Frylock, this is what you have to prove. You can’t just state something like “Severity shouldn’t play a part in the parole process,” and then just go on to make arguments based on that assumption, particularly when other people point out the legal, moral, and logical reasons why it should. The law is against you. Logic is against you. Precedent is against you. If you think you can prove that severity shouldn’t be considered, fine. Prove it. Otherwise, you can’t make an argument based on that statement.
I don’t think he’s saying it shouldn’t. From my reading of the thread, he’s asking the following question:
“Susan Adkins committed a terrible crime. Her crime can’t get any more or less or terrible over time - the Tate/LaBiance murders were committed and the facts of the case are the same on the day she was first arrested to now.”
Let’s now assume for the argument that Susan Adkins has been a model prisoner. She’s shown remorse, discovered Jesus, worked in the prison hospital, etc. etc. etc. In all ways that we can measure, she’s seen the error of her ways.
Given that her crime can’t get any more or less terrible over time, why should that make a difference in her treatment at parole hearings. What she did was beyond the pale, but one year it is considered so bad as to keep her behind bars and then one year (assuming she receives parole) it isn’t?
At least that’s how I understand the arguement.
You’ve got it backwards. I’m not making that assertion and making arguments based on it. Rather, I’m making arguments designed to demonstrate the truth of that claim (the thing you call an “assertion”).
Moral concerns have been brought up in this thread, and I’ve addressed them by emphasizing the moral duty of the state to be honest and consistent when it comes to its treatment of prisoners.
No legal concerns have been brought up in this thread. (I mentioned a legal fact–the fact that the law disagrees with me–and you asked for legal citations, but that is not to “point out a legal reason” for anything.) Furthermore, I reiterate for a third time that there can be no legal considerations against my position (except perhaps constitutional ones) since I am giving a recommendation as to how the law should be changed.
I have not recognized any logical concerns being adduced against my claim or my argument, either, but since I have answered, to my knowledge, every concern that has been adduced, then if any of them are logical concerns, then I have indeed responded to whatever logical concerns have been brought up.
I’ll repeat and rephrase my argument again in a few hours, unfortunately I must leave for now.
-FrL-
(Note added emphasis.)
Yes, this.
-FrL-
Why shouldn’t it, and yes (if, as you say, she gets paroled). What’s the problem? I hear a lot of talk about consistency, as if the law were based on consistency. As if one parole board was in any way obligated to take the last parole board into account. As if different people can’t view the situation in different ways. Frylock has been harping on it and harping on it and harping on it, but he has yet to post any convincing reason why this should be so. The law isn’t based on consistency in this context. In fact, as far as I can see, this context does allow for consistency. Ms. Atkins gets to have her day in front of a parole board every year. Presumably the members of the parole board change over time, and they bring their own perspective. So far, they have concluded that the severity of the crime means she stays in prison. That does not mean that the next parole board will reach the same decision, although I wouldn’t bet on Atkins seeing the outside anytime soon. As I’ve been saying from the beginning, a chance in hell is still a possibility in every sense of the word. That’s all that is allocated to Atkins, and that’s all she will get. Frylock can write his arguments and rewrite his arguments and restate his arguments and repeat his arguments all he wants. He is not going to convince me that consistency means different people look at the same situation and come to the exact same conclusion all the time.
Sorry, I should correct myself. From what I’ve been reading, it’s not every year.
As it should be.
Paying the price for one’s own actions is not always pretty.
That poor woman.
YEAAAAAAA!!!
I hope nobody takes it the wrong way or that it doesn’t sound mean when I say “Gee but I hope that bitch dies in excruciating pain and sees Sharon Tate’s face every moment of it”.
He regularly tries to argue that RFK would have supported granting him parole.
Which led Paula Poundstone to slap her head, and say, “Wow! What an unlucky break! the ONE and ONLY person who would have been on your side, and you KILLED him!”
Upon review of the crime I’d like to extend the hospitality of the prison until such time as it is no longer required.
That is frickin hilarious.
I know I saw Jay Leno do that joke.
Wow, she was really proud of her work: “She asked me to let her baby live,” Atkins said. “… I told her I didn’t have any mercy on her.”
Nice.
It would be nice if she were to go quietly into the night.
I feel sad that she has destroyed her own life in the process of destroying others.
Do you understand that the crime occured over thirty years ago and that a lot has happened since then?
I ask because it’s not clear to me that Atkins “has destroyed her own life.” By all accounts, she’s done a huge amount of good in the intervening years.
Here I’m not arguing that she should be released or anything like that. I’m just saying that I doubt there is any basis in fact for your sentiment that she’s “destroyed her life in the process of destroying others.”
Also there is considerable doubt whether the sentence you quoted was actually said during the comission of the crime. Atkins and her co-conspirators all say she did not do any of the actual killing. Again, this isn’t to exhonerate her, it’s just to point out that your sentiments may not have the factual basis you think they have.
-FrL-
True. Perhaps Atkins was in fact a perfect lady as Tate and her full-term unborn baby were repeatedly stabbed while connected by a double ended noose to Jay Sebring and Folger’s face was almost hacked off and Frykowski shot and stabbed dozens of times.
I know you’re not exonerating her, but I totally agree with Bugliosi’s contention that Atkins/Watson/etc. either had some quality most people lack or lacked some quality most people have to allow this crime. This was true carnage. If she’s done good in the almost 40 years then that’s better than if she did more evil, but frankly I think she, Watson and Manson should have fried more than 30 years ago. (The others- well, I wouldn’t shed any tears if they had, but I do think they’re slightly less culpable- and should die in prison.)
I remember reading Helter Skelter when I was 15, and this sentence just gave me chills. I believe the quote in the book was more like “Look, bitch, I have no mercy for you!” It haunted me for a long, long time afterwards.
I’m not against parole in general, and I believe people can change for the better, but the fact that this monster will die behind bars makes me very happy.
Yes, People who weren’t horribly murdered grew older.
She’s been in prison for over 30 years for her involvement in the murder of Sharon Tate and company. By default, she’s ruined her life.
She confessed (bragged) about the crimes committed and was convicted. What factual basis would you like me to know about?
Your sentiment seemed to be based on the belief that she said those things to Tate and that she murdered her. But it is debatable whether she murdered Tate and so it is debatable whether she said the things she said while murdering her. One usually does not want one’s sentiments based on what is debatable, one usually wants one’s sentiments to be based in fact. For that reason, I assumed you would like to be informed of these facts.
I can imagine how you might feel about a person who brags about a crime they didn’t commit, and who shows disrespect to the victim of the crime while doing so. Expression of those sentiments would make more sense than what you’ve done in this thread so far.
-FrL-
I was a little surprised that Bugliosi chimed in for clemency. Me, I wouldn’t have been terribly disappointed with either outcome. If she’d been released to go die on the indigent services dime I wouldn’t have thought it a huge moral outrage, but I’m not shedding any tears for her dying in prison, either. Beats being shot and stabbed twenty or thirty times.