100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Should Susan Atkins | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
All due respect, you didn't hear me talk about forgiveness on this issue. Sounds also like there's more compassion going on for Atkins' family than Sharon Tate's, the LaBianca's, Abigail Folger's (and others) families. If it hadn't been for the bleeding hearts in California in '69 that voted down the death penalty, Atkins would have been toast long ago. Why would you assume others have no compassion for the other families? I care about the other families. One doesn't need to be a bleeding heart to vote down the death penalty. While I tend to believe there are people that deserve to have the life taken for taking anothers, there are too many mistakes made in our system. I prefer not to be responsible for taking a life that didn't deserve to be taken, that is why I vote to no on the death penalty. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All due respect, you didn't hear me talk about forgiveness on this issue. Sounds also like there's more compassion going on for Atkins' family than Sharon Tate's, the LaBianca's, Abigail Folger's (and others) families. If it hadn't been for the bleeding hearts in California in '69 that voted down the death penalty, Atkins would have been toast long ago. Compassion for her and her family does not mean lack of compassion for the murder victims families...I have enough for all of them. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It makes no sense to keep her in jail because we still have lingering anxiety over what she did. She's no threat to anyone at this point, might as well let her die at home. makes plenty of sense Boo, are you also going to allow any and all prisoners who have one ailment or another (which ones) (who will pick) the luxury to die at a place surrounded by loved ones when they in fact have been proven guilty of taken the lives of others. The deceased did not have the luxury why should they. I am not talking about what she did, I am talking about the pointlessness of keeping an aged dying criminal in jail where we foot the bill. She has not escaped her punishment, hell she is dying, I find no pleasure in that, and I wouldn't even if it was one of my family members. what more do we want? Should we punish her family members too, I wonder, or have they not suffered our judgement along with her all these years? It's been done for over 30 years now right? What is interesting here is that we talk about forgiveness and non judgement and yet we want to drive the last nail even 30 years later. I though what she did was horrid and I don't justify what she did. But she is old and dying.. what harm is she to anyone. I say send her home to her family and show that we are bigger than what she did. I probably didn't say that right but oh well. Now would I let Manson out, hell no. He'd have to be crippled and mindless before I would. suggest that. Maybe I am all wrong on this, but personally I don't give a damn about her, I just see no point in being her caretaker any longer than nessessary. Maybe it's just too hot to think today...  Boo, we'd still all be her caretaker if she's released. Mr_Music expressed it best. Why should she or her family get to spend time with her outside of jail? The other families aren't able to enjoy any time with their deceased family members, hell she was even getting 'a lil "sumtin" "sumtin" while in jail, none of the deceased did. Rot in jail - she'll be free when she passes away. Well Fran, I can't say I don't understand that. Frankly I don't really care one way or the other to be completely honest. If she is going to get the same support out as in then keep her in I suppose. I just don't think her family deserves to be punished along with her, but again I don't care enough about it to make a big fuss. She really means nothing to me. I remember reading the book about them many years ago and was absolutely disgusted, so I do understand where you are coming from. I can understand your point, just sharing my views. I read the book Helter Skelter, eons ago too. I just feel if exceptions are made in cases like these others too should benefit. Just trying to be fair to all not just one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It makes no sense to keep her in jail because we still have lingering anxiety over what she did. She's no threat to anyone at this point, might as well let her die at home. makes plenty of sense Boo, are you also going to allow any and all prisoners who have one ailment or another (which ones) (who will pick) the luxury to die at a place surrounded by loved ones when they in fact have been proven guilty of taken the lives of others. The deceased did not have the luxury why should they. I am not talking about what she did, I am talking about the pointlessness of keeping an aged dying criminal in jail where we foot the bill. She has not escaped her punishment, hell she is dying, I find no pleasure in that, and I wouldn't even if it was one of my family members. what more do we want? Should we punish her family members too, I wonder, or have they not suffered our judgement along with her all these years? It's been done for over 30 years now right? What is interesting here is that we talk about forgiveness and non judgement and yet we want to drive the last nail even 30 years later. I though