The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Susan Atkins dead at 61

Her name is nearly a household word, along with the rest of the Manson family. She had been in prison since 1971. Does anybody, besides me, feel that maybe these people should have been granted parole? Especially Charlie! He may have masterminded it, but lets not ignore the fact that he didn't actually kill anyone. Even mafia bosses who set up hits don't do 40 years on a life sentence! Not that I condone any of their actions, but come on! 40 years! Child molesters and serial killers get out well before that! This was such a high profile case that it seems impossible for them to get considered for parole in the same light as a less notorious murderers!

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Scott on September 25, 2009 at 2:10pm

Well, I have reviewed the cases of all of the Manson family, and it does not change my mind to the fact that dozens, if not more, unrepentant murderers are released through various forms of parole or clemency. To bring up their mental state makes it even more obscene to keep them incarcerrated in a prison! Why not a state mental hospital? If their mental health is an issue, as you say it is, can we punish them with life in prison for actions they had little or no control over?

In a different time atheists were considered mentally depraved animals! Should we justify their execution? I do not pass judgement on the Manson family. I leave that to the courts and the christians! I do, however, pass judgement on the justice system.

What method of execution would you reccomend? Maybe a good old fashioned burning at the stake?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sarah Doli on September 27, 2009 at 12:44pm

I am sorry but you fail to understand the base line of what the Manson Family is about. Charlie, as you put it, wanted to start a war. That was his end game, and he HAS followers that WILL help him try to do just that.

Prison may not be the ideal setting, but when you put someone that is still willing to kill into a situation where they have access to other people, they will kill.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott on September 27, 2009 at 1:39pm

A bit presumptuous to say the least. I have a far greater understanding of the Manson Family than you give me credit for.

What is this pscho-babble about a war? It's been 40 years and no sign of a war yet! Shall we wait as long as the christians have been waiting for jesus before we get over that lunacy!? I think nearly everyone wants to start a war of some sorts! LOL!

Have you ever met someone who was willing to kill? Sure you have! Police officers, FBI agents, soldiers, government employess, etc...It is not a willingness to kill that makes people bad, it's a willingness to kill randomly, without provocation, and outside the bounds of the moral fabric of our society! That is why they are bad.

Charlie should be paroled to a psychiatric insitution. That is all I am saying.

When you speak of "someone that is willing to kill" is it only Charlie you speak of or are you painting all people with a murder conviction with the same broad brush? I ask because my best friend is in prison for a murder he committed willingly, to save is children during a robbery.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sarah Doli on September 27, 2009 at 1:48pm

Psycho-babble? Really, you want to reduce a conversation to insults? How boring.

And yes, Charles Manson has stated that he did intend to start a war with his slayings. And yes, he still has a following today.

Your presumption that I have not met someone that is willing to kill is again an insult. My very own brother has tried to kill us. Literally. With a shotgun. He joined the Army so he could kill. His words. Not mine.

I feel for your friend. It is a sad state of affairs when someone is convicted for self defense. But as I have no information about whether the robber was armed or not, intended to kill the family or not, I will not make presumptions.

I did not mention anyone except Charles Manson and his followers. You are reading way to much into what I said. I did not comment on all convicts.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott on September 27, 2009 at 2:10pm

The psycho-babble I refer to is not what you said. I am referring to Mansons statements! LOL!

Sarah, I am sorry to hear about your brother. My point was that the willingness to kill comes in many shades of gray.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Humanist Mark on September 25, 2009 at 2:40pm

Personally, I believe that the entire Manson Family should have been given the death penalty rather than forcing us, the tax paying citizens of the U.S. to keep them alive! What they did is on the same scale of what Jim Jones did with the "special" kool aid, only far more violent. The thought of a young, pregnant, Sharon Tate begging for the life of her unborn child will always be with me until I die. Charles Manson admitted in court that the young wife of Roman Polanski pleaded for the life of her unborn child. Yet, the mercilessly slaughtered her, her unborn child, and four others.

The true reason for this massacre is something we will never truly understand.

That said, why should any of them be granted clemency?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott on September 25, 2009 at 3:02pm

I agree, the details of the murders are grim! But the fact remains that they have served far longer than any comparable murderers of less notoriety. Our justice system is what it is. I am glad to see the old biblical adage of an eye for en eye is still alive and well even on an atheist site! LOL!! Should we also execute all the other people in prison? That would save a whole lot of taxpayer money! Everyone wants to scream "Lock em' up!" then turn around and bitch about the higher taxes! You can't have it both ways! Unless of course you revert to the days of the inquisiton and just kill all those demons! LOL

Anyway, I am getting off topic. I do not feel they should be given clemency. I feel that maybe some type of heavily supervised parole may be an option. Speaking fromm a purely legalistic standpoint they have met the criteria for parole. Their cases may be heinous but there are many others equally, or, more heinous. They could be placed on a GPS monitor, and/or house arrest, like most other violent criminals. The cost of supervision also is MUCH lower than the cost of incarcerration!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Humanist Mark on September 25, 2009 at 4:50pm

GPS doesn't always work. Look at Jaycee Dugard who was kidnapped at 11 by Phillip Garido who had a GPS tracking device. Also, it is believed that another missing girl, who's name I can't think of at the moment, was held by him as well and her bones were possibly found by cadaver dogs a few weeks back.

Not only did Phillip Garido kidnap little Jaycee but fathered two children with her and kept her and her children trapped behind a maze of sheds in his backyard.

So much for our legal system. Phillip Garido had raped another woman a few years before kidnapping Jaycee and was let out on parole. He should never have been allowed out of prison and should be sent to live on an island with other child molesters. Just the thought of him being out on parole right now makes my skin crawl.

If it hadn't been for those two female officers, who are both mothers, acting on intuition, Jaycee would still be a prisoner.

Oh, and let's not forget the neighbor that called the police a few years back about his neighbor, Phillip Garido, because he saw several strange children playing in his backyard. That other young girl was probably still alive then and her life may have been saved.

I say all of these criminals, pedophiles, mass murderers, and the like should be sent to a maximum security prison far away from the U.S. where there is no escape. Make them do hard labor for the rest of their lives and give them time to think about the crimes they've committed.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rusty Gunn. on September 25, 2009 at 5:03pm

"Also, it is believed that another missing girl, who's name I can't think of at the moment, was held by him as well and her bones were possibly found by cadaver dogs a few weeks back." A prime example of speculation and exageration.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rusty Gunn. on September 25, 2009 at 5:08pm

"Make them do hard labor for the rest of their lives and give them time to think about the crimes they've committed."

There was a case a few years ago, in Wash. St. if my memory serves me correctly, about a buy who'd sodomized and murdered a young boy. A reporter was interviewing him in prison and said that life in prison certainly could not have made the temporary pleasure worth it. The bastard's reply was, "Yeah, but I'll always have the memories." THAT'S what they sit in prison and think about.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott on September 25, 2009 at 6:17pm

Well, the obvious is that there is no fullproof method to deal with offenders on any type of supervision. Does this mean that nobody should be on parole? No. It may mean that the respective parole boards need to evaluate their criteria.

Your solution is quite barbaric! The fundies would love having you on their side! Would you discriminate? Or would you just send anyone with a felony conviction to this island? Statistcs show that the U.S. has the highest incarcerration rate in the free world! If you don't know a felon now, you will soon! Will this barbaric attitude apply to any future friends or family who may end up in prison?