Susan Atkins' parole hearing schedueled for May 28th 2009 was postponed.
Why you ask?
WELL SORRY BUT I'M HAVING MY SAY.
Why you ask?
WELL SORRY BUT I'M HAVING MY SAY.
Why? To postpone release ofcourse.
Compassionate release, that is.
Obviously the meaning of the word compassion is not actually understood.
Yes, Susan Atkins didn't understand that word herself in 1969.
Irrelevant.
Is America not quite big on religion?
Doesn't Christianity not say something about compassion?
Irrelevant.
Is America not quite big on religion?
Doesn't Christianity not say something about compassion?
Did she do a very bad thing? Yes.
Do I in anyway condone her acts? No.
Was she under the influence of an utter psycho at the time? Yes.
Did she repent? Yes.
Is she a threat to society now? No.
If she were a man with the exact same crimes, would she be out by now? Probably.
Is she in there to please the blood thirsty public and media? Oh definitley.
Sorry.
Just my opinion.
Do I in anyway condone her acts? No.
Was she under the influence of an utter psycho at the time? Yes.
Did she repent? Yes.
Is she a threat to society now? No.
If she were a man with the exact same crimes, would she be out by now? Probably.
Is she in there to please the blood thirsty public and media? Oh definitley.
Sorry.
Just my opinion.
HERE HERE.
ReplyDeleteLove how you're anonymous JEMMA BRITCHER OF NORWICH, UK.
ReplyDelete"Why? To postpone release ofcourse.
ReplyDeleteCompassionate release, that is."
You got it. Here's a comment from Ms. Atkins' husband, attorney James Whitehouse:
"Under California law the Parole Board _must_ find Susan suitable for parole unless they determine her release would constitute a danger to society."
(http://www.susanatkins.org/2-2009Parole.html)
Assuming Mr. Whitehouse is stating the law correctly, this places the California Parole Board in a dilemma. As appointed officials, they're bound to uphold the law (in theory, that is; in reality they can pretty much grant or deny parole for any reason they choose). However, as political officials, they desperately want to avoid granting parole to Manson or any of the Mansonettes.
Anyone who has ever watched one of their parole hearings or read the transcripts realizes that the CA Parole Board has no intention of ever paroling any of them. They're routinely denied parole for reasons which often have only the vaguest correspondence to the actual evidence (e.g., claims that the psychiatric reports state they're dangerous when the actual reports say no such thing). The fix is in, and always has been.
Manson is as nutty as a fruitcake, and shouldn't be let out. On the other hand, Atkins, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten have all demonstrated their remorse and suitability for release -- a thousand times over. None of which matters, of course.
You're right, they are stalling. But it's not to put off her release as long as possible. Rather, they're cynically hoping she'll die soon and spare them from having to make the ruling at all.
Wonderful, straight to the point, WELLDONE.
ReplyDelete