it.

The anger of these responses and the knee jerk response of "kill the killer" makes me realize how barbaric and brutal this country has become. You people are so cynical you are even bothered by the fact that criminals find God or actually are rehabilitated in prison. Whether Atkins really found God or not, does anyone really think this sick old woman is the same brain-washed cult member she was 40 years ago?

Reading these comments makes me realize something. It is no wonder we have simultaneously more laws AND still more crime than any other country.

Compassion starts at home.

Are we only even considering this because A) this is a white woman; and B) this is a woman that "found God"? I shudder to think of all the black or brown women in prison that truly deserved a moment of mercy or compassion but because they weren't famous (or infamous) or white, no one cared to help. As an atheist, I'm also more than tired of hearing that some psychopath has decided to believe in God, and so we are now expected to accept them as a "good person". The most kind-hearted, moral and ethical people I've ever known weren't religious at all. Would they have to embrace a supernatural or mystical entity just to hoodwink a parole board? Sadly, in this country, probably so. You reap what you sow, right? Susan Atkins slaughtered a pregnant woman and her nearly-to-term fetus. That's the point at which she abandoned any hope for mercy for herself.

First: Her conversion and the mercy given her by God are in God's hands and only He can know the sincerity of her conversion.

Second: God's grace and the legal system of man are two different things. Hence the need to keep church and state separate. God can give her grace, He's God. But man must live by men's law or there'd be chaos. She should not be released. Her forgiveness from God, if true, is mercy enough.

I don't think she should get out early. She should serve her sentence in full.

Most people are "sorry" for something after they've been caught, but that kind of "sorry" is really just being "afraid". In this case, afraid that she'll die in prison after never being let out.

How many people are truly sorry for something if they don't get caught. Maybe their conscience bothers them, but how twisted are you, and how believable is your contrition if you initially stabbed a pregnant woman to death; bragged and laughed about.

An "exemplary life"? Good. All people should live exemplary lives. It's not a ticket out of jail, though. She should have led this exemplary life before she committed gory murder.

She's alive. They feed her. They don't beat her. She's segregated from society is all. Let her stay segregated for her crime. Her unethical, immoral crime.

I have very mixed feelings on this. On one hand I feel like her family deserve to spend with her what time she has left. They did not kill anyone. BUT.... that leads me to the other side of the coin. Didn't Sharon Tate's family (and those of the other victims) deserve to spend time with their loved ones? What to do? What to do?

The only question I have is:

Did sharon Tate ask for mercy?

If so, she didn't get it!

Sorry I had a bad typo. I meant Atkins

I find it so interesting how many murders find God in prison. Tate
what!:

I find it so interesting how many murders find God in prison. Atkins wants to be let out to die in peace at home. She should be glad to die in peace anywhere and her prison cell is as good a place as any. In fact it is her home. Tate is a murder and she inflicted so much pain on her victims. I am glad she has found religion. As one of the commenter's has already pointed out she has already been shown mercy by getting life in and not the death penalty.

I don't believe in God or any other myths.
That Atkins claims to have been forgiven for her sins is an amazing claim. Yeah the almighty stopped everything he was doing that day and decided to give this murderer absolution.
How nice, how convenient of God to make
peace with her.

Now if God could just let me know in some kind of memo or something or better yet drop a line to the Pope maybe I would change my mind.

wants to be let out to die in peace at home. She should be glad to die in peace anywhere and her prison cell is as good a place as any. In fact it is her home. Tate is a murder and she inflicted so much pain on her victims. I am glad she has found religion. As one of the commenter's has already pointed out she has already been shown mercy by getting life in and not the death penalty.

I don't believe in God or any other myths.

Nahh she should die in prison.
And Roman Polansky should be able film it.

I find it so interesting how many murders find God in prison. Tate wants to be let out to die in peace at home. She should be glad to die in peace anywhere and her prison cell is as good a place as any. In fact it is her home. Tate is a murder and she inflicted so much pain on her victims. I am glad she has found religion. As one of the commenter's has already pointed out she has already been shown mercy by getting life in and not the death penalty.

I don't believe in God or any other myths.
That Tate claims to have been forgiven for her sins is an amazing claim. Yeah the almighty stopped everything he was doing that day and decided to give this murderer absolution.
How nice, how convenient of God to make
peace with her.

Now if God could just let me know in some kind of memo or something or better yet drop a line to the Pope maybe I would change my mind.

Nahh she should die in prison.
And Roman Polansky should be able film it.

"Bush is no Christian; he lost his soul to Satan a long time ago. All that "born again" crap is just that - crap - he's shown he has no conscience"
I agree...
Bush has never been a Christian. It is all facade.

Bush is the most evil person I have ever met.

Yes, I met him once, way before he was even the Gov. of Texas.

Yes, I live in Texas.

"What struck me always was her quite sophisticated, and self-conscious, articulation of Christian understandings of grace as “God’s unmerited love."

Perhaps you can illuminate the approximate location of this "unmerited love" while Sharon Tate was dying in terror and agony?

Of what relevance is the locale of Susan Atkins' impending death to those who suffered, and suffer, because of Sharon Tate's actions? Isn't the more relevant question, what is merciful to them?

What a provocative topic. And the fact that Atkins has not denied her guilt, nor introduced the issue of insanity, makes it easier to debate the question on its merits, doesn't it?

My take on this is that her serving out her sentence fulfills a part of the societal contract. On the day of her sentencing, a jury of her peers decided that she had forfeited the privilege of living as a free citizen b/c of her crime.

In addition to the idea of paying her debt to society - and no, thirty-something years in prison is not what was agreed upon, it was a lifetime - there is also the deterrent factor of her sentencing. If just one other life has been saved because a potential killer weighed the crime against the alternative, then Susan Atkins' stay in prison has served, and continues to serve, the American people.

And by the way, I too question whether this topic is a correct or appropriate use of the faith/religious column.

In the horrifying and tragic case of the Manson Family murders, it is beyond ironic that Susan Denise Atkins - one of the most remorseless killers in the Tate-LaBianca slayings - should raise the question of whether she deserves mercy now that she has a terminal illness.

For what it's worth, my answer would be no. More than that, however, it seems to me that another ex-Manson follower, Leslie Van Houten, is the one who probably does deserve mercy and release from confinement. There are several reasons for this, as follows:

1) Van Houten was never even at the Tate residence and did not participate in the most brutal murders there;
2) Forensic evidence and the medical examiner's trial testimony indicate that, in all probability, Van Houten's stabbing of LaBianca was done post-mortem. In other words, she appears not to have inflicted any fatal wounds herself. For this reason, the court specifically did NOT sentence Van Houten to life in prison for her crimes;
3) Van Houten already has served more than 35 years in prison to pay for her misdeeds. In light of the fact that Linda Kasabian, who actually drove the Manson killers to both the Tate and LaBianca residences, was granted immunity and never prosecuted for her involvement in the murders, it seems unjust to continue treating Van Houten so differently for her relatively minor part in the slayings; and
4) Of all the Manson Family followers, Van Houten seems to have done the most to atone for her role in the LaBianca murders. She was among the first to express her sorrow for what she had done. She has earned college degrees, been a model of exemplary behavior as an inmate, and counseled other prisoners to help them through the difficult process of rehabilitation.

Given those considerations, I sincerely hope that Van Houten, not Atkins, is granted parole at some date in the (hopefully) not-too-distant future.

Thanks for letting me comment on an interesting article.

In no way should this murderer be let out of prison.
She doe not deserve compassion, she deserves to die
in prison.

I hope her last thoughts are about the horrible crime she committed and that she dies alone and is buried in an unmarked grave.

Releasing Atkins would be irresponsible. She by her own actions, no matter how long ago they were taken, gave up her right to live in society as a "normal" citizen. That she has experienced a coversion is itself a gift, assuming the conversion isn't a variation on her apparent delusions (and I must say that claiming to have heard the audible voice of God does nothing to convince me that she is not still a sociopath). I would be offended if she were released when thousands of people whose crimes are "victimless" languish behind bars at taxpayer expense because of the failed "war on drugs." Different issue, I know.

No mercy whatsoever.

Let the imaginary god forgive her.

Let her die in her cell.

Mercy has its place, but so does justice. In my opinion, if Susan Atkins had truly repented of her acts, she would be content to die in prison.

Clearly?

