NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's say you had the chance to release someone who killed a few people, and shows no regret for doing so, would you ignore their life sentence and set them free because they had cancer?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004477996_manson15.html

I vote "no."

Ruffy, are you sure you wred the article correctly? It only mentions one person killed. Sharon Tate.

And for me, 39 years in prison for murder is enough.

For someone to have done something as brutal as she did and to feel no regret afterwards means to me that she is still a risk.

I think let the punishment suit the crime. She showed no mercy to her victim (or her unborn child) and now I don't see why she should get a second chance.

Of course, We do not know the full story from that article, so, that is liable to change.

However, perhaps give her a chance, to have a reasonable chance to say goodbye to anyone on the outside who loves her. Allow her to return home and have a nice dinner for a night (with an escort).

give her a tag with an escort so she can go to the park and all that shit I say

though if I had just been diagnosed with cancer after spending 40 years in prison I would of asked for lost and lots of crazy sex :confused:

Ruffy, are you sure you wred the article correctly? It only mentions one person killed. Sharon Tate.

And for me, 39 years in prison for murder is enough.

She killed two. Sharon was pregnant.

She killed two. Sharon was pregnant.

does that really count?

She should be beaten to death by baubles.

I think the obvious starting point is "Why keep her in prison in the first place?". If you're keeping her in there to protect the outside world, would either the time she's spent or her new disease render her any less likely to reoffend? If you're keeping her in there in the hope of rehabilitation, has that worked? If it's for political reasons, has the message you want to send been sufficiently made by a 40 year sentence?

I suspect that the reason for imprisoning a clearly regretless killer is a combination of the first and third of the above motivations. The first, I think, is probably satisfied - she's not likely to start killing again. The third, however, is a tricky one, and you could think of it in two opposing but equally valid ways:

a) Do we want to send the message that even if you'd do it again, 40 years is enough of a price to pay for taking lives?
b) Do we want to keep someone locked up until they die of their illness just to make a political point?

I'm not sure. Part of me wants to see her freed, since I hate seeing humans in captivity, regardless of any notion of "Justice" that is imposed upon them, and I don't think releasing her would cause any harm. On the other hand, I understand why people want to keep her in there, and although I disagree with their reasons, it's not my place to dictate what they should be thinking.

does that really count?

Seeing as it was 8.5 months? Yes.

Of course, We do not know the full story from that article, so, that is liable to change.

It was a very infamous case at the time. Wikipedia on Susan Atkins. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Atkins)

It's rather simple really. Atkins murdered Tate to try to impress Charles Manson, and Manson was this guy with a plan to take over the world. He apparently got this idea from a Beatles song.

The proper solution is to execute Ringo Starr, since John, Paul and George are all dead already.
Yeah I know. But it's a Ruffy thread. And Kat told me to go harass someone. And I'm still flying from that stuff the dentist injected into my head..

Seeing as it was 8.5 months? Yes.

ah but was that more manslaughter than murder?

I think this depends on so many factors that the article does not talk about. How long she has left to live? What sort of life has she got left? Is she bed-ridden or will she live a relatively normal life for a few years? Has she changed during the 39 years in prison?

My personal feeling is that after that many years, she should be let out for the final 6 months or so of her life, certainly if she by now does show remorse or regret for her actions (the article only says that she did not about 15 years ago). She will not be a threat to people any more, certainly not as the cancer becomes more advanced. It is true 39 years is in no way enough to pay for another persons life, but then nothing is, nothing will bring that person back.

We are better than the people we lock up and abhor for their actions, we should be able to find enough compassion to allow someone to die in a normal hospital rather than a prison hospital wing.

On a purely more practical note, the prison system does not have the resources to adequately treat this kind of cancer and frankly the cost of treating her in prison would be astronomical.

ah but was that more manslaughter than murder?

This was unwarranted abortion, and we all know abortion is murder.

This was unwarranted abortion, and we all know abortion is murder.
Wow, threadjacking your own thread on the first page? Good going! :p

On a purely more practical note, the prison system does not have the resources to adequately treat this kind of cancer and frankly the cost of treating her in prison would be astronomical.

its terminal...

This was unwarranted abortion, and we all know abortion is murder.

but the baby was made from incest so its okay!

On a purely more practical note, the prison system does not have the resources to adequately treat this kind of cancer and frankly the cost of treating her in prison would be astronomical.

So why treat her? Why not allow her to die in excruciating pain? It hardly matters.

It was a very infamous case at the time. Wikipedia on Susan Atkins. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Atkins)

It's rather simple really. Atkins murdered Tate to try to impress Charles Manson, and Manson was this guy with a plan to take over the world. He apparently got this idea from a Beatles song.

The proper solution is to execute Ringo Starr, since John, Paul and George are all dead already.
Yeah I know. But it's a Ruffy thread. And Kat told me to go harass someone. And I'm still flying from that stuff the dentist injected into my head..

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/iagree.gif

its terminal...


I should add, when I say treat, I meant palliative care. If it wasn't terminal there would be no reason to let her out at all (other than the usual channels of parole).

And the reason we give people at least this minimal amount of care, instead of just allowing her to die in screaming pain is because we are surely better people. It is very easy to call people monsters and lock them up, and what she did is truly horrific, but then to say that you would happily allow her to die in screaming agony, does that make you any better? Yes, you may not personally be killing anyone, but you are displaying a similar sort of lack of empathy.

Of course it's a lot easier when you don't actually have to look at the person in question.

*as a caveat, I haven't thought this through very much, there's probably some disconnected thoughts and large holes in logic but I have a gut feeling against the prison system, I just haven't thought too much about it, so this'll do for now*

This sort of case throws the entire prison system into light. What is the purpose other than keeping dangerous people away from society?

That's all it is yet, because we pretend it's about rehabilitation, we keep hundreds of people who are really no danger to society at all in prison due to people such as Charles Manson and Susan Atkins, pretending it's about rehabilitation when it's just not.

Prison is about punishment, and how much punishment we feel someone deserves and whether, because they now have brain cancer, they deserve less punishment all of a sudden.

