Manson follower Susan Atkins dies

Source: AP via Huffington Post

LOS ANGELES — Charles Manson follower Susan Atkins, who admitted killing actress Sharon Tate 40 years ago, has died. She was 61.
California Department of Corrections spokeswoman Terry Thornton said Atkins, who suffered from brain cancer, had been in hospice care in recent days. Thornton said Atkins died late Thursday night at a prison hospital in Chowchilla where she had been moved when she became ill.
Early this month, she lost her final bid for parole. She was brought to the parole board on a gurney and slept through most of her parole hearing, rousing toward the end to recite the 23rd Psalm with her husband. Survivors of victims in the notorious Tate-LaBianca murders argued against her release.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20090925/us-manson-follower-obit/

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20090925/us-manson-follower-obit/

I hope her last days were brutal torture.

I hope her last days were full of contrition for her previous acts, and that she found peace from that sorrow.

America is a torture culture first and foremost. People delight in the very idea of it.

1st - in now way do I believe America has any thing like a "Culture of Torture". Its statements like that Freeper Trolls feed on for justification to say DU members are Un-American, or Hate America.

2nd - Americans have long been the Most Giving Nation in the World, Peace Corps, Food Aid, Famine Relief, the Red Cross, the Marshal Plan, ect ect... Time and Time again, countries have depended on the USA for help in times of need and rightfully so. Our generosity to those in need is only out-weight by our stupidity in trusting our elected officials to do the right thing.

3rd - the Torture fest was brought on by the leadership (Mis-Administration) of a Extremely short sighted, "High-Functioning Moron" named George Bush, who played 911 and America as a whole like a "Cheap Violin" to proliferate Cheney's Corporate interest in Iraq. It was a small wonder why the "Lower Tier of the Intellectual Spectrum" gravitated to this guy. His philosophy, character, actions were recognized and appealed to the mentally challenged dimwitts who supported him

Now we have a President who truly does understand the meaning of "High Moral Ground" and is willing to put principles ahead of his personal aspirations for power and wealth. Just as America has had prior Administration who fully understand the "TRUE Meaning of Service" (FDR, JFK,)

"Deny that Bitches"

has long been part of CIA and military culture here.

One of the hardest things people should and hopefully can do for THEMSELVES is forgive. You don't have to. Sometimes you can't. However, the right to redemption is the right of everyone. If she found remorse and sought redemption, that is a good thing.

I'm not commenting about the original Op, but rather the BS filled mis-information reply of the American hating poster

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

As for Freeper - I've been on this board fighting for Democratic pricipals when you were still sucking on your Mama's tit.

You don't come to ANY forum and make claims pretending to be an expert with out the proof

So Prove it - Or SHUT THE FUCK UP

The fact that the U.S. may lead in giving to various charities may be missing the point, that being that people in other advanced, industrialized countries that have universal health care & education may not NEED charities for assistance. The fact that we may be number one in charitable giving may not necessarily be a good thing.

Also, per the article, nearly a third of the charitable donations in the U.S. go to religious organizations that might not do anything other than "spreading the word".

Just the Facts - Bitches

I'll give you a hint: "giving as a percentage of gross domestic product"... is the key term.

I wonder who gives the most based on land mass?

:evilgrin:

A kind way to describe the Repukes Fucking Morans

on any criminal "justice" thread.

This IS a nation full of people condoning and supporting torture, and it goes well beyond the Republican party.

Have we done right by them yet?

stop it from happening. If only Susan Atkins had refused to obey Manson's illegal and unconstitutional orders, probably nothing bad would have occurred during the last 40 years. If only Manson's followers had stood up to him and reasoned with him, he would have turned from the dark side, repented and spent a lifetime serving humanity, most likely receiving two or three Nobel Peace Prizes.
But because of Susan Atkins...oh, I'm sober now, never mind.