Granting mercy absolves the individual from living with difficult choices, and passes resulting consequences onto others. Finding strength from passing on responsibility to another is an understandable mental phenomena, but perhaps we could all become Mr. Atlas practicing on lesser criminals.

I vote no. She was already shown mercy once by not getting a death sentence. If she has truly found God then that should be comfort enough.

I don't know of many crimes worse than brutally killing a pregnant woman, especially in a manner in which death was not immediate but likely prolonged and painful beyond comprehension. Coupled with her horror at what was also happening to her unborn child, I doubt any of us can appreciate the untold suffering she experienced before she and her unborn succumbed to the multiple stabbings.

I'm a Christian but would gladly push the button to exterminate this piece of trash. It's too bad nobody in the prison yard did to her what she did back in '69. Let God be the one who decides if she deserves mercy or not, she'll never get it from me.

I think she should receive the same mercy she showed her victim's.

If she can bring back Sharon, she can get out!

It's good that people from all different sides can talk about the issue and communicate their feelings.
I feel like it's pretty unfair that the parole board is even considering letting Tate be free. Religion has alot to do with it, even though I believe it really shouldn't. If she had converted to say, Islam, would the parole board be jumping to free her? I realize she is ill, however there are many inmates that suffer from AIDS, hepatites, cancer, leukemia, etc. Nothing is done for them, and many of them have committed what I would consider much lesser crimes such as drug possession. This isn't about compassion, this is about politics, this is about a woman, a seemingly Catholic, sick woman, who just wants to go home and die peacefully. Now picture a 350 pound African American man, who is dying of AIDS, and he claims he has converted to Christianity. What are the chances that he would get paroled if he had committed the same crime, and was also 60 years old?
Yeah I didn't think so.

H3LL NO!!!!!

Manson and his killer followers showed no mercy whatsoever to their victims. None should be shown to Susan Atkins who was one of the most vicious murderers in the gang. Let her die in prison, hopfully slowly and painfully.

While we're at it, let's let David Berkowitz out too. After all, he found Jesus in prison.

I am of the belief that only the one you have wronged can forgive you. The ones she wronged are dead.

I see no reason to release her.

No.

Did Her victims get mercy?

For those individuals who would grant Ms. Atkins a compassionate release I must ask, should we not grant a compassionate release then to all terminally ill inmates who are serving a death or life sentence? If not, then why not? The desire to treat Ms. Atkins in a disparate manner than other inmates in a similar situation, notwithstanding her religious conversion which is irrelevant (even though I am a Christian), is objectionable.

"Athena wrote: ... Bush actually mocked her for requesting commutation."

Bush is no Christian; he lost his soul to Satan a long time ago. All that "born again" crap is just that - crap - he's shown he has no conscience.

I'm deeply suspicious of this very disturbed person's "conversion". She found God after only four years of being the most loyal of Manson followers? Please. Her conversion seems equally likely to have been a calculated act to eventually gain her parole, or continued psychotic behavior on her part in substituting God for Manson. Neither are grounds for praise.

She's 60 years old - so what? People are still capable of horrendous deeds at 60. I don't trust her mind, her motives, or her.

She has already been treated with more compassion than any person could ever have expected - she has been treated like a human being for 38 years. Freedom is too far.

Let me try to put this a little more clearly.

The habits of merciful thinking, feeling and acting are not given to us at birth. Rather, In one way or another, they come to us as things to be learned, cultivated, and acquired in a process of growth from beginning to end.

Of course we can always take a pass on this process and its opportunities. I'm personally opposed to taking that pass, because I think that doing so would make me weaker rather than stronger (mercy being a kind of strength, mysterious and hard to describe).

Habits, then, come through practice, through actions responding to given opportunities. Ms. Atkins, for her part, has given us an opportunity to "act" by inviting us, as it were, to endorse or oppose an act by the State of California, something that may, "potentially," either bring harm to us all, or bring us the benefit of reinforcing the habit of mercy. If we give the benefit of the doubt to the potential benefits of Ms. Atkins' release, then her request becomes a kind "gift" in itself--the gift of a challenge not to be lightly dismissed.

By accepting such a "gift," we give ourselves a new lease on our lives--a strong and timely response to the death-blow we felt in the summer of 1969.

It is not that I lack compassion but that I believe individuals must be held responsible for their criminal acts regardless of whether they have experienced a religious conversion or whether they are leading an exemplary life in prison. It is regrettable that Ms. Atkins is terminally ill. However, people serving a life sentence die in prison due to various illnesses or age. Ms. Atkins deserves to fully serve out her sentence which was reduced to life. Ms. Atkins should not be given a compassionate release.

I vote for mercy. Don't let her out.

These crimes were of such a horrific nature no release from prison should ever be considered. At a certain point society has an obligation to say a line has been crossed that cannot be erased--compassion has nothing to do with it. Undoubtedly her end of life medical care received in prison will be superior to what she can expect on the outside.

If it could be determined that Atkins is not a threat to the public, I would not have a problem seeing her released to die. That said, I don't know how anyone could make that sort of determination with any degree of certainty unless she was already substantially incapacitated.

On the subject of mercy, I am surprised to see all of the arguments to withold mercy from Atkins on the basis that she withheld mercy from her victims. To me, that is the worst possible argument for witholding mercy; if mercy is only dispensed to the merciful, then it is not mercy. Moreover, with that as a precondition, virtually no one would ever be granted mercy.

Just a thought.. a lot of legal mumbo jumbo out there now ... you outhouse lawyers who believe in justice for all.. this woman was sentenced to life with a possibility of parole .. and that parole was denied, what, 8 times? So when would she be eligible for parole? And o by the way, is it only because the victims family has responded to the parole most forcefully and has some power in the state of Ca?

Tell me this you bunch of hypocrites, how many murderers have been released on parole in California over the last 30 years? What of the other Manson women who are imprisoned?

Not to say that justice is to be denied, but it does seem to me that the powerful, the rich, the political hacks, the law enforcement, get a tad more justice than the rest of us mere mortals.

The inequality of justice reeks.

"My plea is for a well-articulated decision that transforms discussion of the Manson family murders into a serious consideration of our own often conflicted relationship to justice and mercy."

Save that discussion for the classroom. There is no conflict in our relationship with justice and mercy in this case. Justice is what the people did not get, and mercy is what Atkins got, when relieved of the death sentence. More clear-cut than in a lot of cases.

Just a thought.. a lot of legal mumbo jumbo out there now ... you outhouse lawyers who believe in justice for all.. this woman was sentenced to life with a possibility of parole .. and that parole was denied, what, 8 times? So when would she be eligible for parole? And o by the way, is it only because the victims family has responded to the parole most forcefully and has some power in the state of Ca?

Tell me this you bunch of hypocrites, how many murderers have been released on parole in California over the last 30 years? What of the other Manson women who are imprisoned?

Not to say that justice is to be denied, but it does seem to me that the powerful, the rich, the political hacks, the law enforcement, get a tad more justice than the rest of us mere mortals.

The inequality of justice reeks.

Why do you phrase "justice" and "mercy" as an either/or proposition? I am opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds and believe that the court's commutation of Ms. Atkins death sentence was both merciful and just. I'm having a hard time understanding, however, why she should be released early from this merciful and just sentence because her death is imminent.

Terminal illness or not she needs to serve her sentence. Just because she had found God doesn't excuse her. Let her rest in the knowledge that, if God has forgiven her as she states, her eventual death will release her. Until then, no way - she stays where she is.

It is a shame that anyone must die in prison. It is also a shame that a person would be so deranged as to murder a pregnant woman and write "pig" and other epithets in blood on somebody's home wall.

Keeping Susan Atkins in jail is a no brainer. John Gotti was dying of cancer and we didn't let him out. There are probably millions of convicts dying of cancer or other diseases that we don't let out.
Why are we supposed to feel this special sympathy for Atkins?

Well this person doesn't feel it. There are so many people in this world to feel bad for. She, in my opinion, is not one of them.

If she had truly and sincerely become a Christian, Ms. Atkins would refuse any offer of compassionate release on principle, and and insist that she serve out her full term.

It is a shame that anyone must die in prison. It is also a shame that a person would be so deranged as to murder a pregnant woman and write "pig" and other epithets on somebody's home wall.

Keeping Susan Atkins in jail is a no brainer. John Gotti was dying of cancer and we didn't let him out. There are probably millions of convicts dying of cancer or other diseases that we don't let out.
Why are we supposed to have this special sympathy for Atkins?