Was there ever any intention of rehabilitating Susan Atkins - would we ever believe she deserved a second chance? I doubt it, and to be honest, I'm fine for her to spend life in jail, as tragic a waste of life that it is. What I don't like is the lie that it's anything to do with 'retraining'.

Everyone has the potential to be a danger to others, some are simply more impressionable, with such a broken childhood that they easily fall under the influence of others for example, some make simple mistakes, some are filled with hatred.

Prison is a convenient stop-gap, a means of putting away those we don't want to deal with.

To be honest, it's simply a fact of life, we just don't have the time nor the knowledge to deal with abnormalities, yet the entire prison system highlights the lies we, as a society, tell when we are unable to admit the truth between what we feel is acceptable to say and what we actually believe.

I couldn't care much for Susan Atkins, should she have received the death sentence because, frankly, under the current system, I sometimes wonder if the death sentence is actually the humane choice.

Do I have any solutions?

No.

*as a caveat, I haven't thought this through very much, there's probably some disconnected thoughts and large holes in logic but I have a gut feeling against the prison system, I just haven't thought too much about it, so this'll do for now*

This sort of case throws the entire prison system into light. What is the purpose other than keeping dangerous people away from society?

That's all it is yet, because we pretend it's about rehabilitation, we keep hundreds of people who are really no danger to society at all in prison due to people such as Charles Manson and Susan Atkins, pretending it's about rehabilitation when it's just not.

Prison is about punishment, and how much punishment we feel someone deserves and whether, because they now have brain cancer, they deserve less punishment all of a sudden.

Was there ever any intention of rehabilitating Susan Atkins - would we ever believe she deserved a second chance? I doubt it, and to be honest, I'm fine for her to spend life in jail, as tragic a waste of life that it is. What I don't like is the lie that it's anything to do with 'retraining'.

Everyone has the potential to be a danger to others, some are simply more impressionable, with such a broken childhood that they easily fall under the influence of others for example, some make simple mistakes, some are filled with hatred.

Prison is a convenient stop-gap, a means of putting away those we don't want to deal with.

To be honest, it's simply a fact of life, we just don't have the time nor the knowledge to deal with abnormalities, yet the entire prison system highlights the lies we, as a society, tell when we are unable to admit the truth between what we feel is acceptable to say and what we actually believe.

I couldn't care much for Susan Atkins, should she have received the death sentence because, frankly, under the current system, I sometimes wonder if the death sentence is actually the humane choice.

Do I have any solutions?

No.

Depends on how much fun she's had in prison. Not that I would describe prison as 'fun', but people can get used to a lot of things over that period of time. It's not as though a life sentence means a lifetime spent in a sensory isolation chamber with absolutely no input and nothing to do. It also doesn't mean breaking rocks, etc.

I think most people would take the lifetime in the prison over a bullet to the back of the head.

That's all it is yet, because we pretend it's about rehabilitation, we keep hundreds of people who are really no danger to society at all in prison due to people such as Charles Manson and Susan Atkins, pretending it's about rehabilitation when it's just not.

Prison is about punishment, and how much punishment we feel someone deserves and whether, because they now have brain cancer, they deserve less punishment all of a sudden.


Evidence has shown to us time and time again that a prison system that is only about punishment tends to increase levels of recidivism. Prison as punishment does not actually work very well. This is not because it's soft or seen as a free ride but because it fails on all the requisit critieria for effective conditioning. It is not consisistent, it is often applied a long time after the actual crime and as such the contingent links between the punishment (prison) and the action (the crime) are unclear. Instead prison becomes a negative reinforcer for it's (psychologically speaking) apparent direct cause: the police and the courts (this is a similar phenomena that physical punishment often results in it's association with the person doing the punishment rather than what the child did wrong in the first place).

Rehabilitation is far from perfect, but it does work and prison systems which utilise rehabilitation programs will generally reduced recidivism by approximately 10% from baseline expected recidivism rates. This is significant, even if it's relatively small. Rehabilitation does not work with all prisoners though, a small minority with high levels of psychopathy, whereby we have not yet found effective interventions, but for the majority of prisoners, rehabilitation is worth it.

An effective prison systems needs to combine elements of punishment, retribution, rehabilitation and public protection and these need to be applied appropriately dependant not only on the crime but on the criminal.

Of course this little ramble into penal philosophy has little to do with the original topic other than to raise the issue that from what we have read of the article does little to give a true indication of how effective rehabilitation has/may have been or that we know little about what her level of risk is.

Edit: Although it would seem to imply a level of psychopathy or other mental disorder, which raises all sorts of issues in and of itself.

She should not be released. Her crime was extreme, not just because it was a murder, but because it was a particularly brutal murder that was part of a mass murder (Sharon Tate was one of several people killed in that house, and a little later, the same group killed more people at another house, as part of the same "spree") and it was part of a self-professed cult-based attack on society (Manson's nut-job notion was to make the murders look like the Black Panthers did it, thus sparking a race war, which would destroy society, so he could step into the power vacuum and take over). In addition, Susan Atkins has shown no change in her attitude towards society in general and still claims to be proud of what she and her friends did. Because of this, I believe life without parole is an appropriate sentence, and she should die in the custody of the state. Lifers die of cancer, AIDS, other diseases, and old age in prisons all the time. What makes her any different?

You parole prisoners or let them out early because they show an honest change in their attitude that makes you think they will not offend again. Not because you feel sorry for them.

Now, a completely separate question is whether the prison system she is in can give adequate end-of-life care to her. If not, that is a fault in that prison system, but not a justification for letting her go. Rather, she should be moved to a facility where she can get the proper care.

And the facility/system that cannot care for her should, obviously, be reformed.

euthanized

Idealism only works in a world with unlimited resources. Unfortunately that is not the case and every penny spend giving her minimum treatment is taken out of pocket of hardworking taxpayers, many of who doesn't even have such a privilege themselves. If the same amount of money is to be spend on charity I much rather it spend on feeding homeless children here in the US, instead of keeping a murder alive for a few more months.

I am not sure if it's worth the risk of releasing a serial killer who can still move a finger. It doesn't take that much physical strength to kill with a firearm. I can't tell rather or not her physical condition is capable of operating one by this article, nor does the article offer any insight into any rehabilitation that have taken place. She might very well have the same mindset she did 37 years ago.