Here's the claim you should actually be addressing, rather than inventing ridiculous strawmen:

Abu Ghraib happened because, in our culture, it is considered OK to wish and inflict physical pain on those you perceived to have wronged you.

Now, you can certainly impute some other reason for Abu Ghraib happening, but the second part is, to my mind, indisputable, and very nicely borne out by some of the responses in this thread (the "burn in hell forever" responses being particularly repugnant, but to the point). Feel free to address the actual point whenever you're prepared to stop playing stupid games.

thank you!

:toast:

is the same as doing it yourself.

When the jackass riding your bumper, honking and switching lanes get's pulled over or in to a fender bender you can laugh, without being willing to smash their car yourself.

There are plenty dying of cancer who deserve pity, this woman isn't one.

but why expend the energy to hate?

"I hope her last days were brutal torture."

I can't think of anyone, not even Dick Cheney, toward whom I would direct that much hate.

comes down to two words in the end - Fuck Her.

nah...it doesn't require much thougt to reject hate

it's rationalizing and making petty excuses.

Oh, it's condoning torture for feeling ill will toward Susan.

Gee, how the flying fuck did Sharon Tate feel? Oh, that's right, she's an innocent. They have no place in society. We HAVE to glorify and feel sympathy for the criminals.

Someone needs medication. It sure as hell isn't me. For once.

The end stage usually involves intractable pain through the body as the tumors metastasize in other organs.

Why that makes you feel better is beyond my understanding.

no sympathy must = hate, right?

I agree with you. There IS a line, Susan crossed it, she deserves sympathy from nobody. Except, perhaps, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter. They're sufficiently batshit crazy to make a case in favor of it...

I imagine those were the very same thoughts Ms. Atkins herself had concerning her victim that dark day so many years ago.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other it would seem...

Just my two cents worth. The heinous crimes she was part of should have taken her off the face of this earth long ago.

Just sad that she had to stay alive long enough to cause the pain she is responsible for with that madman.

.

Sorry, dont follow. You are sad she had to stay alive?

Sharon Tate's LIFE was robbed by this Susan creature. And it's like Susan got rewarded.

One less murdering psycho in the world. The state of California showed her far more mercy then she showed her victims.

to Charlie Manson.

Terrible story.

that God forgives. I cannot.

You simply CHOOSE not to forgive.

The families and friends of Rosemary and Leno LaBianca? The family and friends of Sharon Tate? The family and friends of Abigail Folger?

They have something to forgive. The rest of us sit in judgment (or not) of something that did not happen to us, our friends, our family.

As far as Susan Atkins is concerned, she was convicted of a crime and she was sentenced. If I missed anything, I'd be surprised.

as if they were our own personal ones. The families have the right and hopefully will find peace and forgiveness for their own sakes. the rest of us can only spectate.

That's what she did to Tate, wasn't it? If there is reincarnation, I don't want to run into the the savage hyena Atkins will come back as.

A bogus "confession" wouldn't mean she couldn't be otherwise guilty...
its just that the factual basis stated in the story, that she
"admitted killing actress Sharon Tate 40 years ago"

might be technically so but inaccurate reporting for stating a
fact without disclosing that the "confession" is widely regarded
as false.

iow - sloppy and misleading reporting,
which might be an excellent reason for it not to have a reporter's
name attached.

which might have been the first clue to use a different source for the story.
hey!

In fact, Tex Watson almost certainly killed *all* the Tate-Labianca victims. Atkins kept Tate under control while Watkins was chasing down Frykowski and assisting Krenwinkel with Abigail Folger.

Not that it matters much, since Atkins was denied parole, and is now dead.

Of course, that doesn't change Atkins' culpability. But the mythology of Atkins' actions that night is what it is, I guess.

thanks for the clarification.

She certainly helped Bobby Beausoleil kill him. Whether she held the knife immaterial. Holding someone so another can stab them is morally equivalent to wielding the knife yourself.