Well this person doesn't feel it. There are so many people in this world to feel bad for. She, in my opinion, is not one of them.

It is a shame that anyone must die in prison. It is also a shame that a person would be so deranged as to murder a pregnant woman and write "pig" and other epithets on somebody's home wall.

Keeping Susan Atkins in jail is a no brainer. John Gotti was dying of cancer and we didn't let him out. There are probably millions of convicts dying of cancer or other diseases that we don't let out.
Why are we supposed to have this special sympathy for Atkins?

Well this person doesn't feel it. There are so many people in this world to feel bad for. She, in my opinion, is not one of them.

Does anyone remember Karla Faye Tucker, who was executed by the State of Texas under then-Gov. Bush? She requested a commutation of her sentence to life in prison because she had "found Jesus" behind bars. She became a cause celebre for Fundamentalist Christians everywhere for a few years. Not only was she executed, but Bush actually mocked her for requesting commutation.

Have you ever read the way in which the Manson Family victims were killed? Sharon Tate was killed while begging for the life of her unborn child and calling for her mother. Although Atkins showed no mercy to another human being and a helpless unborn baby, the state of California showed her mercy by giving her life in prison rather than executing her. Susan Atkins is in prison, which is exactly where she belongs in this world and where she should die. God will sort out what happens to Atkins in the next world and that's how it should be.

It is a shame that anyone must die in prison. It is also a shame that a person would be so deranged as to murder a pregnant woman and write "pig" and other epithets on somebody's home wall.

Keeping Susan Atkins in jail is a no brainer. John Gotti was dying of cancer and we didn't let him out. There are probably millions of convicts dying of cancer or other diseases that we don't let out.
Why are we supposed to have this special sympathy for Atkins?

Well this person doesn't feel it. There are so many people in this world to feel bad for. She, in my opinion, is not one of them.

Let's ask Atkins how much mercy she showed Sharon Tate and her unborn child. If Atkins' conversion is real then she must believe there is some other place for her to soul the receive the mercy she and others thinks she deserves.
Terminally ill is a far cry from being murdered. A Life sentence without parole should be just that. She should leave prison only on a gurney.

Here are the relevant questions:
1. Is she apt to kill again?
2. Has she suffered enough for her crime?
3. Have her victims been fairly compensated for her acts.

These are the reasons we incarcerate someone. If any of the answers are "yes," we have good reason to keep her in jail. Unless you accept the effectiveness of the irrational, "mercy" has nothing to do with it. However, do we really accept that the rational is all there is?

I am opposed to the death penalty and think that the alternative to the death penalty is life imprisonment, with no parole for those that commit heineous crimes. I am old enough to remember the Manson trial and how I felt when the details of their gruesome acts were broadcast over the airwaves. I felt then, as I feel now, that they should have to suffer the total consequences of their horrible acts. Now, and until her death, is when she is paying the consequences of her past actions. Susan Atkins can draw upon "God's unmerited love" to give her the strength she needs to get through her suffering, but the law should not be called upon to excuse their actions in any way. Though I am a liberal thinking person, I cannot bring myself to agree that she should be shown leniency. Leniency is a two-edged sword: she could have shown leniency when she and the others were committing their henious acts... and she chose not to... why should the law then be required to do so?

"Atkins told the grand jury that she stabbed Frykowski in the legs and that she held Tate down while Watson stabbed her. She also testified that Tate had pleaded for her life and that of her unborn child, to which Atkins replied, "Woman, I have no mercy for you."

Woman, I have no mercy for you.

Mercy, sure.
Give her an injection and put her out of her misery.

Her "God" gave her a terminal illness and a life sentence. Not a pass.

Ms. Atkins obviously committed an awful and heinous crime, and, while in good health, was a terrible threat to others.

I think there are two questions here: 1. Can she obtain care outside of prison that she can't obtain inside? 2. Is she in sufficiently good condition to hurt someone else, if she were to be released? If there is care that she can only obtain outside of prison, AND if she is not now a threat to anybody, then I would agree to compassionate release--not otherwise.

I have no conficted relationship to justice and mercy. However, if a person is in the process of receiving justice for their misdeeds, they may well be conflicted. Susan Atkins performed multiple acts of lethal cruelty and perversity, at no time expressing remorse or intent to rehabilitate herself. Years later, old and sick, she requests her freedom, to die in peace or comfort. I see no reason why she should be released. She should definitely remain incarcerated.

I have no conficted relationship to justice and mercy. However, if a person is in the process of receiving justice for their misdeeds, they may well be conflicted. Susan Atkins performed multiple acts of lethal cruelty and perversity, at no time expressing remorse or intent to rehabilitate herself. Years later, old and sick, she requests her freedom, to die in peace or comfort. I see no reason why she should be released. She should definitely remain incarcerated.

"The decision in the Susan Atkins case appropriately belongs to relatives of the victims and the State of California."

State of California, yes. Relatives of the victims? No.

Also, there's no room for religion in any discussion of the justice system. The church and the state are still separate in this country.

God dispenses grace and mercy. We administer justice. A person's articulation of the Christian faith is no guide to that person's personal relationship with Jesus. Gimme a break, Ms. Atkins. Just because it's 40 years later doesn't mean your crime was not a hideous mockery of God and humanity. Dying in the relative comfort of jail is better than happened to any of your victims. Forgiving a psychotic is oxymoronic in this world. Speak to God when you see Her. She will grant you mercy and grace.

I say mercy. Give her quality care in her prison.

As a secularist, I uniformly despise calls for leniency based upon religion. If she were, instead, to study at prison and obtain a Ph.D. in philosophy, finding herself reborn as a secular humanist, would there suddenly be calls for her release? I sincerely doubt it.

And, actually, even were I believer, just 'cause God forgives doesn't mean I have to. After all, he/she is theoretically perfect, while I am (by definition) flawed.

Second, she's sick. So? Would her punishment have been less severe if she had killed someone who was terminally ill? I don't know what the state's rules on compassionate release are, but she certainly deserves no special treatment.

Of course she deserves mercy, but not release from jail. I am glad that she was not executed. I don't want to see Charles Mansion executed. And I hope that her conversion to the grace of God is real and that she is sincere in her acceptance of God's Mercy, which I believe is beyond all understanding. I think that anyone has the ability to change and to heal, but that doesn't mean that the responsibility for your past actions changes, and it doesn't mean that society should ever have to take a risk on them again committing a similar crime.

As a secularist, I uniformly despise calls for leniency based upon religion. If she were, instead, to study at prison and obtain a Ph.D. in philosophy, finding herself reborn as a secular humanist, would there suddenly be calls for her release? I sincerely doubt it.

And, actually, even were I believer, just 'cause God forgives doesn't mean I have to. After all, he/she is theoretically perfect, while I am (by definition) flawed.

Second, she's sick. So? Would her punishment have been less severe if she had killed someone who was terminally ill? I don't know what the state's rules on compassionate release are, but she certainly deserves no special treatment.

No. Never.

To quote "One would think that if a person has truly gained the gifts of religion: self-understanding and compassion and a sense of the plight of others, he or she would say, "I've found Jesus/Buddha/Mohammed/Etc. and I'm not a good person and I realize the horror of what I've done and pain I have caused, so I should stay here in jail."

That has got to be the most ludicrous thing I have ever read, and I've read some doozies. Once one converts the primary factor is a sense of forgiveness - recognizing that God forgives us all, for we are all sinners as defined by the Bible and as such are all deserving of condemnation. The very fact of mercy means it is unmerited. However, conversion does not change the desire for our fellow humans to recognize the change within us nor does it obviate the very human desire for freedom, life and liberty. As a Christian I feel that I have been forgiven my sins by the authority and person of God, and as such I must follow His example and advocate the release of this 60 year-old, terminally ill woman who has served nearly forty years for her crime. For those of you who advocate no compassion at all for this woman, remember this: people have been imprisoned unfairly just by being at the right place at the wrong time. This is not Susan Atkins' case, but what if you were one of those people? In your hardness, I would wager that you are blind to the fact that, guilty or not, you would not want to spend ten days in the prison system. I also would bet you would be crying for mercy whether you were guilty or not. As for the respondent who remarked "what else is there to do in prison but be exemplary...? Believe me, there is a helluva lot to do in prison that is far from any activity that could be described as 'exemplary'! Susan Atkins has served decades in prison before she has asked for mercy and is asking to spend what few days she has left on the outside, not wanting to die in prison. I say release her - not parole, but time served.