Evidence has shown to us time and time again that a prison system that is only about punishment tends to increase levels of recidivism. Prison as punishment does not actually work very well. This is not because it's soft or seen as a free ride but because it fails on all the requisit critieria for effective conditioning. It is not consisistent, it is often applied a long time after the actual crime and as such the contingent links between the punishment (prison) and the action (the crime) are unclear. Instead prison becomes a negative reinforcer for it's (psychologically speaking) apparent direct cause: the police and the courts (this is a similar phenomena that physical punishment often results in it's association with the person doing the punishment rather than what the child did wrong in the first place).

Rehabilitation is far from perfect, but it does work and prison systems which utilise rehabilitation programs will generally reduced recidivism by approximately 10% from baseline expected recidivism rates. This is significant, even if it's relatively small. Rehabilitation does not work with all prisoners though, a small minority with high levels of psychopathy, whereby we have not yet found effective interventions, but for the majority of prisoners, rehabilitation is worth it.

An effective prison systems needs to combine elements of punishment, retribution, rehabilitation and public protection and these need to be applied appropriately dependant not only on the crime but on the criminal.

Of course this little ramble into penal philosophy has little to do with the original topic other than to raise the issue that from what we have read of the article does little to give a true indication of how effective rehabilitation has/may have been or that we know little about what her level of risk is.

Edit: Although it would seem to imply a level of psychopathy or other mental disorder, which raises all sorts of issues in and of itself.

Rehabilitation has been shown not to work in the US. Over and over again, over decades of research.

The only "rehabilitation" that has proven results is "aging out" - sentencing young violent offenders to terms that will release them when they are older than 55 years of age.

Do I have any solutions?
How about stripping her of citizenship and kicking her out of the country? That way, she retains her freedom and we don't have to deal with her.

How about stripping her of citizenship and kicking her out of the country? That way, she retains her freedom and we don't have to deal with her.

I doubt if another country would want her.

We could put her on a transpacific flight, and toss her out at 36,000 feet somewhere over the Pacific (at least 1000 miles from the nearest land).

*snip with respect*

No, I'm all for rehabilitation while understanding that we cannot, or do not have the will or understanding to, afford it.

I find, a word to which Hotwife alluded, institutionalization to be, to me, abhorrent. I have a natural reaction to enforced routine with little hope of anything different. If I see an improvement in civilisation, and I do, then it's in the greater chance to break free from circumstance in terms of who you are.

I'm aware that there's many philosophies and theories being applied to prisons, experiments here and there, and I'm aware that those closest to it have a far better understanding than, certainly, me.

Again, I can't really express what I mean to say, often when I write something here, it's in the hope that someone will question or refine to help cut any fat from my thoughts.

As much as I can say, prison is a temporary solution, one for which society has many contradictory opinions, even within one person - against death penalty, for condemning someone to an institution of no free will, which, as Hotwife says, some will actually enjoy.

It's not consistent in term of how we apply it, that bothers me for some reason.

Evidence has shown to us time and time again that a prison system that is only about punishment tends to increase levels of recidivism. Prison as punishment does not actually work very well. This is not because it's soft or seen as a free ride but because it fails on all the requisit critieria for effective conditioning. It is not consisistent, it is often applied a long time after the actual crime and as such the contingent links between the punishment (prison) and the action (the crime) are unclear. Instead prison becomes a negative reinforcer for it's (psychologically speaking) apparent direct cause: the police and the courts (this is a similar phenomena that physical punishment often results in it's association with the person doing the punishment rather than what the child did wrong in the first place).

Rehabilitation is far from perfect, but it does work and prison systems which utilise rehabilitation programs will generally reduced recidivism by approximately 10% from baseline expected recidivism rates. This is significant, even if it's relatively small. Rehabilitation does not work with all prisoners though, a small minority with high levels of psychopathy, whereby we have not yet found effective interventions, but for the majority of prisoners, rehabilitation is worth it.

An effective prison systems needs to combine elements of punishment, retribution, rehabilitation and public protection and these need to be applied appropriately dependant not only on the crime but on the criminal.

Of course this little ramble into penal philosophy has little to do with the original topic other than to raise the issue that from what we have read of the article does little to give a true indication of how effective rehabilitation has/may have been or that we know little about what her level of risk is.

Edit: Although it would seem to imply a level of psychopathy or other mental disorder, which raises all sorts of issues in and of itself.
I agree with almost everything you've said, except that I dislike the retribution part. I do not think it is healthy for society to be setting up systems for things like retribution or revenge or such like. But I do believe that rehabilitation should be the main focus of the correctional system because getting people onto a proper social track and then setting them off on that track is just more practical and efficient than just shutting them up forever to punish them and having to maintain huge and expensive facilities for that purpose.

But when as you say, a prisoner does not rehabilitate, then obviously, they will never be safe in society. And if such a person is a violent offender, then a prison system must be prepared properly to house such prisoners for the rest of their lives. I do believe Susan Atkins falls into that category.

How about stripping her of citizenship and kicking her out of the country? That way, she retains her freedom and we don't have to deal with her.

You can do better than that though I understand the logical conclusion.

ah but was that more manslaughter than murder?

no murder Sharon Tate(as she lay dieing) asked her to cut the child out so it might live and she opted to stab a knife in her belly killing the child first.

I think the obvious starting point is "Why keep her in prison in the first place?". If you're keeping her in there to protect the outside world, would either the time she's spent or her new disease render her any less likely to reoffend? If you're keeping her in there in the hope of rehabilitation, has that worked? If it's for political reasons, has the message you want to send been sufficiently made by a 40 year sentence?

All incorrect. People should be punished because they have wronged society, or others, not to rehabilitate them, or to discourage future crimes in others, but simply because they have committed (in this case) a gross violation of law.

I doubt if another country would want her.
Izzactly. She'd have to fight for her own life without having the support of people or nations to rely on. Though you could be a bit more humane than the middle of the ocean. The rainforests? The arctic? East Africa? Just drop her off somewhere with enough resources to get settled in (easily cheaper than maintaining her imprisonment) and let her get on with being a nomad.

