home

Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again

By Jeralyn, Section Inmates and Prisons
Posted on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 12:24:51 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Manson follower Susan Atkins has been denied parole for the 11th time. She is now 57 years old.

"They primarily cited the gravity of the crime, the fact the murders were carried out in an especially cruel and callous manner," Kindel said. He said Atkins "listened without reaction and then was escorted out of the room" at the California Institution for Women in Corona.

We last checked in with Ms. Atkins here, when she had filed a civil rights lawsuit against Gov. Gray Davis. Her compatriot in crime, Leslie Van Houten, has also been denied parole repeatedly.

It's always the heinousness of the crime that the parole board focuses on. What about their rehabilitation during 30 years of prison? When will that count for something?

< Newspaper Publishes Editorials as Blog Posts | Former DOJ Official Weighs In on Deep Throat >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again | 35 comments (35 topical)
    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:34 PM EST
    ...you're joking, right?

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#2)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:34 PM EST
    Let's ask Sharon Tate what she thinks about their rehabilitation.

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    Come on TL, I'm about as liberal as they come and believe in rehabilitation as much as the next guy, but rehabilitation is only part of the equation, there is also a valid punitive aspect to the criminal justice system. And these murders deserve all the punishment the State can dish out. If she were truly rehabilitated, she would go to the parole board and say, "I don't deserve parole for the crimes I have committed".

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    TL... Yeah, I say let's let all convicted killers out after 30 years or so...they're all better now...right? After all, what harm could an old 57 year old woman commit now?

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    What about their rehabilitation during 30 years of prison? When will that count for something?
    When the criminal justice system recognizes rehabilitation as an objective, instead of just revenge.

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#6)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    Unfortunately when the "Right" sets the tone Vengeance rules and Christian ethos gets a back seat unless your President or a right wingnut radio host! What this woman did was reprehensible but I'm sure if Sharon Tate is in heaven with Jesus at her side she would vote to Parole Atkins, but then again I'm not a Repiglican Christian, I'm a librul Christian! I now have a question for all you HARD liners. What would Jesus DO? I cant wait to hear what you think of Jesus Christ!

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#7)
    by LochNess on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    As far as I'm concerned, there are acts that make people deserve to spend the rest of their lives in prison, and what Van Houten and Atkins did falls right into that category. Have a look at the crime scene photos some time.

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#8)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    Ed B - I think we have free will and should do the right thing. That would be to keep Susan Atkins where she is at until she can join Sharon Tate and they can work it out.

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    I encourage you all to read about Leslie Van Houton and what she has done in prison. If she doesn't qualify for parole, then they just ought to stop pretending there is such a thing as life with parole, and admit her sentence is one of lwop.

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    There is something genuinely revolting about the notion of Susan Atkins loose again in the world. But even more revolting is a state that won't release a prisoner who has consistently met all the conditions for parole. If Atkins' case is the latter, then the state has no right to keep her in jail, no matter how ghastly or high the profile of her crime, which may be a huge factor at stake here. "If" is the operative word.

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    I'm torn on this one, as I've seen and heard her interviewed, and she seems no threat to anyone anymore. And yet...there is NO JUSTICE for murder, period. There never can be. You can't bring the living back to life. And in a crime this absolutely heinous, I have a hard time thinking anything is served by releasing her except saving money. And yet... I just don't know.

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#12)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    PPJ You haven't answered my querie, What would Jesus do? I knew what you would do before you posted it.

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#13)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    ED - Best guess is that he would rebuke you for using His name in an ignoble manner. It's one thing to use the Lord's name (including Jesus and the Holy Spirit), for bona fied teaching of religious principles. However it's become chic here for those who do not approve of conservatives to flippantly say "What would Jesus do" without a) caring about the answer, b) for cheap points (which often times are only along philosophical lines), and often c) for the purpose of insult, flame, or trolling. -BigTex

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#14)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    Big Tex What a load of S**T. It's OK for a President to envoke God & Freedom to justify invading Iraq and the unwarranted deaths of hundreds of thousands and you have the nerve to suggest I can't evoke Jesus in the name of forgiveness and love. Boy you have some twisted idea of what Jesus represents. In my humble opinion. :)

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#15)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    Perhaps Jesus would turn her into a glass of wine. And then drink her.