Yes, I think she should be released because we are a compassionate people. It's also showing we are better ppeople when we act with such feelings.

I believe she should be freed, but only for pragmatic reasons: she is unlikely to kill again, and her confinement comes at a cost to the state. Furthermore, she should not have been imprisoned for so long in the first place: the taking of human lives should not be considered a more serious crime than the taking of, say, the lives of chickens. Humans are more detrimental to the ecosystem than any other species, and therefore should be considered to have the least value.

She is receiving better medical care than I, and I'm a disabled veteran. She was duly convicted by a jury of committing a particularly heinous crime. and is paying her debt to society. While she extended no mercy to her victim, perhaps doing just that will prove to her that the society she once loathed is in fact better than she is. Put her on the street.

Really interesting topic. My knee jerk reaction is “leave her in”, of course, but it does make you think: “Compassionate Release”. I feel this is not so much about her faith or “God’s forgiveness” as it is about our capacity to forgive as a community. Beyond that, it’s also about the value of life and do we value her life more than those she killed?

No one life is more important than another.

She’s being punished for a crime where she felt others deserved to die and she deserved to live. She’s terminally ill and the penal system is caring for her life—giving her life value—while she is being punished. Actually, that’s compassionate care.

As we value death as part of life, she is getting the care she needs in prison to keep her comfortable. In punishment for her actions, does she deserve any advantages beyond what would be given to any of her fellow inmates?

Really interesting topic. My knee jerk reaction is “leave her in”, of course, but it does make you think: “Compassionate Release”. I feel this is not so much about her faith or “God’s forgiveness” as it is about our capacity to forgive as a community. Beyond that, it’s also about the value of life and do we value her life more than those she killed?

No one life is more important than another.

She’s being punished for a crime where she felt others deserved to die and she deserved to live. She’s terminally ill and the penal system is caring for her life—giving her life value—while she is being punished. Actually, that’s compassionate care.

As we value death as part of life, she is getting the care she needs in prison to keep her comfortable. In punishment for her actions, does she deserve any advantages beyond what would be given to any of her fellow inmates?

Dear Mr. Schmalz,
As a physician and humanist, I can understand the call for mercy. However, Ms. Atkins will get whatever medical care she needs while still a prisoner serving a life sentence. That is her fate. And, it is merciful and humane.

She is serving time for a terrible deed. Let's be quite straight --- Sharon Tate was not just pregnant, she was over eight months pregnant. At the end of days, everyone must ask for forgiveness, but they must also accept their fate.

David Z.

I vote for mercy. Let her out.

One powerful argument against the death penalty goes to what we like to think of as our core values, that protecting our freedom, spelled out in the Bill of Rights, is our most sacred obligation. If we believe that then it follows that removing that freedom is the worst punishment we can impose. The death penalty suggests something else. I hope Ms. Atkins continues to live such an exemplary life, in prison.

Mr. Schmalz:

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you fearful of advocating mercy for a repentant murderer who is terminally ill and have been imprisoned for thirty-eight years? I agree that America is comfortable talking about retribution. But I disagree that it has always been so. At one time, America was internationally known for its sense of fairness, forgiveness, and belief in second chances. After all, when the Marshall plan rebuilt Europe, Germany was included in this program, as well as Japan in Asia.

In history, there have been more heinous crimes committed in both America and Europe, though one would be hard put to elaborate a ritualized killing spree more brutal, grisly, and heartless than the Tate-LaBianca murders. But when it comes down to it I believe that the number of murders has higher import than the manner of death. For example Ted Bundy murdered at least 17 people and buried the bodies in his backyard. The loss of 17 lives, regardless of how they were murdered seems of greater moral outrage to me than the murder of three or four people. And how much did notoriety impact the shock of the Manson murders? Sharon Tate was a budding starlet who was married to one of the hottest directors in Hollywood at the time. Abigail Folger was the heiress of a coffee fortune. How did this fame impact our sense of moral outrage? Our moral repugnance should have been a greater factor than outrage if one would consider the manner of death rather than the numbers of death. In any case, I believe Susan Atkins when she says she is a repentant woman. I personally believe in the power of God to forgive and transform; He is not limited to forgiving the less violent and vengeful of crimes. If He has the power to transform lives for the better, than His power is better exampled by the repentance of the brutal as well as the less violent, less heinous perpetrator.

Sure, release her so she can arrange to pay for her medical bills instead of having us pay for them; how better to compound the incarceration?

I agree with Mathew Schmalz, that whether Susan Atkins should be granted a compassionate release from prison should be left to the relatives of the victims of the Tate-LaBianca murders, and the State of California. I was eight years old in 1969, and I remember only too well the news stories of these crimes, and the high drama of the trial that followed. I read "Helter Skelter" in 1976, and I still remember being being struck by the seemingly complete absence of compassion and conscience on the part of the members of the Manson Family. This is not to say that I believe in treating those convicted with the same lack of compassion, because then we are no better than they; rather, such a granting of compassion should be left to those who were most personally affected by these crimes.

Many of the good religious respondents here want revenge, conveniently ignoring (as they are wont to do with biblical teachings that are at odds with their own hatred and mean spiritedness) the biblical passage in Deuteronomy (repeated in Romans) in which their god says that vengeance is his (not theirs).

As a secular humanist, I ask myself what public interest is served by keeping Ms. Atkins in prison. My answer: none. Her continued imprisonment, in the light of her terminal illness, serves only to give smug hypocrites the revenge they seek.

There is no such thing as unmerited mercy; everyone merits mercy. Ms. Atkins' prison sentence allowed for the possibility of of parole. No one is suggesting pardon; we're talking supervised parole of a terminally ill person. This has nothing to do with any crime she committed, no matter how heinous, has nothing to do with justice (which has already been served), has nothing to do with religious conversion. This is nothing more than the mercy that every human deserves and that every true human should demand be granted.

David

Lynn in VA: Great post. Justice requires that a sentence of life imprisonment means life (and death) in prison. Not - "Life in prison until the furor dies down in the press and nobody cares anymore except the victim's family."

BTW - I also think a death sentence should mean a death sentence but I'm okay with agreeing to disagree on that one.

Also, for those of you who think she's going the Hell, she won't. God has infinite mercy and He will forgive anyone whose heart truly changes. But since we're rendering unto Ceaser at the moment, she needs to stay behind bars until she dies. Some here have suggested that her body should be treated disrespectfully but I disagree - such behavior coarsens us. Let's just turn her corpse over to her family for burial like anyone else.

While I realize this web page focuses on faith and religion, faith and religion should have nothing to do with our criminal justice system. Any mercy must be found within human nature without reference to any particular religious sect's teaching since many are in conflict with each other and most claim to be "the way of god". Who's rules could we pick without tramelling the beliefs of others? No, this isn't about her, god, or religion: it's about the safety of the community and the lesson this decision will send to potential killers who reside therin. She was a merciless killer and freeing her would be a risk to the community. It would also send a comforting message to those of like ilk who today live free within it. How can anyone justify the potential damage done by releasing her, even if only to die?

Please stop all this religous fervor...this is a matter of societal conscience. God has nothing to do with it. He gave her life and she chose to waste it along with the lives of the four people she and her cohorts so hideously took on August 8, 1969.

Bury her alive.

This case seems very simple, like many other jailhouse religious conversions.

The individual in question has found "God's unmerited love" and has been amply rewarded by experiencing it.

That has no relevance at all to the question of the individual's incarceration, which should continue until their death.

The individual is able to receive visitors, I'd guess, and thus can earn the support of and interaction with those who would support the individual. That seems ample, considering the circumstances.

I thought the whole purpose of "mercy" was that it is unearned, unmerited; a gift with no preconditions. It is basically forgiveness.

By the way, I'm not advocating that she be released. I don't know enough about her or the case, and psychopaths are very good actors.

My only point is that mercy as a quality should be independent of any merit. Therefore, since she has a terminal illness and that is the reason for the request, other discussion regarding her personal growth is interesting, maybe supportive, but not germane.

I doubt she is a threat to society now.

She deserves the same amount of mercy she showed her victims.

I'm opposed to the death penalty, I think we lock far too many lunatics and addicts up instead of treating them, and believe that this country puts far too many people in jail for sentences that are far too long.