You wanna ignore the rules of civilisation? Fine, then you're out of civilisation. Seems reasonable to me.

All incorrect. People should be punished because they have wronged society, or others, not to rehabilitate them, or to discourage future crimes in others, but simply because they have committed (in this case) a gross violation of law.
But what is the point of punishing them? That's the question I'm asking.

You can do better than that...
Care to elaborate?

Rehabilitation has been shown not to work in the US. Over and over again, over decades of research.

The only "rehabilitation" that has proven results is "aging out" - sentencing young violent offenders to terms that will release them when they are older than 55 years of age.

Really? Because in that case you must be reading different research to me. Actually, seriously I would like to see sources for this, certainly ones that are more recent than Martinson (1974), certainly since the author retracted the statement a couple of years later.

Not everything works, it needs to respond to cover certain principles certainly (response to criminogenic needs, well-structured interventions, with explicit theoretical basis and Are cognitive or cognitive-behavioural, based on risk and responsivity of prisoner) but I can assure you some things do.

For my side of things:
http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/04-07-3901.pdf is a good start, although it does look at it from a predominantly economic point of view

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hors291.pdf this one is predominantly based on research in UK prisons, but since it's applying a number of programs developed in the US or Canada, I'd argue that they were probably effective over there.

I shall dig you out some more if you are interested. Unfortunatly I do not have all the references to hand.

Also, I'm curious, if rehabilitation works in other countries, why do you feel if won't work in the US? What is so special about your particular criminals?

I agree with almost everything you've said, except that I dislike the retribution part. I do not think it is healthy for society to be setting up systems for things like retribution or revenge or such like. But I do believe that rehabilitation should be the main focus of the correctional system because getting people onto a proper social track and then setting them off on that track is just more practical and efficient than just shutting them up forever to punish them and having to maintain huge and expensive facilities for that purpose.


No I agree, revenge is not the point of the criminal justice system and should not be so. It's harsh, but once revenge comes into it, objectivity flies out the window.

However, it should give the victim some peace of mind, and in some cases the use of community service can mean that the offender will give back to the community they've wronged (e.g. someone convicted for vandalism doing community service to clean up graffitti etc). Maybe restitution would have been a better word.

Care to elaborate?

There's no embarrassed emoticon. If Der Teutoniker hadn't quoted your post above I wouldn't have noticed your initial post, which pretty much, in a more coherent way, outlines what I meant.

I find the question of whether we should treat Susan Atkins pertinent to the entire criminal system because it exposes the contradictions.

Are we just punishing her, in which case let her die of brain cancer, are we teaching her a lesson, in which case keep her alive?

Do we really think that a political point is made with someone who would murder a pregnant women and then use that person's blood to write 'Pig' on the floor. To whom are we making that message, those considering doing the same?

Are we merely constructing societal boundaries?

I just question the feelings of people over an extreme case like this and question myself, I suppose, over my opinions on crime and the penal system as a whole.

Really? Because in that case you must be reading different research to me. Actually, seriously I would like to see sources for this, certainly ones that are more recent than Martinson (1974), certainly since the author retracted the statement a couple of years later.

Not everything works, it needs to respond to cover certain principles certainly (response to criminogenic needs, well-structured interventions, with explicit theoretical basis and Are cognitive or cognitive-behavioural, based on risk and responsivity of prisoner) but I can assure you some things do.

For my side of things:
http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/04-07-3901.pdf is a good start, although it does look at it from a predominantly economic point of view

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hors291.pdf this one is predominantly based on research in UK prisons, but since it's applying a number of programs developed in the US or Canada, I'd argue that they were probably effective over there.

I shall dig you out some more if you are interested. Unfortunatly I do not have all the references to hand.

Also, I'm curious, if rehabilitation works in other countries, why do you feel if won't work in the US? What is so special about your particular criminals?

What we've noticed in the US is that you can rehab all you like - most people when released end up going back to their old friends, old family units, old hangouts, and their hometown area.

It's that environment that made them bad in the first place. It usually ends up undoing anything you did in rehab.

And if the felon in question is a heroin, crack, or meth head - forget it. It would be better to shoot them in the head. No drug rehab (and that's essential before trying the other rehab) has been shown to work for more than 5 percent of a group for more than 6 months.

Most of our crime, is committed by people with major drug problems.

All incorrect. People should be punished because they have wronged society, or others, not to rehabilitate them, or to discourage future crimes in others, but simply because they have committed (in this case) a gross violation of law.
You are calling it punishment. Accept the real term. Revenge.The state has to be better than the criminals, they shouldn't behave like criminals.

Jail has to be about keeping society safe, nothing more. The jail keeps people safe in a few ways. It keeps violent people away from "normal" people until they are rehabilitated. It acts to deter borderline people from committing crimes, by imprisoning people who commit crimes.

No I agree, revenge is not the point of the criminal justice system and should not be so. It's harsh, but once revenge comes into it, objectivity flies out the window.

However, it should give the victim some peace of mind, and in some cases the use of community service can mean that the offender will give back to the community they've wronged (e.g. someone convicted for vandalism doing community service to clean up graffitti etc). Maybe restitution would have been a better word.

Yes, restitution is definitely the better word then, and I do agree with you on that point. Actually, I believe that the making of restitution should be part of the rehabilitation process -- though with the proviso that it is restitution to society, not to the victims of crime, because for some crimes, how can restitution ever be made? Even leaving out violent crimes against people, you can pay a person back for robbing them of property, but how can you pay them back for having terrified them or invaded their home? How can a person's peace of mind be restored, except by time and their own efforts? The "giving back" can never be exact, along an "eye for an eye" formula.

Let's say you had the chance to release someone who killed a few people, and shows no regret for doing so, would you ignore their life sentence and set them free because they had cancer?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004477996_manson15.html

I vote "no."

No.

What we've noticed in the US is that you can rehab all you like - most people when released end up going back to their old friends, old family units, old hangouts, and their hometown area.

It's that environment that made them bad in the first place. It usually ends up undoing anything you did in rehab.