She should have been killed by the State of California back in the 70's. She should have spent her last moments being thankful that she got all those extra years. It's a lot more than her victims got.

Leno LaBianca was stabbed with a fork, but Atkins was not there, and the act is generally credited to Krenwinkel.

Wasn't alive during the trials, so all I have are dim memories of reading Helter Skelter many years ago. A fork. Brutal stuff.

was certainly already dead by the time he was stabbed in the stomach with a fork.

She got to live out her life and die of natural causes, something she stole from Sharon Tate & her unborn baby. No sympathy when she wanted to live her last few months out of prison and no sympathy now.

That said it all for me then and now.
I hope she suffered from pain and begged for the mercy of death to end it.

Atkins talking big to cellmate, then inflating herself in front of the grand jury.

In one of the most chilling moments of the Manson Family's crime spree was Atkins' account of how the actress pleaded for mercy for her unborn child.

"She asked me to let her baby live," Atkins said at a parole hearing 16 years ago. "I told her I didn't have mercy for her."



http://i.abcnews.com/m/screen?id=8462901&pid=4380645

Susan held down a heavily pregnant woman who begged for the life of her child so that Tex Watson could gut her more easily. She stabbed Sharon Tate. She stabbed Wojciech Frykowski.

She also helped kill Gary Hinman. And who knows who else.

Read the transcripts from her parole hearings.....

Atkins well knew that recanting any detail of her original testimony would be viewed as an attempt to lighten her own culpability, which is the mark of death in any parole hearing, and double mark in any Manson family parole hearing.

??

Mr/Ms Know it all also was in Dallas in 1963 and saw Nixon runing the from the grassy knoll with a shot gun.

:sarcasm: :rofl:

?? :rofl: Because I guarantee you, you would lose.

:rofl:

Least Popular Boy on the Whole Message Board! Waahh.

I'm still waiting to hear your brilliant legal argument backing up your bullshit downthread, by thye way.

She didn't much like her. It was tough duty to deal with the 'Manson Girls' back then. They were hostile and manipulative. Oh, the tales I heard back then...

She admitted that at many of her parole hearings.

and that's not fair

If you did, you wouldn't say anything so silly.

And nothing is what millions of Americans get. I am not defending prison health care. But at least she died in a hospital. Millions of Americans don't have access to affordable hospital care.

And I work 50 hours a week (two part time jobs) pay my taxes and obey the law....yeah she (a murderer) had a better health care plan than me

I guess you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't be calling someone else "silly" from your glass house.

Funny, the Constitution says something about "cruel and unusual punishment". Unless the court has ordered them to be deprived of medical care, to subject them to it is inappropriate.

but I'll tell you right now, if I get a brain cancer, I won't be getting free surgery and treatment like Susan Akins did. I'll get nothing. (Well unless I can pony up hundreds of thousands of dollars out of my own pocket...which I don't have). That's kinda cruel and unusual treatment and I've been a tax paying, law abiding citizen.

It's sad that people who murder and openly confess with all the evidence pointing their way get better treatment than law-abiding people, whose lives are being torn asunder due to someone else's greed.

but similar comments in the obit notices for neocon leaders who participated in mass murder on a scale that makes the manson gang look like a bunch of drugged up hippies are cause for outrage.

Somewhat of a double standard.

Kill five people they call you a murderer

Kill 100,000 they call you a conqueror.

Seems appropriate here

Shoot somebody who's strangling your child, they call you a courageous and loving parent. Shoot somebody who has a wallet full of money that you want, they call you a dangerousl animal.

It's all situational.

Situational, WTF is situational about participating the slaughter of people who are no threat to you. WTF is situational about protecting the life of your child? Those are not situational events, one is evil on it's face, the other is an act of defense. Killing someone in defense of self or others is no way comparable to breaking into someone house and murder them for their property.

I was just going through these posts wondering what I wanted to say, but you had already said it.

