The point of prison isn’t to find out why they call it the pokey. Susan Atkins, a former Manson Family member, is wasting away in prison with cancer, amputations, and generally at death’s door step. She applied for parole because of these conditions and was flatly denied. This was as much a political decision as anything,simply because of how famous her crimes were. This however violates professional ethics, common sense, and probably good economic policy.
The point of prison is not to punish criminals for their crimes, it is to keep society safe from them while we supposedly rehabilitate them. We give out life sentences and order the death penalty because we believe they can not be redeemed and society will not be safe if they walk the streets. Such is the case of Susan Atkins. At least it was the point of Susan Atkins incarceration.
Let us flash forward three and a half decades. Susan Atkins is dying. She has terminal brain cancer. She has had a leg amputated, and from some accounts suffering mental problems. The parole board said no to her request for release, why? Does she continue to pose a threat to society? No. Will releasing her jeopardize the political careers of some people? Quite possibly. So rather than doing their job the board members chose to save their own ass and not follow the basic tenants of incarceration.
Not only was that decision against any sort of professional ethics, it doesn’t make for good common sense either. California prisons are already overcrowded and underfunded, removing those that are no longer a threat to society from this system is the easiest way to fix the problem. They do not have to be let to roam the streets without supervision, but neither should the be kept in prison past the point of it being useful. Secondly hers and others illnesses is hitting this system hard financially. Medical care in prison is very costly, just the guards used when she was transported off site has run the system over three hundred thousand dollars, let alone the nearly two million her care has cost. This is care that would have cost ten percent of that outside of the prison system. This is a stupid waste of money and resources.
No matter what happens we can’t bring back Sharron Tate or the others Susan Atkins had a part in killing. I am not saying we should forgive those crimes either. I am however saying we should release her to her husbands care, because there is no valid reason to keep her incarcerated. She might enjoy that last bit of freedom, but so what, the point of prison was never to punish her.
Dear Brad,
Please explain how you can guarantee that she does not pose a threat to society.
While she might be physically unable to commit any murders herself, it would be VERY unfortunate if she were to somehow get in the position to be able to influence the minds of others (just as Manson did).
As you state, the purpose of prison “is to keep society safe from them while we supposedly rehabilitate them”. How has she been rehabilitated? Why has she been denied parole SEVENTEEN times? Do you know something that the parole board does not? Are you privy to every aspect of her behaviour while she has been in prison as the parole board is?
This is just another opportunity for her to seek release (albeit for unfortunate reasons). She was originally sentenced to death, but it was later commuted to a life sentence. Her life in prison is not over yet. She has not yet completely paid her debt to society.
I couldn’t disagree more. The point of putting Atkins, Manson, et al. behind bars for life was punishment, definitely not rehabilitation. In fact, so much so that their original punishment was the death sentence. The word “penal” means to punish. Atkins wasn’t allowed parole at the end of her life because she was no longer a threat to society. She was denied parole because she had not paid for her crime, which was a pretty bad one. If the judicial system worked according to your premise, then most crime would not be punishable by arbitrary jail terms. A crime of passion is usually a one-off crime, and society is usually not threatened. Does that mean a wife who murders her husband, or the fired employee who murders his boss should not be jailed?
No one can guarantee anything with 100% assurance where human beings are concerned. To me though, this has that extremely foul stench of political bullshit, especially when they have paroled other vicious killers with even less credibility. The media didn’t know their names or the names of their victims, so no one made a big media mess over the situation.
From information that is public about her parole hearing this is how it seems to go. Her people in the parole hearing usually consists of several prison officials (including at one point in time a warden), several clergy members (she became what I understand is a very devout born again Christian in 1974 not that I would trust her over that), her shrink, and shrinks from the prison system. The people get up and speak in her behalf. Then a group for the state put on a big show about the murders, show lots of bloody photos especially of a pregnant Sharron Tate, and say she should never go free without addressing if she is a current threat. The board then denies her parole.
I can’t say for certain she has been rehabilitated. I certainly don’t trust her on the grounds of finding God. I do know she has spent the last thirty plus years denouncing Manson and making statements to the effect that no one should idolize him, much less emulate him. She has also been a model prisoner from everything that has been reported. Like I said I can’t say with any certainty she has been rehabilitated, but there are always prison officials, shrinks (hers and for the state), and clergy who have said she has been. Through the years she has had board members vote for her too. Many of them by all accounts were fired or forced to retire for doing so too.
Last but not least of all this isn’t about her paying a debt. This is about whether or not she poses a danger to society. Too many people close to her and the situation say she isn’t. Not to mention the board also has the power to allow her to go into an unsecured or minimally secured nursing or hospice care which they do all the time when no ones political career is on the line.