And if the felon in question is a heroin, crack, or meth head - forget it. It would be better to shoot them in the head. No drug rehab (and that's essential before trying the other rehab) has been shown to work for more than 5 percent of a group for more than 6 months.

Most of our crime, is committed by people with major drug problems.

Who is this "we" you speak of? I'm in the US, and I've noticed no such thing. I'm with Eofaerwic on this -- I also would like to see your sources to back up your assertion.

What we've noticed in the US is that you can rehab all you like - most people when released end up going back to their old friends, old family units, old hangouts, and their hometown area.

It's that environment that made them bad in the first place. It usually ends up undoing anything you did in rehab.

And if the felon in question is a heroin, crack, or meth head - forget it. It would be better to shoot them in the head. No drug rehab (and that's essential before trying the other rehab) has been shown to work for more than 5 percent of a group for more than 6 months.


I must disagree with you there, a number of programs have been found to be effective with reducing drug use for a significant proportion of those involved and more importantly reduce their drug related offending. Yes, it is very difficult to get people off drugs, but it is possible, especially if the offender is motivated (and a lot of them are).

I am not saying drugs are not a problem, they are. The issue of returning to similar backgrounds and issues like a lack of employment, housing etc... are MAJOR factors in reoffending. However it needs to be a two-pronged intervention, you cannot just rehabilitate and treat the cognitive side (the beliefs/poor socialization involved) without also affecting the social side when they get out of prison. But at the same time, just fixing the social issues will not necessarily help without the cognitive side too, addressing the psychological issues involved in offending.

Nonetheless, despite all these issues you mention, the fact is research indicates that, based on follow-up reoffending rates, rehabilitation programs do make significant gains.

If a system that imposes life in prisonment is not capable of addressing health concerns that arise towards the end of ones life, then the system is seriously messed up.

I must disagree with you there, a number of programs have been found to be effective with reducing drug use for a significant proportion of those involved and more importantly reduce their drug related offending. Yes, it is very difficult to get people off drugs, but it is possible, especially if the offender is motivated (and a lot of them are).

I am not saying drugs are not a problem, they are. The issue of returning to similar backgrounds and issues like a lack of employment, housing etc... are MAJOR factors in reoffending. However it needs to be a two-pronged intervention, you cannot just rehabilitate and treat the cognitive side (the beliefs/poor socialization involved) without also affecting the social side when they get out of prison. But at the same time, just fixing the social issues will not necessarily help without the cognitive side too, addressing the psychological issues involved in offending.

Nonetheless, despite all these issues you mention, the fact is research indicates that, based on follow-up reoffending rates, rehabilitation programs do make significant gains.

Not here in the US.

That's why we have the three-strikes law - and why so many get caught by it. It's why sentences have been lengthened, to support "aging out" the violent offenders.

That much we can see is working.

No treatment program for heroin, crack, or meth users works any better than doing nothing for periods longer than 6 months.

A lot show promise for less than six months - but the successful ones require inpatient treatment, where you have to remain, or 95% of the people relapse.

Not here in the US.

That's why we have the three-strikes law - and why so many get caught by it. It's why sentences have been lengthened, to support "aging out" the violent offenders.

That much we can see is working.

No treatment program for heroin, crack, or meth users works any better than doing nothing for periods longer than 6 months.

A lot show promise for less than six months - but the successful ones require inpatient treatment, where you have to remain, or 95% of the people relapse.

Again, I would like to see the studies showing this. Because, this may shock you, but a lot of very successful rehabilitation programs come out of the US. However, they are generally applied inconsistently and haphazardly within the system. Furthermore, given that criminals pretty much across the western industrialized world are faced with very similar issues, why do you think that US criminals are necessarily fundamentally different?

Again, I would like to see the studies showing this. Because, this may shock you, but a lot of very successful rehabilitation programs come out of the US. However, they are generally applied inconsistently and haphazardly within the system. Furthermore, given that criminals pretty much across the western industrialized world are faced with very similar issues, why do you think that US criminals are necessarily fundamentally different?

Not all criminals are alike, or motivated by the same things. One's sense of social integration and caring can be completely destroyed, say, by meth addiction.

Very few meth and heroin addicts can stay clean after the first six months of treatment. Most relapse. They need money to feed their habits. Getting a job won't cut it for most.

Then we have the gang problem here - it's much worse than most other countries. And we have a problem with urban black culture that is destroying the lives of urban blacks here - they're killing each other at a rate 200% greater than that of whites.

Send them back to that environment in the inner city, and you obviate the entire rehab program.

Our laws have changed here - on the basis of studies that showed that rehabilitation doesn't work.

Three-strikes works, as does aging out. It's why our firearm violence rate has plummeted over the past fifteen years.

...why do you think that US criminals are necessarily fundamentally different?

The only difference, where there's little difference in crime rates despite different approaches, is the politician's need to sate the public desire for retribution for crime.

Placing the victim face to face with the consequences of their crime, generally through the victim themselves or the families of those victims, probably has the best effects in terms of producing real remorse, although there'll always be exceptions.

Yet the public generally doesn't actually want forgiveness, it wants punishment and so the government bends to that will.

This is what I feel causes the issues with crime, that effectiveness is rarely the aim where toughness is seen as a virtue.

*The opinions expressed here may or may not have been stolen from this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/16/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation), sue me*

That's why we have the three-strikes law - and why so many get caught by it. It's why sentences have been lengthened, to support "aging out" the violent offenders.
The three-strikes law is a load of crap created by idiots to look tough on petty drug crimes. Because nothing says "reelect me" like sending some kid in his 20s to jail for life for having an ounce of pot on him.

No use arguing with DK there, he's out of his ever loving mind.

Here's an example of a failed rehabilitation program. It points out the difference between pie-in-the-sky PhD ideas and reality.

It also shows you the multiple reasons such programs fail, including the willingness of pro-rehabilitation people to lie outright about their own figures.

The results of the rehabilitation are WORSE than no rehabilitation at all.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/121507dnprorehab.2b1a9ce.html

The Texas Youth Commission's drug treatment program produces graduates who are more likely to re-offend after release than addicted inmates who did not participate.

While TYC has known internally for years that the effectiveness of its chemical dependency program was negligible at best, officials continued to boast of its groundbreaking rehabilitation work with delinquent juveniles to state legislators.