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    ParallelPaths: You may not know this - many right wingers haven't actually read too much of the Bible, it seems - but in the Gospels, Jesus never said he was the the Son of God. I think he talks about the Son of Man but doesn't even call himself that. Furthermore, this Jesus is God bizness is not universally accepted among Christians, who are as diverse in their beliefs as any other religious tradition. (Indeed, it's quite remarkable how the American rightwing has managed to reunite Christianity after some 500 years or so of schism. Or rather it would be remarkable if it were true and not merely a christianist lie.) As for using Jesus' name in an ignoble manner, one can easily think of many more ignoble invocations of his name. That sleazebag who dared to call himself a minister in NC who tossed out all the Democrats (until he was forced to resign) is one recent event that comes to mind. So Ed's question is legit, to the extent that any WWJD question is, which is not very. Not that PPJ will ever answer it, of course.

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#17)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    Ed - You're operating under an invalid set of facts. I never said it was okay to invoke the name of God to justify violence. That went out with the Ban. I'd address what is the moral course of action to take here (that's what you were aiming at), but do not know enough facts to address it intelligently. Tristero - no arguments here that others also use the Lords name in an ignobe manner. That has no bearing on the chic flippant use of the question here though. It's still ignoble regardless of what others do. No moral relativism is in play. Ignoble and chic is ignoble and chic regardless of who is the actor. Yes, I know all too well that many so called "evangalicals" have minimal experiance with the Bible which leads to corrupted use thereof. But to keep the topic on thread will leave it at that. I do quibble with "[s]o Ed's question is legit, to the extent that any WWJD question is." When asked in a genuine manner it has a little bit of legitimacy, though as you said, not much. However, when used not because of interest in the answer, but in a flip manner with ill intent, like it is often done here, it loses 99% of the scant legitimacy it had to begin with. It becomes snark.

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#18)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    I find it amusing that there have been three folks who have responded to my post but all have avoided answering my question, What would Jesus do. Well they full well know the answer and that would be to forgive atkins and grant her parole. That was easy. This answer is hard for them to swallow because it is hard to walk the Christian talk. Its easier to claim Christianity when it suits them and come out for the Death penalty when it suits them. To hell with what Jesus would have done.

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    Parallel Paths: "No moral relativism is in play. Ignoble and chic is ignoble and chic regardless of who is the actor." Oh?? Are you saying that Ed's question is morally equivalent to, say, Eric Rudolph's blasphemous invoking of Jesus to justify his murders? No one I know seriously believes that. Likewise, I don't think you would seriously make the argument that Ed's harmless little comment was in some sense morally equivalent to a "minister" invoking God's will as he excommunicates Democrats from their congregation. The former is maybe, just maybe, a bit snarky. The latter is a moral outrage that was meant to turn decent honest folks who happened to vote for a different political party than their "leader" into scapegoats and pariahs. Now if for some reason you do believe they're equivalent, or Ed is somehow the worse blasphemer, all I can say is man, I hope you're no judge, because you have zero sense of moral perspective, let alone mercy or grace. Heck, even the Catholic Church distinguishes between venial and mortal sins. By "absolutist" standards which find a moral equivalence between, say, the blasphemy of adulterer and deadbeat dad Randall Terry invoking Christ's rage against his (Terry's) enemies and poor Ed asking WWJD on a blog, that would make the Church moral relativists, which I think would come as quite a surprise to Pope Benedict XVI. Nothing could be more on topic for this post about Susan Atkins' attempts to get parole than confronting the kind of indefensible moral absolutism you are invoking. As mentioned, Atkins revolts me and the thought of her free horrifies me. But what is far worse is a state that has absolute power. If - IF - Atkins has fulfilled the requirements for parole she should be released. Would I be happy if she is? Absolutely not. But I'd be a lot less happy if my government believes that punishment for crimes, even the most heinous, can be adjusted willy nilly merely to fit the whims of those presently in power. The Atkins parole issue is what is known as a moral dilemma. That is not relativism, my friend, but reality. Absolutist attitudes will provide no insight or relief from moral dilemmas like this one,. That's because absolutism demands that you argue that both positions - Atkins' parole or Atkins' continued incarceration after meeting standards for parole - are equally moral. And that cannot be so.