Therefore, although you may consider the stabbing of a totally innocent person (and her fetus) in her home the same thing as shooting a uniformed soldier who is in a declared war with our country, most people do not.

That's why you don't see similar posts posted for FDR and others who waged war on behalf of a country.

be it of the innocent or guilty. She should have been put to death way back when.

nt

Former Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi said it was time for the state to show Atkins mercy. He told The Times last month that it was wrong to say "just because Susan Atkins showed no mercy to her victims, we therefore are duty-bound to follow her inhumanity and show no mercy to her."

"She's already paid substantially for her crime, close to 40 years behind bars. She has terminal cancer. The mercy she was asking for is so minuscule. She's about to die. It's not like we're going to see her down at Disneyland," said Bugliosi, who wrote the best-selling book "Helter Skelter."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-susan-atkins3-2009sep03,0,2891748.story

I tend to agree with him...and that is very unusual for me to agree with any prosecutor.

JMHO

Edit for typo

sentence from death to life imprisonment. THAT was merciful. Nothing she did during her incarceration would point to showing her even MORE mercy. Her health care was merciful. God knows she wouldn't have gotten that in Saudi Arabia or China.

that was the resolution of a legal matter and was supposed to be justice, according to the law of the time regarding death penalty statutes.

n/t

because the current state of affairs was unconstitutional.

You're really making a virtue out of necessity here, literally.

Not forced on you.

Period.

Jesus, your argument is dumb.

Keep trying.

On the basis of a whim, rather than a technical point of law? Wow. I'd love to see some evidence for that argument!

:rofl:

court out of mercy. It was done because the death penalty statute was found to be unconstitutional.

He or she also stated that that argument is just "Wrong." Aren't you convinced yet?

legally barred from executing her and MANY others because the death penalty as is was was deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

n/t

one was more after manson and his ilk than Bugliosi. If he said let her go, that carries weight with me.

n/t

Inherent-ness being what it is. Try again with an argument that actually makes sense.

so since I know you will read this, I am just going to say, I'm glad she's dead, and I'm moving on to other issues now.

You can now amuse yourself here at her expense - how merciful you are. :eyes:

And don't bother posting for my benefit - I won't be taking you off ignore.

and you can't support it. You can make up whatever excuse you want, but the bottom line is that your argument is laughable nonsense.

She enjoyed 40 years of life that Sharon Tate did not. At least she is not a danger to others now.

has mentioned Stephen Parent, Jay Sebring, Abigail Folger (heiress, btw, to the Folger coffee fortune), Wojciech Frykowski, Leno Labianca, or Rosemary Labianca. Not to mention Gary Hinman (Atkins was also found guilty of his murder). It almost makes you think that the bile being spewed in this thread has little to do with the actual crimes, and much to do with the celebrity of the case.

Can you just speak plainly? We can take it. You think we are mad because she killed celebrities?

If Atkins had been involved in the murder of Sharon Johnson, she'd have been out in the late-80's, and nobody on this board would give a shit, largely because they wouldn't know fuck all about it.

Who take the time, post-sentencing, to familiarize themselves with the "nobodies" who were victimized in such cases. How dare you. :mad:

Your emoticon is amusing, as is your feigned outrage.

Since your views don't matter or you think this is all just funny stuff.

dietitian.

The honor now passes to Krenwinkel, who was transported from county lock-up a few days after Atkins.

Van Houten was actually out on bond during her second trial in the 1970's.

Needless to say, no other woman committed a crime as grave in California during all of the late 1960's, and the policy on these three particular women has nothing to do with the media coverage of the case. :sarcasm:

I recall having nightmares about her crime and those of the Manson family. As silly as it sounds, her death brings me comfort that a monster has left the land of the living.

The brutality of it haunted me, too. When I visited friends in California back then who didn't lock their doors at night, I lay sleepless plotting my exit strategy should some Mansonites invade the house.