what she did was horrid and I don't justify what she did. But she is old and dying.. what harm is she to anyone. I say send her home to her family and show that we are bigger than what she did. I probably didn't say that right but oh well. Now would I let Manson out, hell no. He'd have to be crippled and mindless before I would. suggest that. Maybe I am all wrong on this, but personally I don't give a damn about her, I just see no point in being her caretaker any longer than nessessary. Maybe it's just too hot to think today... Boo, we'd still all be her caretaker if she's released. Mr_Music expressed it best. Why should she or her family get to spend time with her outside of jail? The other families aren't able to enjoy any time with their deceased family members, hell she was even getting 'a lil "sumtin" "sumtin" while in jail, none of the deceased did. Rot in jail - she'll be free when she passes away. Well Fran, I can't say I don't understand that. Frankly I don't really care one way or the other to be completely honest. If she is going to get the same support out as in then keep her in I suppose. I just don't think her family deserves to be punished along with her, but again I don't care enough about it to make a big fuss. She really means nothing to me. I remember reading the book about them many years ago and was absolutely disgusted, so I do understand where you are coming from. I can understand your point, just sharing my views. I read the book Helter Skelter, eons ago too. I just feel if exceptions are made in cases like these others too should benefit. Just trying to be fair to all not just one. Well that's true too, though I think the system just works out that she is up for some sort of consideration now right? Helter Skelter, ya that's it, I was trying for the life of me to think of the name of that book. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those who show mercy shall obtain mercy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those who show mercy shall obtain mercy. I don't think Sharon Tate got much mercy life in prison means life in prison. not most of your life, not life until you're too old. but all of it. in prison. till you die. or else "life in prison" means nothing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those who show mercy shall obtain mercy. I don't think Sharon Tate got much mercy life in prison means life in prison. not most of your life, not life until you're too old. but all of it. in prison. till you die. or else "life in prison" means nothing That is Exactly what I meant. I believe Adkins words were, B!TCH I have no mercy for you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those who show mercy shall obtain mercy. I don't think Sharon Tate got much mercy life in prison means life in prison. not most of your life, not life until you're too old. but all of it. in prison. till you die. or else "life in prison" means nothing That is Exactly what I meant. I believe Adkins words were, B!TCH I have no mercy for you. yeah and she wrote on the walls with Tate's blood. doesnt really matter how old and frail she is now, evil is evil |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I personally think when they overturned the death penalty in CA, and now have since turned it back..that they should have gone back and picked up the ones who got the death penalty Before they overturned it in the first place. Then we wouldn't need to have these conversations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I personally think when they overturned the death penalty in CA, and now have since turned it back..that they should have gone back and picked up the ones who got the death penalty Before they overturned it in the first place. Then we wouldn't need to have these conversations. Could you rephrase that? I am not sure what you said here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maybe they should just not give her life saving medical attention to interfere with the cancer
after all it was a life sentence not a sentence to free medical care she should get the same medical care the woman making 30k a year w/no medical coverage would get which would be she would pay for the care she gets if she wants care then she can pay for it after all she is a criminally convicted felon give her an iv of pain meds and let it go at that (if that) i am cold ya say well how cold was she when she committed her crimes against society |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I personally think when they overturned the death penalty in CA, and now have since turned it back..that they should have gone back and picked up the ones who got the death penalty Before they overturned it in the first place. Then we wouldn't need to have these conversations. Could you rephrase that? I am not sure what you said here. if they got a death sentence in their trial but the state stop death as being an acceptable punishment thus they did not get put to death and the state has since restarted using the death penalty those that received the death penalty before they stopped it should have their original death sentence reinstated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah...that's what I meant!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah...that's what I meant! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I personally think when they overturned the death penalty in CA, and now have since turned it back..that they should have gone back and picked up the ones who got the death penalty Before they overturned it in the first place. Then we wouldn't need to have these conversations. I couldn't have said it any better! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I worked at a hospital that had a special prison ward for ill inmates. It was a large Catholic hospital. Prisoners came there only when very ill. It was secured and locked down with offical prison security guards, camera's etc. I did not work on this ward but it is possible that she will be sent to a ward like this or is already in one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I personally think when they overturned the death penalty in CA, and now have since turned it back..that they should have gone back and picked up the ones who got the death penalty Before they overturned it in the first place. Then we wouldn't need to have these conversations. I couldn't have said it any better! Thanks. I thought it was pretty clear. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I personally think when they overturned the death penalty in CA, and now have since turned it back..that they should have gone back and picked up the ones who got the death penalty Before they overturned it in the first place. Then we wouldn't need to have these conversations. Could you rephrase that? I am not sure what you said here. if they got a death sentence in their trial but the state stop death as being an acceptable punishment thus they did not get put to death and the state has since restarted using the death penalty those that received the death penalty before they stopped it should have their original death sentence reinstated That's was my original thought, but I wanted to be sure that is what she meant. However that doesn't match up with her original post that said 'Those who show mercy shall obtain mercy.' That says to me that it goes for everyone. What the woman did was wrong, but she didn't do anything to me, so where's my exuse for showing her no mercy? that saying seems to have different means to different folks. I know, I know, I am overthinking this, it's just what crossed my mind.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I personally think when they overturned the death penalty in CA, and now have since turned it back..that they should have gone back and picked up the ones who got the death penalty Before they overturned it in the first place. Then we wouldn't need to have these conversations. Could you rephrase that? I am not sure what you said here. if they got a death sentence in their trial but the state stop death as being an acceptable punishment thus they did not get put to death and the state has since restarted using the death penalty those that received the death penalty before they stopped it should have their original death sentence reinstated That's was my original thought, but I wanted to be sure that is what she meant. However that doesn't match up with her original post that said 'Those who show mercy shall obtain mercy.' That says to me that it goes for everyone. What the woman did was wrong, but she didn't do anything to me, so where's my exuse for showing her no mercy? that saying seems to have different means to different folks. I know, I know, I am overthinking this, it's just what crossed my mind.... What she meant by, "Those who show mercy shall obtain mercy", was meant to be directed toward the actions of Susan Atkins, who showed NO compassion for her victims, therefore she should be entitled to no compassion shown to her. I agree. Taxpayers have already housed, clothed, and fed her *** for 40 years. She's already lived 40 years longer (at this point) than Abigail Folger, Jay Sebring, Sharon Tate, Wojceich Frykowski, Steven Parent, and Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. To that end, she's already received her "mercy". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
auburngirl
on
Mon 08/10/09 12:17 PM
|
|
And I personally think when they overturned the death penalty in CA, and now have since turned it back..that they should have gone back and picked up the ones who got the death penalty Before they overturned it in the first place. Then we wouldn't need to have these conversations. Could you rephrase that? I am not sure what you said here. if they got a death sentence in their trial but the state stop death as being an acceptable punishment thus they did not get put to death and the state has since restarted using the death penalty those that received the death penalty before they stopped it should have their original death sentence reinstated That's was my original thought, but I wanted to be sure that is what she meant. However that doesn't match up with her original post that said 'Those who show mercy shall obtain mercy.' That says to me that it goes for everyone. What the woman did was wrong, but she didn't do anything to me, so where's my exuse for showing her no mercy? that saying seems to have different means to different folks. I know, I know, I am overthinking this, it's just what crossed my mind.... You are ASSUMING what I meant. As Keith said, it was meant to point out that Susan A did not show any, therefore she gets none. And her mercy was when her sentence was commuted and that taxes paid to feed her sorry a@@ for all these years. |
|
|
|
|