New leaders at TYC say they recognize the failings and are vowing reform. But they face a series of obstacles endemic to a juvenile corrections system that operates mostly in remote rural areas.

They also blame a broader rehabilitation program that was designed to provide youthful offenders with skills to turn their lives around. The program, known as Resocialization, once was touted as a national model but fell from favor because staff used it to arbitrarily extend the amount of time inmates served.

TYC told the Sunset Advisory Commission in late August that Resocialization's one-size-fits-all approach gutted the therapeutic impact of the chemical dependency program.

The lack of effective drug treatment reflects a fundamental failure of TYC's mission to "fix broken children." More than 80 percent of delinquents committed to TYC are identified as being at risk for drug or alcohol abuse, a major contributor to criminal conduct. The report found that inmates who participated in the drug program committed new crimes at a rate of two percentage points higher than nonparticipants.

Dimitria Pope, who became acting executive director in June, said she quickly concluded that neither the chemical dependency program nor Resocialization was working properly because both were designed by TYC staff in a vacuum.

"You had a number of Ph.D.-level white females who sat and wrote programming and a concept," Ms. Pope said. "In theory, it looked great. But you didn't have anyone who tested this on the population."

about the OP,
I'd say "yes" only if the cancer was so severe that the culprit could do nothing but linger in a hospital bed - there's no need of further restrains.
Otherwise, no.

i see no reason to let her out.

what does being terminally ill have to do with anything? if she was healthy she would stay in prison until she drops dead, why should being ill be a reason to change that?

However it needs to be a two-pronged intervention, you cannot just rehabilitate and treat the cognitive side (the beliefs/poor socialization involved) without also affecting the social side when they get out of prison.
I agree with you in a sense, but there's an interesting side effect of this approach: people effectively getting rewarded for committing misdemeanours. If committing crimes leads to an increase in support for your community then suddenly the stigma of breaking the law vanishes. In fact, from the general perspective of your neighbourhood, it might even be a noble act for an individual to sacrifice their own immediate well being to improve the community as a whole.

The thing is, you can't reverse the relation either, rewarding good behaviour with social support. Chances are that would result in a huge drop in reported crime (the sort of thing Governments love) but an increase in actual street crime, with citizens being less likely to report problems for fear of jeopardising their community's well being.

Maybe we should just generally invest in less well-off communities without making any sort of relationship to crime at all explicit?

Let's say you had the chance to release someone who killed a few people, and shows no regret for doing so, would you ignore their life sentence and set them free because they had cancer?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004477996_manson15.html

I vote "no."
I would also vote no. prision isn't a school or a workplace where one can "leave due to illness". yeah that sounds inhumane, but so was what they did to put them in prision in the first place.

I agree with you in a sense, but there's an interesting side effect of this approach: people effectively getting rewarded for committing misdemeanours. If committing crimes leads to an increase in support for your community then suddenly the stigma of breaking the law vanishes. In fact, from the general perspective of your neighbourhood, it might even be a noble act for an individual to sacrifice their own immediate well being to improve the community as a whole.

The thing is, you can't reverse the relation either, rewarding good behaviour with social support. Chances are that would result in a huge drop in reported crime (the sort of thing Governments love) but an increase in actual street crime, with citizens being less likely to report problems for fear of jeopardising their community's well being.

Maybe we should just generally invest in less well-off communities without making any sort of relationship to crime at all explicit?

I just posted an example of the multiple pronged approach being a fucking disaster.

I just posted an example of the multiple pronged approach being a fucking disaster.

Which could be an exception, you know.

I just posted an example of the multiple pronged approach being a fucking disaster.
I said there was a problem - I didn't mean to imply that it was totally unavoidable. It seems as though the main flaw with your case study was procedural (no experimental research, poor accountability etc.) rather than one of fundamental principle. The idea of improving social conditions as one aspect of encouraging social cohesion is still sound, even if one group of people who tried something along those lines messed it up.

Which could be an exception, you know.

It's pretty common to see these failures.

Since drug addiction to serious drugs like heroin, crack, and meth are responsible for most criminal offenses that result in felony incarceration, solving the addiction problem is central to success.

You can keep someone on methadone or a narcotic agonist for six months, but not much longer. After that six months, 95% relapse.

With meth and crack, it's essentially impossible to keep them off. Release them from inpatient rehab, and within a year, they're going to relapse, and consequently, reoffend.

After that, it doesn't matter what job training you gave them, or what college you let them study at. They're going to fail, and hard.

This is just the classic example.

Since drug addiction to serious drugs like heroin, crack, and meth are responsible for most criminal offenses that result in felony incarceration, solving the addiction problem is central to success.
So you don't think that solving the supply problem would help any?

So you don't think that solving the supply problem would help any?

I believe that the government should supply these drugs at no cost to addicts.

This would go a long way towards solving violence on the street, and most property crimes.

If anyone wants to die by smoking meth until their brain fries, then it should be free of cost.

I believe that the government should supply these drugs at no cost to addicts.
Why should the government give crack addicts their fix for free and keep law-abiding, hard-working citizens struggling to make ends meet? As much as I distrust the idea of justice, something seems deeply out of line about the idea of helping people run away from personal problems and abandoning those who fight on through them.

Why should the government give crack addicts their fix for free and keep law-abiding, hard-working citizens struggling to make ends meet? As much as I distrust the idea of justice, something seems deeply out of line about the idea of helping people run away from personal problems and abandoning those who fight on through them.

It's cheaper than fighting the war on drugs.

It's also going to result in less violence, less theft, less overall social costs.

And, if they die earlier, because they can't stop themselves from smoking meth, and do it continuously until they die in six months, that's even better.

It's not that they're running away from personal problems. How they got there becomes irrelevant once they're hooked on meth. At that point, they are no longer the person they once were - and will never be again.

Here's an example of a failed rehabilitation program. It points out the difference between pie-in-the-sky PhD ideas and reality.

It also shows you the multiple reasons such programs fail, including the willingness of pro-rehabilitation people to lie outright about their own figures.