That said: life in prison was a more than fair penalty for this crime. Perhaps if she was hearing Satan when she did it and is talking to God now, she is actually schizophrenic and should have served her time in a mental institution. But that's not the question raised here.

If we want to fight for sensible sentencing laws and if we want to fight to reduce or eliminate use of the death penalty, we MUST recognize that some people need to serve out their full life terms. Society needs to have faith that the worst of the worst will never walk the streets again. Every time we release one of these notorious criminals, we give ammunition to the hardliners who argue that the death penalty is the only solution - and to those who push for harsh mandatory sentencing laws.

If she needs hospitalization, send her to a prison hospital. If she's nuts, send her to a locked mental word. But, we can not - and must not - let society and the families of her victims down by releasing her. Mercy is in short supply in America's prisons. Let's use what mercy society can muster to address the very real problem of unreasonable sentences and unbearable conditions.

Mr. Schmalz wrote: "The issue is that few of us really believe that such change is possible. Besides, crimes like the Tate-LaBianca killings are so heinous that they can never be “redeemed” even by radical personal change."

You are right. Too few of us in the United States believe that such change is possible. Even many of us who call ourselves Christians. And that lack of belief has caused much pain and heartache for many. And you are also right that we cannot redeem ourselves through anything that we try to do on our own. But, thanks be to God, that is not the end of the story!

Here is what Jesus says about the hope of change in Him: "It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance." Luke 5:16-36. "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God DID; sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin." Romans 8:1-3. "For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons and daughters by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" Romans 8:15

And here is what He says about how those who have been so changed must react to others:

"You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says 'You fool' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." Matthew 5:21-22. "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons and daughters of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. Be merciful, as your Father is merciful (to you)." Luke 6:35-36.

The fact that she now believes in ghosts doesn't give her a pass. She should spend the rest of her life in jail.

1. The question should not be: does she deserve mercy? The question should be: does she deserve parole? As others have mentioned, mercy is unmerited but parole is not.
2. Parole should not be based upon religious beliefs. It should be based upon good character. Good character is a virtue attainable by both the religious and the secular. Secular people may have better character than the religious.
3. I am not impressed with Ms. Atkins “quite sophisticated, and self-conscious, articulation of Christian understandings of grace as “God’s unmerited love.”.” There are many people who can profoundly discuss intricacies of theology including dialectic between justice and grace; without practicing it. What makes us think that knowledge or intelligence equals virtue? The difficulty is the more know and intelligence leads too more convincing our self-deception.
4. Some have said that forgiveness is God’s job and not ours. This sentiment is out of keeping with the Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. Old Testament) and the Greek Testament (a.k.a. New Testament). Both call upon God’s servants to imitate God’s mercy and practice forgiveness. In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus says, ‘Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.”
5. Blaire Scott stated,
So much talk about 'model behavior' in prison. What else is a criminal to do other than lead a 'model life' when behind bars?
I have worked in prisons for 6 years. I and all of the guards at the prisons with which I am familiar agree that there are other things for prisoners to do than to lead a model life while behind bars.
6. A larger question worth considering is: can people change their characters over the course of time? I believe people can and some have.

Peace,
Rip

First of all, does anyone know what the law is in California regarding granting compassionate release to a terminal convict serving a life sentence? Is solely the the responsibility of the governor, the parole board, etc? On a more practical level, if she was released where would she go? Does she have any family that would care for her?

Secondly, I am surprised by the degree of vindictiveness in the posts by self-described Christians. I don't think I'm qualified to judge her or any other wrong doer. That's God's responsibility, not mine.

here's the rub for Christians: Christ's message is a truly radical one that demands mercy - even so-called unmerited mercy.

I'm curious about Schmalz's use of this term. If it's merited, it's hardly mercy. then it's justice. Christ suggested that we bless those who curse us, not those who beg for our forgiveness. It should be simple for a Christian to forgive those who ask for forgiveness, no matter what their crime, considering Christ demands something far more extreme: forgiveness and mercy to the unrepentant.

Christians in the US still, by and large, are hung up on justice in a very un-Christ-like way.

Life imprison means exactly that.

It's very interesting that they always say, "I've found Jesus/Buddha/Mohmammed/Etc. and I'm now a good person so I should get out of jail."

One would think that if a person has truly gained the gifts of religion: self-understanding and compassion and a sense of the plight of others, he or she would say, "I've found Jesus/Buddha/Mohammed/Etc. and I'm not a good person and I realize the horror of what I've done and pain I have caused, so I should stay here in jail."

But it never works out like that, does it? Funny that the author never bothered to consider that.

Susan Denise Atkins deserves exactly as much mercy as she showed her victims.

Mercy is not ours to offer. It is God and God alone who shall see fit to offer mercy at the time of our physical death. It is society' responsibility to uphold the physical law. It is Ms. Atkins responsibility to accept and live out her pennance especially since she so wantonly offered no mercy to her victims. It seems to me she still does not care to accept full responsibility. This is not a Christian, rather, a wolf hiding in sheeps clothing.

Atkins committed a horrific crime and gave no mercy and has no remorse. She should die in prison and be buried in an unmarked grave.

Mercy: Move her to a minimum security prison with a hospital.

Let her live on the PRISON farm until she dies behind bars.

Religious conversion does NOT erase a heinous murder.

I can not even believe they would even consider letting that women out. She showed no compassion when she was in court laughing and bragging about killing Sharon Tate and her baby. I don't care if she found God, Jesus and all the Saints she should never get out of prison except in a bodybag.

She deserves the same level of mercy that she showed Sharon Tate: Zero....

I think that Ms. Atkins should be made as comfortable as possible in her final months, but I disagree with any release from prison. She will have eternal freedom after her demise, and that is all that is appropriate for her. She was allowed to live for many years longer than her victims, and her death will not be at anyone else's hand.

She received mercy when her sentence was changed to life imprisonment.
She does not deserve to leave - that she has found a way to "get right" with God is commendable.
But where was her moral compass when she commited murder?
Where was her moral compass when she behaved so horribly during her trial?
She is the recipient of health care which not everyone on the outside even has.

She has received mercy.

A few questions:

Would she gain from her release? More concretely, what is her illness, and where can it best be treated? If it calls for drastic therapy, would she be strong enough to survive? If she did so, would she be strong enough to live a healthy life thereafter on the outside?

Would we gain from her release? Would it allow her to help other people? Would her continued imprisonment keep her from doing so?

Would her release enable us to become more merciful? If so, and if the risk of recidivism is realistically slight, should we give ourselves the chance to benefit from that opportunity?

Mercy's hard to come by. It's a learning process, and I'm a slow learner. I don't look for ways to be merciful, I cherish resentments, and find it hard to overcome certain fears. If her release would help me improve on this score, why shouldn't I want us to risk it?

And what does Roman Polanski have to say? I'd like to know what he thinks, and wouldn't want to hurt him in any way.

Interesting treatise. Maybe we should revisit the cases involving Ted Kaczynski, Richard Speck, and Jeffrey Dahmer. But then again maybe we should take pause and consider.....

First let's exhange the names of the Manson victims (Tate, LaBianca, etc.), substitute the name Schmalz (your mother, father, siblings, etc.) and tell me again how we need to review our discussion of justice and mercy.

“When she received a death sentence, the verdict seemed particularly appropriate," says this good vindictive "Christian" commentator. "When her punishment was later changed to life imprisonment with possibility parole (sic), it seemed to be a gross distortion of the justice process. If there was an example of unmerited mercy in the criminal justice system, surely this was it."

The he says, "mercy does have social relevance in that it admits the fundamentally limited nature of any human moral calculus."

Hmm, "any human moral calculus" is "fundamentally limited," but hell, gas 'em anyway! Commuting a death sentence for an obvious lunatic is "a gross distortion of the justice process."

This guy is a little confused. Who cares if she believes that her particular god has forgiven her. What does society gain by denying a 60-year-old life the "mercy" of dying at home or in a hospice instead of in prison. God save us from the pious!

Practicing mercy, practicing magnanimity, practicing forgiveness has nothing to do with her or any prisoner and everything to do with us. If we practice these virtues consistently we become better people, we create a better world, and the Kingdom of Heaven becomes a little more tangible in this world. God calls us to participate in the unfolding of the Kingdom. This is how we do that.

She should rot in prison for what she did. Doesn't anyone remember this woman! She carved another human up with a knife. WTF!