For those old enough to remember and to have lived then, the 8 nurses in Chicago and the Tate-LaBianca murders forced many to rethink opening doors to strangers or leaving any door or window (especially on a first floor) unlocked and, heaven forbid, open.

The assassinations and then mass murders of the 1960s had many of us on edge.

So I agree: "her death brings me comfort that a monster has left the land of the living."

Rather than argue about the justification for her suffering, just look at it as a matter of economics. The state doesn't have to pay for her upkeep anymore.

There was a time when I just hated her guts. But I just feel sorry for her.

But she was able to die peacefully, the people at Cielo Drive and the La Bianca's did not.

So many lives were ruined by Manson and his gang. I read that Winfred Champman the housekeeper for Sharon and Roman who discovered the bodies was never the same mentally after seeing that horror.

I'll be glad when Chuck Manson bites the dust.

the young people he corrupted would have been such murderers if HE hadn't got his filthy hands on them.

That man is the embodiment of evil.

I'll lament that he and his FILTHY followers got life sentences, with more amenities many Americans don't have. They deserved the death penalty.

If they had escaped prison, you bet they would have continued on with their psychotic killings.

I have no qualms about execution of such people.

I've heard different opinions of whether she actually behaved in such a brutal way the way that famous book depicted her. But wonder, after 40 years whether she's ever expressed remorse.

All of the murderers (except Manson) have expressed remorse.

No remorse, no parole. She wanted parole; therefore, she had to express remorse. It's simple, really. They all do, excep the innocent ones, who often don't seek parole since they won't express remorse for a crime they didn't commit.

And then, I am reminded of "Shawshank Redemption" where the Morgan Freeman character just gave up on the parole board when he finally was paroled.

So I've seen several shows that walk you through the parole hearings for various prisoners. It goes back through their crimes, interviews the prisoners, interviews the victims or their families, the whole shabang. Then it shows the actual parole hearing and the board's discussion when the prisoner is out of the room. Then you hear the decision and see the prisoner's reaction. Very interesting. Sometimes very sad. Sometimes the prisoner has clearly changed and all, but....you can't undo what has been done. If you kill someone without mercy, you just can't undo that, no matter how model of a prisoner you may become. Then, too, is the fact that it's easier to be good in prison, where most of your decisions are made for you, than on the outside.

I also saw one or two cases where the person up for parole wouldn't (couldn't) show remorse, because he maintained he didn't do the crime. They never get paroled. It is a given that the prisoner is "guilty," so no one who won't admit the guilt and show remorse would ever be paroled.

your diet after the initial weight loss phase. Sad when some do not listen.

You must be a really good person.

Sometimes the crime is so awful that forgiveness is not possible for some. But forgiveness is ultimately in the hands of the maker (for those who believe in a maker).

As for humans, we rely on a justice system. She served out her punishment, and she was removed from society so that more people would not be harmed by her.

That is all.

because there is no such thing as "hell." Her "hell" was life in prison, and having terminal cancer.

You should give seminars. :eyes:

;-)

"Look, bitch, I don't care a thing about you. You're going to die and there's nothing you can do about it." To cause more suffering, they held off killing Tate until all others were dead, and then stabbed her repeatedly while she called out for her mother.

In the Grand Jury testimony words of Susan Atkins about how she killed Sharon Tate. Not your average person who made a woopsy mistake. Those are the words of a sociopath.

the murderers in the Tate residence were making choices about the order in which they killed people? That flies in the face of everything we know about the scene, and even of the Grand Jury testimony you otherwise claim to believe.

"To cause more suffering, they held off killing Tate until all others were dead..."

Total bullshit. Watson shot Sebring because he objected to the way the girls were tying up Tate. Frykowski, upon seeing this, immediately made a break for it, and had to be chased down and shot on the lawn. While that was happening, Folger also escaped and had to be chased down, this time by Krenwinkel, with Watson joining her after Frykowski was dead. There was no design in killing Tate last. It was a result of the dynamics at the scene. Get some credibility.