The results of the rehabilitation are WORSE than no rehabilitation at all.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/121507dnprorehab.2b1a9ce.html

Mistake 1: Texas
Mistake 2: Your article pointed out that they had a working rehabilitation program until people started screwing with it to arbitrarily do more Texan tough on crime bs.
Mistake 3: See Mistake 1

In Australia life = 25 years in jail
You can murder when your 20 then again at 55 and again at 80 before dying living from a pension. If believe crimes should warrant the time and that every nation has a right to decide the time for each crime. But why cant they just be honest and say life = life without parole and 25 years = 25 years. I guess the change in this would not keep the public happy. The scared want retric to feel safe and the bleading hearts want the guilty to be able to leave jail after a "tut tut".

It's pretty common to see these failures.

<snip>

You said this was something that "we" in the United States have observed and that there are decades of research showing that rehabilitation doesn't work. Then you posted an example of just one failed program.

Can't you find any over-view information, something that talks about those decades of research and, hopefully, looks at more than one program, and talks about the trend of rehabilitation failure that you claim exists?

You wanna ignore the rules of civilisation? Fine, then you're out of civilisation. Seems reasonable to me.

That is a waste of viable and valuable organs. However, noting that Susan Atkins does not have the death penalty, but life in prison instead, I cannot see any reason why she should spend the remainder of her life working for the good of the community. Namely, forced labor, with the opt out of death by starvation.

When it isn't a miscarriage of justice, there should be no mercy, but there shouldn't be a waste of resources to sustain non-performers either. Why should those who have taken from society be allowed to continue at society's expense without putting something back in?

What? I didn't mean to choose be released! God damn it. I quit.

I would of asked for lost and lots of crazy sex :confused:...and probably said "whoops, accident"
"whoops, accident again"
"whoops, my bad, try a different angle"
"accident!"
;)

Here's an example of a failed rehabilitation program. It points out the difference between pie-in-the-sky PhD ideas and reality.

It also shows you the multiple reasons such programs fail, including the willingness of pro-rehabilitation people to lie outright about their own figures.


It also shows a program which does not correspond the principles countless years of research have indicated are necessary to ensure successful rehabilitation. It did not have a proven experimental basis (in this country for a program to be implemented across the service it needs at least two well-controlled validation study proving significant gains in reconviction rates), it was not specifically targeted based on needs or risk level, and it was not consistently applied based on well-structured criteria. I've always found it funny how whenever a program fails it's reported in the news but if one succeeds (and many, many do, I've seen the research papers) it never is.



Maybe we should just generally invest in less well-off communities without making any sort of relationship to crime at all explicit?

Yes, definitely. I didn't mean that communities should be specifically targeted because they have crime, although frankly high levels of criminality are generally indicative of an area with social deprivation. Generally we should do more to improve the communities they come from, not just by throwing money at it, but by building youth programs, community centres, support services, schools, and so on, which may, hopefully, help stop the cycle of crime before it starts

In Australia life = 25 years in jail
You can murder when your 20 then again at 55 and again at 80 before dying living from a pension. If believe crimes should warrant the time and that every nation has a right to decide the time for each crime. But why cant they just be honest and say life = life without parole and 25 years = 25 years. I guess the change in this would not keep the public happy. The scared want retric to feel safe and the bleading hearts want the guilty to be able to leave jail after a "tut tut".

Actually, if Australia is anything like the UK, life does mean life but in a slightly different way. If someone gets life in this country they generally get a minimum tarrif, after which they can, if they show appropriate risk reduction, remorse etc... be released on parole. However, they are on parole for the rest of their life. If they do anything to break the terms of that release they go straight back to jail, no need for a trial, and that includes if they commit any crimes, even small ones. You may not be in jail for life, but you are in the system for life.


You said this was something that "we" in the United States have observed and that there are decades of research showing that rehabilitation doesn't work. Then you posted an example of just one failed program.

Can't you find any over-view information, something that talks about those decades of research and, hopefully, looks at more than one program, and talks about the trend of rehabilitation failure that you claim exists?

I posted a couple earlier in the threat. I'm currently attempting to look for more that aren't published in journals (since they will be impossible to access for non-academics), though I can drop in some of those references if people want.

http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/topic.asp?cat=10&subcat=0&dteSlct=0 for US reports and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pubsintro1.html for UK reports seem to offer an interesting selection. Although looking over them, certainly the US ones, the methodology could have been more sound.

does that really count?

Depending on the stage of pregnancy, I suppose. Killing an \eight months and three weeks' pregnant woman definitely should.

When it isn't a miscarriage of justice, there should be no mercy

There is no justice without mercy. Justice is a set of functioning social rules (Heinlein - Citizen of the Galaxy, no Das Kapital this time): leaving mercy out of the rules of society makes hope fail. When hope fails, society collapses (see the fall of the Soviet bloc as example).

Why should those who have taken from society be allowed to continue at society's expense without putting something back in?

Practically I agree, on different grounds though.
It's not that inmates have "taken" from society. They have broken the rules - that is, endangered society - , hence they cannot be allowed free into society. Unless and until they show that they won't misuse their freedom once more, if set free. You cannot "put something back in" to compensate for the most heinous crimes like homicide: unless you say "a life for a life", hence, since you have taken a life away from society, you must give society a new life: that is, having a baby. (I like paradoxes).
Anyway, the "no punishment but re-education" doesn't abolish the moral duty of working if able to do so. Even for inmates. Work, if done under proper standards and rules, is highly educative.

She should be given medical care enough to ease the pain of her eventual death (cancer is a terrible way to go), but I don't think she should be released if she still is remorseless for what she did.

Why should those who have taken from society be allowed to continue at society's expense without putting something back in?
My point was that they wouldn't be at society's expense. Well, not much; maybe 3 days' worth of food, a set of generic clothing and a parachute.

Besides, why should prisoners get work that others could use for their livelihood? When there are millions who would do anything for a job, it seems rich to give all this labour to inmates.

Rehabilitation has been shown not to work in the US. Over and over again, over decades of research.

The only "rehabilitation" that has proven results is "aging out" - sentencing young violent offenders to terms that will release them when they are older than 55 years of age.

