RSS Feed
Vengeance and the Case of Susan Atkins
In the end, it was all about the death of Susan Atkins. As expected, the terminally ill convicted murderer was denied compassionate release from prison last week. In a previous piece for On Faith, I argued that, in spite of the sensationalism surrounding the Manson family, mercy for Atkins was a legitimate consideration. (Although I did not prejudge the actual decision.) When the California Board of Parole Hearings announced the unanimous ruling against release, it surely struck many as being just.
For example, the L.A. Times had argued that society has the “obligation to exact vengeance” in the Atkins case, even though the newspaper’s editorial did admit that her long imprisonment had already sent a presumably much needed “deterrent message to any would-be Mansonite.” A similar sentiment in favor of revenge was articulated by Atkins former prison-mate Virginia Graham who parroted Arnold Schwarzenegger’s line as “The Terminator” when she commented, “Hasta La Vista, Baby.” Rhetorical infelicities aside, these views shared an eminently sensible rationale: since death is final, the punishment for causing it should be as well.
The penalty for murder is meant to underscore the sanctity of life. But in times past, the sanctity of life was also affirmed by respecting the sanctity of death. In some parts of medieval Europe, the condemned were offered the opportunity for confession and communion. There were also tales of prisoners reconciling themselves with the crowd and their executioners. Of course, society in the Middle Ages was no less infatuated with vengeance than is our own. But there also was the sense that while just punishment could be inflicted on the body, every effort must be made to save the soul. Accordingly, all individuals deserved the opportunity for a “good death.”
Although “compassionate release” distantly echoes this sensibility, the talk and commentary about Atkins took the connection between death and punishment as axiomatic. The debate about her release resembled the balancing of a ledger sheet, with the social cost of the crime in one column and the monetary expense of incarceration in the other. Of course, the California Board of Parole Hearings did not necessarily deny Atkins a good death—she continues to have medical care and may have visitors. Indeed, from a medieval perspective, public repentance and acceptance of death in prison would have atoning value. But this is a very different understanding of a “good death” than reflected in much of the public discourse surrounding her case—a discourse that has relied upon a punitive algebra when evaluating Atkins’ terminal illness in relation to her crimes and life in prison. Atkins’ sister-in-law observed that compassionate release was not about Atkins’ life, but was instead about her death. In another time, and in another place, perhaps that death would have been understood to have other meanings beyond vengeance.
Mathew N. Schmalz is associate professor of religious studies and Director of the College Honors Program at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass.
By Mathew N. Schmalz |
July 25, 2008; 2:02 PM ET
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: The Emergent Islam I Want |
Next: The Lost Life of Jesus
Posted by: Paganplace | July 28, 2008 2:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Schmaltz:
I remain curious about your obsession with Susan Atkins, murderer of Sharon Tate and her unborn child. Tate, who was eight months pregnant at the time of the slaughter, begged for mercy on behalf of her unborn child. Atkins, who bragged about the killing, recalled her reply: "No mercy."
In the meantime, Roman Polanski, Tate's husband, father of their murdered child, remains in exile.
One is curious as to why you aren't more concerned with this man, whose mother was gassed in Poland, whose father barely survived the Holocaust, whose trial and conviction were questionable to say the least.
Atkins was sentenced to life without benefit of parole, a just sentence. As you say, she is receiving medical care and is permitted visitors. Her "contribution" to this country amounted to a murder so horrific that it remains ingrained in the minds of all those Americans old enough to recall it.
Roman Polanski is old enough to recall it, and he, too, is serving a "life sentence," imposed upon him by the murderer. Unlike Atkins, he has made significant contributions to this culture. Your concern with him, sir?
Posted by: Farnaz | July 27, 2008 2:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Sir, It's about Justice. Her death sir is long over due. As is that Of her cult leader. It has nothing to do with vengeance but establishing that no life is better than any other.
Posted by: Garyd | July 25, 2008 10:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
"he debate about her release resembled the balancing of a ledger sheet, with the social cost of the crime in one column and the monetary expense of incarceration in the other."
Point of fact: it costs the state more to execute someone than to keep them imprisoned for their natural lives. This is part of what's taken on by society.