This poster knows EVERYTHING about the Tate/La Bianca case and all of you ignorant little worms are wrong!

Make you sure you know your FACT before you DARE question!!!

He/She even knows the brands of milk and cheese (Alpha Beta) that was in the La Bianca's 'fridge that killer ate after the murders.

It was Alpha Beta brand 'O Great one wasn't it? Safeway? Mayfair?

It was parkay. :).

n/t

:rofl:

The previous poster said something false. I'm sorry it offends you that I pointed it out.

I wouldn't claim to know everything about the crime. But I clearly know more than YOU do.

That Sharon was killed last? That she cried out for her mother? Susan said it happened, Tex said it too.

I'm not offended by your little rants. If you LIKE showing your ass and fight with just about everyone in this tread go 'head. Do your duty, girl!

It seems the only one showing his ass is you:

"To cause more suffering, they held off killing Tate until all others were dead..."

This is a clear claim that the order in which the victims were killed at Cielo Drive was deliberate ("To cause more suffering, they held off..."), which is a laughable and false notion based on all the testimony and the crime scene itself. It's simply false. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

It's your opinion, not a fact.

But of course YOU are always right.

You said that Tex shot Jay because he (Jay) was upset about Sharon being tied up. BUZZZZ! WRONG! Susan testified and Tex as wrote in his book that when Tex told everyone to lay on their stomach's Jay objected "Can't you see that she's (Sharon) pregnant?". At the point Tex shot Jay. After that all hell broke loose.

I don't have a problem with people have a difference of OPINION, but you're the one coming across as sort of fucking super expert on this cause and you talk down to ANYONE that dares to cross you.

Next?

So Watson shot Sebring because he objected to the way she was laid down rather than tied up (of course, she was being laid down to be tied up). That's your big reveal of how I'm wrong? Are you kidding?

And then you yourself say "all hell broke loose." Well yes, that's my point. They couldn't have PLANNED the ORDER in which the victims were killed, as the previous poster states explicitly, because they were responding to all hell having broken loose. That's not an opinion. That's fact based on all the testimony, as well as the location of the bodies, and you even seem to accept that fact since you state it yourself!

Given that all hell broke loose, is it possible that, as the poster I was objecting to stated, "To cause more suffering, they held off killing Tate until all others were dead..." You yourself claim that all hell broke loose. You also seem to know what that means: Frykowski and Folger sought at great struggle to escape. So can the previous poster have been right that they waited to kill Tate only to cause more suffering? It seems rather obvious that they killed at least two victims (Frykowski and Folger) based not on some preexisting plan, but rather on the necessity of the moment? That seems like an opinion to you, given the evidence we have - evidence which you appear to agree with?

Just loves to twist things around so you're always right.

I know just as much about this case as you do. But I sure as hell didn't march in here talk down to others as you have over and over.

not just holding down Tate, but also stabbing her, as well. But that's a minor point. They ALL were guilty of those murders. They were in it together, regardless of who did what "task."

The other gal (the one who now seems truly remorseful...what's her name?) - anyway, another poster said she didn't kill anyone, actually, at the Labianca's house. Well, I believe she stated that she DID stab someone, but when push came to shove, she had to call the guy to come in and finish the job 'cause she couldn't do it. Again, minor detail. When two people are there for the purpose of killing people, who actually did the stabbing at the end that resulted in the deaths doesn't make much difference. They are both guilty of murder.

Atkins seems to me to be truly a sociopath. No matter how much most people would fall under someone's spell, not many people could be convinced to do what these wackos did, and of course SAYING some of the things they admitted saying...that wasn't scripted. They WANTED to twist the knife, so to speak. It takes a sociopath to do and say some of the things that were done and said that night.