This is going sound uncompassionate (like so many posts here), but I don’t see that her religious faith or her terminal illness comes into play at all. If her sentence was just, her religion or lack thereof should not have any bearing on it. And anyone sentenced to life in prison is also, de facto, sentenced to death in prison. What difference does the cause of death make?

I agree, why is this subject even up for discussion? It has absolutely Nothing to do with God or Religion!! She will get the medical care she needs in prison, she has been an expense to taxpayers all these years in prison, why bring about an added burden to hospices, hospital, nursing homes, or any other facilities in having to care for her - as a Free Terminally Ill Person - when there are so many other good and decent people in need of those same facilities!!

Let her stay where she is - Life in prison!! That was her sentence. It never ceases to amaze me how criminals are always able to find GOD in prison. It GOD a criminal too?!! Such nonesense. The perfect emotional and psychological escape for the wrongdoers who are being punished. Just the perfect escape in my opinion. If you are wallowing and so brainwashed about God on a daily basis, how can you even have the time to stop and dwell on all your wrongdoing. You don't bother because you have the escape of being 'Born Again' and is now able to talk with God every day. You don't have to have it touch your conscience because you don't have one! No worries, because you now have God to lean on and hand over all your worries!! What a perfect escape in facing your wrongdoing! I personally believe that the majority of prisoners eventually forget about the crimes they have committed, and simply get on with life in prison on a day to day basis. They are able to do that by leaning on Jesus and talking and walking with God in prison. Nevermind the loved ones forever affected by their criminal behavior. They now have God to escape with and talk with daily.

Her very last breath should be in prison. Not even a subject for further discussion in my opinion.

Not only should she be kept in prison until she dies, but her corpse should be tossed out with the garbage.

Not only should she be kept in prison until she dies, but her corpse should be tossed out with the garbage.

I wonder why, at this stage, after having served 39 years behind bars, and being terminally ill, she should be let her out now? I think her parole should be denied and she can then go quietly into that dark, hot netherworld, which is not Heaven!

Life in prison means just that. She should die in prison. She was given mercy when she received life in prison vs. the death penalty.

I find it ironic that they are even considering a mercy release. I belive forgiveness is between her and our maker. Every one finds religion in prison. She showed absolutely no mercy for the people she killed but yet she wants mercy from society? And the fact that its even being considered is just too much. I find that very ironic.

Hell no!

"But mercy does have social relevance in that it admits the fundamentally limited nature of any human moral calculus."
-----------------------------------

The only moral calculus we have is human- certainly from the athiest and humanist perspectives, but also for "believers," as well - as humans decide even whether to follow or not follow the alleged moral calculus of a supreme being. So, while human morality is necessarily limited by the limitations of our brains, it nonetheless occurs in our brains out of necessity. Hoping for some sort of perfect non-human moral calculus is futile.

let her out and let her live in montgomery county, md...

In my opinion, mercy was shown when Atkins' death sentence was changed to life in prison. Far more than any of their victims were shown. Not to mentioned all the grief, saddness and loss the victims' families have had to live with all these years. She is in prison, terminally ill, why does she need to be out of prison? She is going to die whether she is in prison or at home. Why not have her sentencing have a true meaning as meant by the justice system - life in prison!! Her release would serve no meaningful purpose whatsoever. Why should she feel that she won in the end!!

Let her wandering spirit visit Manson in prison when she's gone.

So much talk about 'model behavior' in prison. What else is a criminal to do other than lead a 'model life' when behind bars? He/she does not have too much of a choice to avoid any other menial punishment while already incarcerated. They learn to make the best of their lives behind bars, so what better way to escape the realities of her participation in such a heinous crime, and to cope emotionally on a day to day basis in prison, than to read up on and find GOD. What a perfect escape from all your wrongdoing? And forgiveness!! That is to say, 'what you did was wrong, but in effect is alright because you are now forgiven.'

I personally belief that religion has no place in this decision of her being released or not. Let the justice system run its course - life in prison should hold its meaning!!

I am absolutely appalled that this is even being discussed in a religious discussion.

This has nothing to do with religion. If she had been a model prisoner for thirty years without having "found God" would this even be discussed?

This has to do with the laws in our country and simple cause and effect. In this country, whether you are a christian, muslim, jew or worship the ants, you are still liable for your actions.

She made the decision to kill innocent people and so needs to accept the retribution of that act - which is life without parole.

At 60 years old and with a terminal illness, she and her lawyers (and possibly this writer) seem to feel that that trumps what she did. She will get appropriate medical care in prison - and be allowed to die in peace. Which is much more merciful than what her victims were allowed.

The issue is NOT mercy, whatever that is.

The issue is whether it makes any practical, legal, moral or other kind of sense to keep a terminally ill, aging prisoner in jail.

I would say no. It protects nobody. It vindicates nothing. It is just us being ruled by fear and spite, rather than our best instincts.

Forsake vengeance - that is the teaching of the Old Testament (God vs. Cain) and the New (turn the other cheek). I wouldn't recommend it in every case, but it's a good idea when no harm can come of it.

It seems just to show her all the mercy she showed those she gleefully stabbed to death.

"I agree that if we want to be good Christians about it, we should forgive her. However, we are also Citizens of a State. As such, we must "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's". Criminal Justice is Ceaser's - religious sentiment has no place in the courtroom."

I agree with you there. But, if the law of the land allows a person to petition the justice system for a compassion release and that person reflects that in their action, then why not?

I absolutely agree with zzim and inthemiddle.

Susan Atkins should serve out her sentence. Life in prison is life in prison. Illness is not a mitigating factor. Illness happens to the good as well as the evil. Further, “change” for Susan Atkins does not “change” anything for Sharon Tate, her child, or the LaBiancas—Atkins’ conversion to Christianity does not bring life back to her victims.

Much to my surprise, I find here a very strong consensus for change. I agree with the crowd, she should stay in prison. The acts of violence she committed ultimately resulted in a life sentence. That means you live AND die in prison. No mercy was shown to her victims. I have heard nothing of her own demonstration of remorse. Were it not for the dubious fame she holds, none of us would have heard a thing about this.

Should we treat this person humanely as her illness progresses? Should we treat her illness and address her physical pain? Certainly. Should we let her out so she can die a free woman? Absolutely not

The crime was Horrendous, should the State of California show mercy? As Californian i thnk not.
She was not given the dealth penalty, mercy was given!

Forgiveness does not mean lack of consequences. It’s all well and good that Susan Atkins has been forgiven by God and perhaps she has been forgiven by some men (and women). That fact, however, is irrelevant to whether or not she should be given a compassionate release. Although we give a nod and a wink to the supposition that part of the purpose of prison time is for rehabilitation, the true purpose is punishment and to protect society at large from people who can not, or will not control themselves. Although Ms. Atkins appears to be rehabilitated, and is most likely not a continuing threat to society, if she has not paid her debt to society, as judged by the justice system, she should not be allowed to leave prison early. There must be consequences to our actions and the fact that she has developed a terminal illness should have no part in the decision to release her from prison.

Evil acts are done, but it is catholic belief that
it is the positive participation in evil which will damm someone-they have to choose to be evil.
Only then are they not, in judgement , saved. I do not understand the connection between civil law and evaluations of godness.
the civil is a way of ordering a society, order is needed. one can perform as a citizen and yet participate in evil, a much different state than criminal.
So now to murder, only the 5th commandment in importance [the order is descending ]. Society has no right to suggest its goal is justice, it has no basis in justice [of itself I mean]. thus the question of law is how to keep a crime fom repeating, no punishment etc. Thus mans judgement
must be limited to the practicle. Given this, what harm is there in the so called 'mercy'? [again mercy is outside a society's rhelm, as is justice]
there is no other question, any other is to act like god in judgement. the law is a function a tool, and like reason, have only inklings of realitys assesment, which is the action of grace. man best remain human, death penalty has no purpose, etc. otherwise we go beyond our capacities.

Yes. she should be forgiven and release under supervison.

Individuals do not understand the full meaning of forgiveness. Yes, the crime was terrible and she was punished for that. And can never, ever imagine what the family is dealing with even now after so many years. Look at how they treated Christ Jesus before he died. Jesus was tortured and killed and can you imagine the pain God felt at seeing his son being tortured and killed? But Jesus Christ's death provides us a ramson for us all if we want to take advantage of that provision.