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    Let me amend my wrapup to the previous post to clarify. "That cannot be so" is not exactly right. What I meant was that moral dilemmas like the Atkins parole must be decided. That requires placing more weight on one even when you wish that you didn't have to decide at all.

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ambiorix on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    She could ask Roman Polanski to testify on her behalf. He might not have a problem with that, if only he wouldn’t get arrested on statutory rape charges if enters the US. Justice in the US, never a dull moment.

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#22)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    Ed B - If I ever start to claim that I speak for Jesus, you are welcome to take extreme sanctions. Never have, never will. If I want to know what Jesus said, there is something called the Bible. And there is no such thing as "conservative" or "liberal" Christians. There are, however, conservatives and liberals who love to tell us what they think Jesus would do. Are you in that group?

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#23)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    The question of WWJD is kind of lame. You must consider he would be concerned about the rest of us who might be murdered. In his wisdom, he'd know, I suppose. We don't. Do we take the safe route? I think so. After all, any future vics are innocent, which is to say, haven't committed heinous murders. Atkins has. The propensity, even after jail time, remains different. As I mentioned some time ago, rehabilitation is a compound word, consisting of the process of habilitation and "re", implying redoing the process. The implication in the word is that the person in question was at one time habilitated, fell, and can be restored. Whether or not that is actually true is another issue, but the word presumes/requires habilitation in the first place. Crimes like the Manson family's crimes indicate to me a lack of habilitation in the first place. People who do that have a hole in their personality, IMO, and "re" anythinging them is bound to fail. People who are not particularly nutso in one sense can get by in a loose society without attracting too much attention, or being interfered with (been intervened upon) because certain things--food and shelter--can be had more or less easily in that kind of milieu, but not without at least some forethought. That doesn't mean they're civilized. I'm suspicious of prison rehabilitation because of a particular experience. In Officers Candidate School, one is required to do an amazing amount of things. Learn a million items, put them together, perform at an Olympic level in physical activity, undergo stress and lack of sleep and a good many other difficult tasks. The selection process for admission is tough but about half of our company dropped out or were "fired". I should say that I speak of OCS circa 1969. I believe it's different now. Anyway, there were some people I knew, three, who did everything they were told within that extremely structured environment. One, I knew, was outstanding. Once out, they failed in different ways, one lethally (for somebody else). OCS was, IMO, superior to ROTC in several respects, but it failed to find those whose performance in a structured environment did not reveal anything about independent judgment. Prison rehabilitation is goal-oriented--they want to get out--and consists of impressing the parole board by the performance of certain tasks and roles. Who wouldn't try? But, what does that tell us about the real person, what that person will do once the structure is gone and their independent judgment is free of structure--until afterwards? Do we put more weight on their work toward impressing the parole board, or on what they did when they were in a position to do anything they wanted to?

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#24)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    Dadler, You are right. It's a tough call. They received a sentence. They served the time. They've met the cont=ditions. Let 'em go' Ed Beckman, You're falling into a religious trap. No one speaks for JC. At best people live their lives according to his philosophy of life. Many use the Bible for their guide. Many more use the Quaran. I personally believe that people are taught to be compassionate. Or they can be taught to hate.

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#25)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    Well someone isn't previewing tonite! Sorry

