I meant to mention earlier but I’ll just add on as a sort of non-sequitur here that Atkins has been married to a lawyer, James Whitehouse (he’s a lot younger than she is), for almost 20 years. (It was her second prison wedding, bit of a sore point to gay marriage apologists.) He’s agreed to be her caregiver.
Lets not forget that she was also extremely involved in the Hinman murder too. She wrote in her 1977 book that when she went to Hinman’s home she knew that it was possible they were going to kill Hinman and that Manson told her to kill him for his money (Manson actually was convicted).
So inside of 3ish weeks in the summer of '69 Manson needs to have three murders done, who is at all three? Why Susan Adkins who Manson renamed Sadie Mae Glutz! No one else can make that claim. Whether she actually stabbed Tate as she and Tex Watson testified on and off the stand before changing their story - there is no disputing she was there, as Tate said “Mother … Mother” pleading for her baby’s life or that she searched the house and looked for the residents to bring them forward.
There are murderers who I would let out in similar circumstances but I think her role as a trusted Aide to Mason is lost in a “poor mixed up (now Christian) girl” narrative she has created. I don’t trust it or like it – to the point that after Manson himself she is the last of the family I would ever release.
I would also make the point that there is quite a bit of present day sick fan-boy allure that Manson still generates and I think most people paying close attention understand Adkins role in the Family hiearchy and it could be semi-dangerous for some of the sicker of them to see her released for any period no matter what the reason.
I think she should remain in prison, simply because life in prison should mean being in prison until you die. Cost saving is important, but should be accomplished in other ways, such as not sending so many non-violent or “victimless” offenders to jail in the first place. Keeping murderers in prison till they die is a valid use of funds.
I don’t think this decision should have anything to do with which murderer is the most vicious, or what the victim’s family wants. Prison is about revenge, but it’s the society’s revenge against the offender. The right to personal or familial revenge is something we should be willing to give up in exchange for a society of laws.
My opinion on her and on the other Manson family members (Tex Watson, Patricia Krenwinkle, Leslie Van Houten) who’ve all reportedly found religion and are good people now (I haven’t seen images of Watson but the “girls” look basically like suburban grandmas in their interviews) is that IF they are truly sincere in their Christianity and repentance (and only they know if they are), then that’s great. That means they above all people should understand the horror of what they did and how they need to spend the rest of their lives atoning for it. These weren’t heat of the moment crimes of passion they committed nor was it a time of war or anything like; I agree with Vincent Bugliosi when he said (words to the effect of) that these people either have some quality that most people lack or lack some qualities that most people have that allowed them to do the things they did. I honestly think most people could not be enticed to slaughter strangers like they did- most would have some remaining piece of themselves that would convince them to either attack the other “family” members or to kill themselves before going through the attacks on those at Cielo Dr. or the Labiancas.
Susan and all the others need to die in prison. It has nothing to do with expense to the state or any other practical matter or concern as to whether they’re a danger to anyone, it’s strictly punitive. Whether they truly are remorseful or are faking or are somewhere in between, they need to die still paying what they can for a crime they can never really atone for. Between them and Manson they’ve gotten almost 200 years that their victims never got to live and every minute of it an expense to taxpayers, a few more dollars ain’t gone hurt.
Sentencing issue. Strong emphasis on drug and alcohol rehab is much more effective (and cheaper) for reducing the rate of re-offending, when compared to the current practice of longer prison sentences for non-violent drug and alcohol crimes
See the rest of my statement, the part you didn’t quote me on, for my answer:
In this case, yes. Life w/o parole was NOT a valid sentencing option for murder in 1969. Not making her eligible for parole would be an ex post facto punishment.
I think Leslie Van Houten is going to use a similar argument to try and get parole. Everytime she goes up for parole it is noted that she has no disciplinary marks, perfect psych reports, etc. but she is still denied parole because of how heinous the crime was. In effect that is making her sentence one of life without parole when such a sentence didn’t exist.
Sorry. I somehow missed that. 
Thanks for pointing that out.
Hmm. The sentence at the time was capital punishment. The California State Supreme Court commuted Atkins death sentence to life w/o parole in 1972. Do you feel this sentence to be (still) too harsh?
Sirhan Sirhan who murdered Robert Kennedy about the same time, screams every time his parole is turned down that he is being “singled out” because of the infamity of his crime. He thinks he deserves parole after 40 years.
You do the crime, you do the time. End of story.
Well, how have these cases played out in comparison with other, lesser known individuals convicted of murder?
Yes, “you do the time, you do the crime.” In this case, “the time” is “life with possibility of parole after 40 years.” If the prison system does not allow for the possibility that he be paroled after 40 years, then they are making him do more than “the time” allotted for “the crime.”
-FrL-
Look up “possibility.” It does not mean “definitely.” It does not mean “probably.” It means “we might maybe if we think you belong back in society.” Obviously, Sithan hasn’t been able to convince California he should be released.
The punishment for murder in 1969 was either the death penalty or life with parole possible after 5 years. Manson and the girls were sentenced to death. The California Supremes struck down the death penalty, leaving the only option life w/ parole possibility after 5 years.
Life without parole was not a possible sentence then or now for them.
I am with some other posters here. How were other convicted murderers who’s death sentences were commuted in 1972 treated? Did they die in prison? Are they still in prison? Were they released on parole?
If it was common to grant parole, then I don’t see why the Manson group or Sirhan Sirhan should be treated differently…
I think what makes them be treated differently than most (not commenting on Sirhan here) is if someone kills their former lover over a cheating incident, say, they probably aren’t going to randomly kill again a stranger on the street.
With the Family, they had to be so messed up to do what they did, they could not be trusted to not kill again if released.
These people killed total strangers. They were not crimes of passion or self-defense. They cold bloodidly went out and murdered people for no other reason than to commit murder.
The Manson murders were one of the most horrific of all times. The whole city of Los Angeles was held in fear that these people would kill again. His followers supported him even after they went to prison. Manson has never once said he did anything wrong.
Sirhan murdered Kennedy simply because he didn’t like the man’s support for Israel. He commited the crime in front of a group of people, not caring if he shot anyone else there.
Some people deserve to die for commiting murder; or, barring that, spend the rest of their lives in prison. I certainly don’t want Atkins or Sirhan or anyone else who kills for sport or politics to be on the streets.
I might agree, but again, life without possibility of parole is not a permissible sentence for Atkins or Sirhan. To justify keeping them in prison, the parole board must come up with a reason independent of the crime they committed (no remorse, discipline problems in prison, etc.)
Oh, sweet baby Jesus, he said after his 2006 hearing that, essentially, if Robert Kennedy were alive today, he’d get paroled. Well, no shit.
What is this supposed to mean? And how does this add anything to this debate?
Google “Chappaquiddick.” Atkins and Kennedy both killed people, though in miles and worlds apart circumstances. Now they are both dying of brain cancer.
Intentional first degree murder with the intent of starting a race war, versus a car accident. You are making a political potshot in a thread that has nothing to do with Kennedy by using a tenuous link of brain cancer. Like I said, it adds nothing to this debate.