Imagine if God, took note of every transgression we made, well the bible tell us "who could stand" if he did.

If she is asking for forgiveness and she has reflected an humble heart and people could tell by her actions, then yes forgiveness and mercy.

Humans always see things from a human prospective, but the world would be a better place if they see things from Jesus Christ's viewpoint. Then we can truly be Christian=imitator of Christ.

A very nice article. However, I disagree.

People who commit vicious crimes have chosen to be unmerciful. It would be unjust if we showed them mercy in return.

She should not receive Mercy, she should receive Justice. She should die behind bars.

I agree that if we want to be good Christians about it, we should forgive her. However, we are also Citizens of a State. As such, we must "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's". Criminal Justice is Ceaser's - religious sentiment has no place in the courtroom.

Life in prison means just that. She should die in prison.

I'm inclined to say let her rot, given the depravity she so willingly displayed throughout her time in the Manson gang (it is too complimentary to call it a "family"), after her arrest, throughout the trial and sentencing, and her early prison years. But I could see placing her in a hospice in the equivalent of a prison setting, with armed guards, either within the prison health care system or in the community. As others have said, that is mercy if not justice.

I'm inclined to say let her rot, given the depravity she so willingly displayed throughout her time in the Manson gang (it is too complimentary to call it a "family"), after her arrest, throughout the trial and sentencing, and her early prison years. But I could see placing her in a hospice in the equivalent of a prison setting, with armed guards, either within the prison health care system or in the community. As others have said, that is mercy if not justice.

Absolute rubbish and pure nonsense. The incessant invocation of invisible people to satisfy the guilty consciences of people never ceases to amaze.

Ms. Atkins can rot in her final days here, and rot for all eternity.

It's not like she shot a friend in the face during a hunting trip and then covered up the deed.

I agree completely, K. Stephens.

Justice by definition is being morally right, not vengeful. Most of the comments that I have seen by those advocating that she stay in prison have included "let her rot" or similar invectives. That sounds like vengeance to me. There is a level of vindictiveness and malicious intent that characterizes vengeance but that is not present in justice.

Since this is an "on faith" discussion, I think that it is only fair that you brought in Christ's compassion. By discussing morality (again, justice by definition is "morally" right), we need to think of whose morality we're judging the case by. American society has long been influenced by Christian principles, and as such, Christian teachings invoke compassion and mercy, especially where it is not merited. For those who urge her further incarceration, arguing eye-for-an-eye teachings, discussing salvation through Christ doesn't fit, since Christ nullified that attitude.

Whether or not Atkins has heard God, and whether or not Manson was a demon should not have any bearing on Atkins' worthiness for release. She meets the conditions set forth for both parole and compassionate release. It is surprising that we even debate releasing Atkins even if society doesn't believe she has changed. The decision does not rightly belong with the victim's families but rather the State of California.

Maybe this space could be better used examining why retribution is such an easy emotion to extol when its most severe forms are carried out in private at midnight with only a few witnesses rather than at high noon in the public square.

She stays in jail..her sentence was LIFE in PRISON...her terminal disease is no different than others who are slowly dying due to old age...LIFE IN PRISON means that you die IN PRISON regardless of the cause of death

She doesn't deserve mercy, but I wouldn't object if she got it -- in jail.

It's not about "punishment", but I wouldn't take any chances letting that hyena out of her cage, even if she's partially incapacitated.

No mercy just rot in hell !

Let her rot where she is, in prison. God will then judge her in the afterlife.

No mercy just rot in hell !

Let her rot. She didn't show any mercy for Sharon Tate or her baby.

Mercy is always unmerited--otherwise it would be justice; and that is the problem that creates such a marvelous tension between the teachings of Christ and the mandates of common sense. In the end, who, but Jesus, could even imagine something as outrageous--and divine--as mercy?

It seems to me that if God revealed himself to Atkins for the first time in prison, she is closest to Him there, and should stay there until she dies. If she is released, she may no longer feel God's presence, and that could jeopardize her chances of being with him in Heaven. In fact, the best thing we could do for Atkins is to go ahead and execute her now while she is still in God's good graces. There's no telling what could happen between now and a natural death. One of those evil voices could talk to her again.

Mercy?! Yeah, right! *insert rolleyes here* She needs to stay put...period.

As soon as her victims come back and forgive her then we will too. She reaps what she sowed and it wasn't compassion.

The murders were brutal. Just prior to leaving the residence, Atkins wrote "Pig" on the front door in Sharon Tate's blood.

She still does not get what she did ... In 2002, Atkins filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming that she is a "political prisoner" due to the repeated denials of her parole requests.

Just go out with some civility Susan and die in prison grateful you were allowed to live this long.

She should be kept in prison. If she has truely converted and is saved she will get out when she dies. Lucky for her she was not put to death years ago as should have been done.

This was presented under "On Faith", and this response in given in that manner.

Justice was given, under the laws of the United States, and then that justice was amended. Now Heaven has spoken. Who am I to argue.

She should be kept in prison. If she has truely converted and is saved she will get out when she dies. Lucky for her she was not put to death years ago as should have been done.

absolutely, positively NO. May she rot right where she is!

I have 3 comments

1) It is the CRIMINAL justice system. I disagree completely with the notion that any decision resides with the relatives of the victims, appropriately or otherwise.

2) I believe the appropriate purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect innocent citizens from the unacceptable behavior of others. I believe makes the decision release her more straitforward, and in some sense easier, because it doesn't require forgiveness nor retribution

3) I believe the hardest decision for any of us is to forgive her. I hope she has found God and believe it is possible.

She should be kept in prison. If she has truely converted and is saved she will get out when she dies. Lucky for her she was not put to death years ago as should have been done.

You can rationalize all you want, but the hurt and pain and suffering that SusanA and CharlesM inflicted on the innocent people (across the nation) can never be assuaged by whatever transformation she claims has taken place. She received justice when they gave the death penalty, and she received mercy when it was commuted. She deserves nothing further. she needs to stay where she is until her time is finally served.

I think it comes down to the reasons behind the prison system that we have. We put people in prison because they are unable to function in our society, because they have broken society's rules. But, there is an inherent optimism that most people are able to be rehabilitated: that is why there are sentencing limits. Granted, not everyone can be rehabilitated and rejoin society, and life in prison makes sense if the offender shows no potential for penance or ability to follow society's laws.
In the case of Susan Atkins, however, the article claims that she has led an exemplary life since 1974. Thirty-four years is a long time to behave admirably, especially when one is in such an atmosphere as prison. It is obvious through her actions that she has indeed repented, and could function in society, particularly since she will not be able to credibly threaten anyone (given her terminal illness).
I think that she should be released and allowed to die in freedom. She has already paid for the murder she committed with her life. She demonstrated a willingness to reform, which is what the prison system is designed to do.

no.

no.

no

Moses was not allowed into the Promised Land for sins he committed against God. God forgave him but still upheld the punishment. You reap what you sew. She should not be set free. Her freedom is in the Grace and Forgiveness shown to her by God.

Yes, for those who say "Show mercy, Let Her Out"
If that's your opinion...take her into your home..that's the christian way. Not so quick to show mercy for the demon now are you???

Would anybody even consider showing "mercy" to Ms. Atkins if the religion she had chosen to espouse was anything other than Christianity? What if she had said she'd "found" Mohammed? Then what?

Why should finding specifically, Christianity, be worth anything in a decision to grant or not grant her wish of leaving prison?

As for her plea for clemency itself, I say, sure. grant her some clemency: Tell her, Susan, you can go free as soon as you can show me Sharon Tate at age 60 with a family and loved ones. But gee. You can't do that, can you? As soon as you can, then come talk to me. In the meantime, continue to rot in prison as you deserve!

Religion is an ideal outlet for sociopaths. For those who can look you in the eye and lie with a smile, it allows superficial redemption and power. Just follow me, give me money, and you'll have eternal life. The only thing that would convince me that she's come around is evidence of empathy; that she has shed tears at the thought of her crime. I wonder if she can imagine the pain that Roman Polanski felt when his wife was murdered? Perhaps what disturbs me most is that some "Christians" could be satisfied with shallow claims of conversion. For many of the faithful, faith is a substitute for the more difficult virtue of compassion.

"My plea is for a well-articulated decision that transforms discussion of the Manson family murders into a serious consideration of our own often conflicted relationship to justice and mercy."