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#26)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    Well they full well know the answer and that would be to forgive atkins and grant her parole. Ed- The former, if she asked for forgiveness certinally forgiveness would be forthcoming. The latter I'm not sure about. Tristero - This has become an interesting discussion. I don't think we're using the term moral realtivism in the same way though. You seem to equate moral relativism as not distinguishing degrees of wrongs. I'm equating it as wrong is wrong, but there is a difference in degrees of wrong. I fully agree that there are different degrees of wrong. You mentioned the Church. She does distinguish between venial and mortal sins, but they both come from the concept of Absloute Truth. They are both wrongs, just a difference in degree, or amount of wrong if you will. Are you saying that Ed's question is morally equivalent to, say, Eric Rudolph's blasphemous invoking of Jesus to justify his murders? I believe they are both wrong, so to a degree yes, I believe that. They both fall into the category of wrong. But I also draw a big distinction between the two. Now if for some reason you do believe they're equivalent ... all I can say is man, I hope you're no judge, because you have zero sense of moral perspective, let alone mercy or grace. Moral prospective is demonstrated by seeing the difference in the degree of wrong. Mercy and grace are completley different from moral relativism. It's possible to think something is wrong, but still show mercy and compassion. It's the difference between thoughts and actions. If she has met all the requirements for parole, and is no longer a threat to society, she should be released. But if she has met the requirement of parole, but is still a threat to society then she should remain incercerated.

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    Nothing like going to the source... For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses neither will your father forgive your trespasses. Matthew 6:14-15 Let him without is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her. John 8:7 Do you see this woman? You gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears, and wiped them with her hair. You gave Me no kiss, but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet. You did not anoint My head with oil, but she anointed My feet with perfume. For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loved little. Luke 7: 44-47 And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your transgressions. Mark 11:24-26 For if you forgive men their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive men, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions. Matthew 6:14-15 It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means, I desire compassion and not sacrifice, for I did not come to call the righteous but sinners. Matthew 9:12-13 If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times saying ‘I repent’, forgive him. Luke 17:3-4 So also my heavenly Father will do to you if you do not forgive your brother from your heart. Matthew 18:35

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    Sorry for the repetitive cut and paste...but there are several other passages that say the same thing...forgive and you are forgiven. I don't see many "tough on crime" conservatives preaching forgiveness, only punishment. Maybe that's why they dodge the question ED.

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    Ernesto, please don't cut and paste large portions from other texts. This space if for your comments. I don't have the bandwidth to accomodate huge quotes.

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    TL...my apologies. Maybe you should ask Jesus for some more bandwidth... ;)

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:38 PM EST
    ParallelPaths: "If she has met all the requirements for parole, and is no longer a threat to society, she should be released. But if she has met the requirement of parole, but is still a threat to society then she should remain incercerated." Yes, exactly my point. But one doesn't have to feel good about that. It's a difficult, ugly decision which represents the evil of two lessers. Or to use your terminology, it's the lesser of two wrongs.

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#32)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:40 PM EST
    Ernesto, LOL

    Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:15 PM EST
    They all received the death penalty originally. That was overturned, not due to anything concerning their trial, but because the way the law was written at the time was deemed to be unconstitutional. The death penalty was later reinstated, but they got off. These people should have all been executed 30 years ago, but they had an incredible bit of luck. Now they want out? Going from “should have been executed” to “being free” is just going too far. The crimes they committed are among the most hideously cruel murders ever committed in the annals of jurist prudence. They lost their right to be free on Aug 8, 1969 and no good works, rehabilitation, or becoming Christian can ever make up for what they did or earn them the right to ever be free again. They can do their good deeds in prison to help others like themselves become better people, but they must pay for what they did no matter what – that’s justice.

    death (none / 0) (#34)
    by H8trd4u on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:19:19 PM EST
    this person deserves death... that is just the plain and simple truth.  If I had a handgun and an unlimited supply of clips I would clean out every death row in America.  I see a lot of peoples comments saying how great she has done for others and how so n so is doing so much after they were locked up.. Are you all idiots? Did you forget why they were locked up in the first place.  All you compassion for snakes will get you is a venomous bite when you least expecting it.  You people are trully the end of humanity not the endearing crusaders you parade yourselfs out to be.

    these misguided people were put away (none / 0) (#35)
    by thereyougo on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:43:32 PM EST
    so they wouldn't become a burden to society further.

    But guess what? The cost of keeping them inside is astronomical.

    Almost think society is the one punished because we are saddled with the huge costs of their encarceration: medical bills, 3 hots and cot, etc.

    Rehabilitation in prison? naw, its a well known fact. Prisons don't correct inmates. They keep them away from the rest of us.

    Should she be released? yeah, just to save the taxpayer some money.

    Susan Atkins Denied Parole Again | 35 comments (35 topical)