She got a life sentence. She served a life sentence. And that was the appropriate thing. She didn't get a "life sentence unless you get seriously ill." She married, enjoyed some good food, had a life of sorts. More than her victims. She was shown mercy by the state, when they abolished the death sentence. Now it is between her and her maker.

The real victims...they are still dead. Including the baby.

from all the testimony that Atkins never stabbed Sharon Tate, though she certainly detained her until Tex Watson came back. The "other girl" you refer to is Leslie van Houten, who may have stabbed Rosemary LaBianca, though probably did so after she was dead (once again, Tex Watson had to be called to do the actual killing - it's quite probable that Watson killed all the Tate LaBianca victims himself). In any case, for two murders in California in 1969, Ms. van Houten would have been released years ago (especially with her prison record), but the Manson mythology perpetrated by people like you prevents it, even though far more people who did far worse have been given the chance to make something else of their lives since the late 1980's. That Leslie van Houten is still in prison should be considered a shocking injustice on this board based solely on the principle of equal protection under law.

As for Atkins being a "sociopath," that's just as dubious as can be, both in its category (sociopathology is the new phrenology) and in its application (nothing in Atkins' profile fits the sociopath definition, even if we supposed it to be valid, which is far from certain). Your general non-knowledge about these crimes fits the bill, though: a know-nothing acting on emotion based on some shit you may have heard.

She took lives and she must suffer forever....

I didn't realize you called yourself Sultana nowadays, God. But in spite of your proclamation, God, I'm going to continue to show compassion to those who need it, no matter who, and not appoint myself the judge of who deserves it.

I mean, some brought up Abu Ghraib and health care reform. Also, I was just reading the NY Times obituary, and I began thinking about another woman murder, Karla Faye Tucker:

me, I hope most of the time, is something bigger than the moment. I don't always succeed but I try.

Some mirrors on this thread ain't showing anything pretty, either.

working on judgment issues is not an easy task.

Can't say anything beyond that.

They will live out their lives in luxury and opulence. They will be given state funerals with much dignified mourning. Sycophants will write books proclaiming them heroes.

Sometimes evil is punished, sometimes not. It seems like there is no rhyme nor reason to it.

A sheer waste of tax dollars keeping that vermin alive.

Too many honest, good Americans are suffering and that sleazy piece of shit, who willfully murdered in cold blood and admitted to it, got free room and board and health care for life.

Yes, our system is fucked up.

have a look at her work, (horribly graphic photos):

http://crimeshots.com/Carnage69.html

and in that respect, her death matters very little to me, only as a person who has researched the Manson murders at different times. She murdered Sharon Tate by stabbing her something like 30 times, even after Tate begged her to let the baby live. That sort of means that Atkins really didn't deserve to be freed from jail, so on that score, I'm fine.

They tried to get her out near the beginning of the month for compassionate means, because she was already dying from a brain tumor, but guess what? I believe that someone who kills someone under the circumstances she did should never see another day outside of prison walls. I don't believe so much in a death penalty, but prison is there for the punishment of people who did horrible things and it is intended, to some degree, as a deterrent against such crimes. Susan Atkins needed to be reminded of that, and that when you murder someone in cold blood, you should be prepared for that punishment.

If we start punishing people for the actual crimes they commit, and not for a lot of crap, perhaps the "bad guys" will get the message that we're serious about making them pay for their crimes. And I'm not talking about victimless crimes--that's another story altogether. I'm talking about murder, assault and battery, harming others, animal killing and abuse, rape--crimes which show intent to harm others, and are carried out in such a manner that it is obviously pre-meditated.

For people who believe in divine retribution, perhaps this is the kind of story that makes them somehow sure that there is a god. But in my mind, there are lots of people in prison who should have died a lot earlier in such cases, and are still trying to get out on parole.

Nevertheless, I hope somewhere down the line that another solution should be looked for to make sure violent people and sociopaths never bother innocents again. We really do need to make a plan and stick with it in order to deal with criminals.