While your goal is honorable, we often over analyze and over articulate the crux of the issue. She took a life in a gruesome manner and then laughed about it like she killed a fire ant. We don't need to over-intellect things here. We could get the finest philosophers and finest and most learned members of academia and learned members of the clergy and the best lawyers and writers and members of the intelligentsia together and -- for one -- we wouldn't have a clear consensus anyway, but we wouldn't find the answer that is any better than the simplest one: leave her in prison till death. She showed no mercy to her victim and her unborn child. She should have no mercy. The fact that she has been "nice" in prison, to me -- and I do intend to pun here -- does not get her a get out of jail free card.

The reason that we find it easier to talk about retribution than we do forgiveness is because retribution is our job and forgiveness is divine. Our job in society is to hand out retribution for unjust acts in a just society. We have to have order or we have chaos.

The fact that Susan Atkins has been "nice" for over 35 years just doesn't stand up next to the moments she wasn't nice. So our retribution has to stand the test of time. I just don't see where we need a discussion on her or even a broader one. In fact, we are a particular violent society heavily armed in myriad ways. Add to that drugs and poverty and you have a volatile cocktail, a perfect storm created for violent acts. Of course not all violent acts are from drugs and poverty. But until we attack the roots causes of crime, such as drugs and poverty, why then do we need an esoteric discussion on forgiveness? We have a long way to go as a society to crack the "root causes" code before we go looking to unlock the forgiveness puzzle. We forgive everyday by releasing dangerous criminals back into society.

The fact that she corresponds with you in an intelligent, thoughtful, and maybe even on a higher spiritual plain doesn't cut the mustard. The bottom line is was and always has been, she deserves to be where she's at and there are no other answers, small or large, other than that.

Ridiculous. Give her a knife and some privacy if she wants her sentence shortened.

Mercy? Hell, no!

Maybe Atkins want to finish someone, who sended Her to prison. No way I will let Her go free. I dont care how great She is in prison. Those people never change. Manson is example. People like Her are the best manipulators.

Sadly, since she was not a productive part of society WE pay for her care whether she is in prison or not. I don't see that releasing her shows compassion or not but it tells others that our society doesn't do what it says it will do. She was sentenced to be executed but but we changed her sentence to life in prison, now we are going to release her because she is terminally ill--this doesn't fly with me. I find it all too convenient that when people get in trouble any kind of trouble they respond by "finding God" and this makes everything OK? Maybe she did maybe she didn't find God but God is not the issue here the issue is that she was punished for something she did, something horrible and WE need to say we are sorry you are sick but this is the consequence for your actions—You Stay Put.

Maybe Atkins want to finish someone, who sended Her to prison. No way I will let Her go free. I dont care how great She is in prison. Those people never change. Manson is example. People like Her are the best manipulators.

If she is terminally ill, don't waste tax payer money treating her, just put her to sleep. That's more compassion than what she showed her victims. I know that might not be practical but she should not be free for whatever reason.

It would be nice to "forgive" Ms. Atkins and let her be released so she can receive treatment at the best hospitals. But I cannot do so. The thought of her various actions in 1969 are too deep. Manson and his gang were not just killing a group of people in the house in Beverly Hills, they were using this as a pretext to cause a race war. So they were going for mass murder. So, I respectfully hope that Ms. Atkins lives out the rest of her days in prison.

Is someone bothering to edit these posts?

"When her punishment was later changed to life imprisonment with possibility parole"

"the demonic influence of Charles Mansion"

Hello? Is the editor on vacation?

If Atkins is behaving in a more civilized manner, I'm glad for it. If Atkins genuinely is repentent and has been given the gift of faith in Jesus Christ, I'm glad for her. If she really is now a Christian, she more than anyone else will understand the need for her to remain imprisoned without parole as a just punishment for her heinous crimes.

As a Christian, I have no doubt that Susan Atkins is forgiven of her sins, however heinous. This is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God so loved the world that He gave His Son to suffer our judgment on the cross. Through faith in Him, our sins are washed away, removed from us "as far as east is from the west." It makes no difference how terrible those sins are. I rejoice that a lost soul has found salvation and eternal life in Jesus Christ.

The laws of our country are another matter. Susan Atkins is responsible for her heinour crimes. In my view, she should not be released from prison.

Personally I don't care how much of an " exemplary life in prison she led" she is in prison for taking not one but two lives. She needs to remain in jail regardless of her terminal illness. There ARE PLENTY of individuals that have terminally ill health. You don't here about them getting mercy, high profile or not. She did the crime she cold bloodly murdered an actress and other murders she took part in she needs to die in jail.

If she gets out than the entire SYSTEM of JUSTICE NEEDS to be re-thought out. and ALL the people who are in prison that have terminal illnesses need to be released from prison.

THATS THE BOTTOM LINE.. .I"M TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT PEOPLE GETTING OFF FOR CRIMES THEY COMMITTED!! SHE IS NO EXCEPTION!!!!

No... beyond a shadow of doubt. Do the crime, you do the time.

No... beyond a shadow of doubt. Do the crime, you do the time.

No Mercy- No early release- silly to even discuss why this woman should be released due to terminal illness- she helped kill in cold blood- her victim was terminally dead. I am sure the prison system will have plenty of health care to take her all the way to her death and she will be in a hospital bed- with people in attendance maybe not family but a prison system that affords her this luxury. The victims of her crime died on the floor of their home- no one to help them or see that they die comfortably with caring people in attendance

Society has already shown her GREAT mercy.

She is showing her ongoing DARKNESS by not appreciating the efforts of those who worked to spare her life by eliminating the death penalty.

THOU SHALL NOT KILL

I believe this 1st Commandment.

I fight against the Death Penalty.

Fighting for LIFE in PRISON means that.
This is her time to PAY - no early release.
LIFE in PRISON .... means you die in your cell.

I'm sure her religious conversion is equally as valid as was Chuck Colson's.

That said, what does her faith have to do with the matter? She committed a crime, disturbing the public peace, and she is reaping the just harvest of her actions. Why should any supposed religious conversion matter? Would you give her more benefit than you would one who rejected God? If so, you would reject the neutral secularism that has so long benefited our country.

I don't know. It doesn't affect me personally and I don't think that releasing her now will hurt society.

However, She already spent most of her life in jail. I really don't know if she deserves to feel freedom before she dies.

ATB and Leah:

Absolutely agree. It would seem to me that anyone who has found religion in prison and claim to be forgiven should be all the more willing to serve out their sentence. They should be more zealous about their punishment now then before. Divine forgiveness is not for the here and now, but for the thereafter.

ATB and Leah:

Absolutely agree. It would seem to me that anyone who has found religion in prison and claim to be forgiven should be all the more willing to serve out their sentence. They should be more zealous about their punishment now then before. Divine forgiveness is not for the here and now, but for the thereafter.

No. Let her rot in jail. There are certain crimes that are unforgivable, premeditated murder is one of them. We live in a free society, but there are consequences to your actions. To let her experience freedom again is a disservice to those who died.

Yes. Let her go. Show her mercy. Forgive.

God is the judge and jury.

No release. Justice, real justice, demands an absolute accounting from her and her cohorts in this most heinous of crimes.

If she's truly terminally ill, then let her out, but for a purely practical reason, having nothing to do with justice or mercy. That way her family - rather than the State of California - has to pay for her last illness and her burial.

Sorry. The horrific nature of this crime does not warrant such compassion and mercy. At least she is still alive. Her family can visit her in prison. If this was my daughter, I would be devistated and absolutely heartbroken- BUT there has to be accountability and justice.

She can be forgiven and still have to carry out the sentence for the unimaginable crime she committed. I don't see how these are mutually exclusive.

Everybody deserves mercy.

Not a prayer's chance. No way, Jose. When hell freezes over. No.

Not a prayer's chance. No way, Jose. When hell freezes over. No.

she has gotten mercy!
she is in a hospital inside of prison where she is given medicine and all the health care she can be provided with.
she is well fed.
she was allowed to go to school and even got married while in prison.
that is mercy enough.
she does not get to go anyplace. she does not get to see a sunset from outside of prison or eat a meal of her choice. that is justice.
she has it better than those she killed.

No

We can choose to forgive Ms. Atkins for her crimes but that forgiveness and mercy need not manifest themselves in the form of early release. Surely Ms. Atkins herself must understand that her love for God and God's love for her have already set her free.

No, simply no. She should serve til her last breath.