LOL uh huh, please, let me see your sources. Those Iranians, Saudi's, hell lets go back further, England in the 1800's which had corporal punishment for STEALING LOAVES OF BREAD sure curbed their crime rates right? Do we have to go back further to show that prison, or even harsher sentences don't prevent people who have no capacity for judging the consequences of their actions from committing crimes?

Please, you are so stupid I don't know how you even logged onto the internet.

I went back and forth in my head a bit on this one. I don't believe the justice system should be in the business of vengeance, but to protect society. I don't think Atkins is a threat to society. But if she can get proper treatment in prison, why release her? The problem is she may not be able to get adequate treatment in prison. Medicine in our prison system is severely lacking. And as a society I don't believe we should toture prisoners. Hence, even though I voted keep her in prison on the poll, I'd change that in the highly likely case she can't get adequate care in prison.

She should not be released. Her crime was extreme, not just because it was a murder, but because it was a particularly brutal murder that was part of a mass murder (Sharon Tate was one of several people killed in that house, and a little later, the same group killed more people at another house, as part of the same "spree") and it was part of a self-professed cult-based attack on society (Manson's nut-job notion was to make the murders look like the Black Panthers did it, thus sparking a race war, which would destroy society, so he could step into the power vacuum and take over). In addition, Susan Atkins has shown no change in her attitude towards society in general and still claims to be proud of what she and her friends did. Because of this, I believe life without parole is an appropriate sentence, and she should die in the custody of the state. Lifers die of cancer, AIDS, other diseases, and old age in prisons all the time. What makes her any different?

I have to agree with you there; she should not be released simply because the crime was extremely vicious, and she has never shown remorse for it, in spite of the almost forty years that has passed since then.

Also, about the argument regarding rehabiliation and so on; it might be worthwhile looking at the material of David Fraser - he is an ex-employee of British Prisons, the British Probation Service and the British Criminal Intelligence Service. Here are some links about what he has to say

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=240&objectid=10516233

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/1845203

His conclusion is that criminals should be sent to prison and punished harshly, and that that approach has worked in the United States

The needle. Or the rest of her life. Whichever she chooses.

Also, about the argument regarding rehabiliation and so on; it might be worthwhile looking at the material of David Fraser - he is an ex-employee of British Prisons, the British Probation Service and the British Criminal Intelligence Service. Here are some links about what he has to say

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=240&objectid=10516233

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/1845203

His conclusion is that criminals should be sent to prison and punished harshly, and that that approach has worked in the United States

That's interesting because most of the employees of the HM Prison Service and Probation Service I personally have spoken to, from prison guards to the ex-Head of Psychology in the Probation Service*, have generally been much more positive, although even so, all admit there is a lot of work to do to get it up to significant levels.

The cold hard data suggests that rehabilitation can work, but only if the intervention matches the needs to the individual criminal (one size does not fit all). It can however, be difficult to personally tell this as there is a bias in the feedback received. You hear about those who reoffend, because you have contact with them again as part of the criminal justice system. You do not hear about the success stories, because they do not reoffend. This can give you a negative view from within the system.


* Yes really, she was a Professor in my research group prior to retirement

<snip>

I posted a couple earlier in the threat. I'm currently attempting to look for more that aren't published in journals (since they will be impossible to access for non-academics), though I can drop in some of those references if people want.

http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/topic.asp?cat=10&subcat=0&dteSlct=0 for US reports and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pubsintro1.html for UK reports seem to offer an interesting selection. Although looking over them, certainly the US ones, the methodology could have been more sound.
I saw those, and thank you, but I want to see Hotwife use these to support his counter-argument.

I saw those, and thank you, but I want to see Hotwife use these to support his counter-argument.

you expect kimchi to actually support his argument?

Are you high?

I have to agree with you there; she should not be released simply because the crime was extremely vicious, and she has never shown remorse for it, in spite of the almost forty years that has passed since then.

Also, about the argument regarding rehabiliation and so on; it might be worthwhile looking at the material of David Fraser - he is an ex-employee of British Prisons, the British Probation Service and the British Criminal Intelligence Service. Here are some links about what he has to say

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=240&objectid=10516233

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/1845203

His conclusion is that criminals should be sent to prison and punished harshly, and that that approach has worked in the United States
Heh, I'm not sure how you are defining the word "worked." In my opinion, the US correctional system is grossly dysfunctional, and our crime rate and recidivism rate are among the highest in the western world. So what, exactly, is "working" about it?

you expect kimchi to actually support his argument?

Are you high?

Nah, I just like poking him. ;)

Nah, I just like poking him. ;)

and here I thought you liked poking me :p

There is no justice without mercy. Justice is a set of functioning social rules (Heinlein - Citizen of the Galaxy, no Das Kapital this time): leaving mercy out of the rules of society makes hope fail. When hope fails, society collapses (see the fall of the Soviet bloc as example).


Mercy is something that should be reserved for instances where it is needed. When it comes to matters of justice and law (both are required, there are unjust laws), mercy can, and does, pervert justice.


Practically I agree, on different grounds though.
It's not that inmates have "taken" from society. They have broken the rules - that is, endangered society - , hence they cannot be allowed free into society. Unless and until they show that they won't misuse their freedom once more, if set free. You cannot "put something back in" to compensate for the most heinous crimes like homicide: unless you say "a life for a life", hence, since you have taken a life away from society, you must give society a new life: that is, having a baby. (I like paradoxes).


With the exception of victimless crimes, all criminals have taken something from society. Lives, resources, homes. Something is taken. There is a tangible cost. Costs can be usually boiled down into standard currency values. Thereby, this can be used as an indicator as to how much a criminal must return to society to fulfill the first condition of repayment of debt to society, the second being rehabilitation.

The criminal, under no circumstance, should be allowed to purchase their debts with assets possessed prior to arrest, and should repay it entirely through hard labor.

Let's say you had the chance to release someone who killed a few people, and shows no regret for doing so, would you ignore their life sentence and set them free because they had cancer?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004477996_manson15.html

I vote "no."

Where are y'all getting the info that Susan Atkins "shows no regret?" She's expressed remorse on a number of occasions. She's been a model prisoner by any reasonable definition of the phrase. Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor on the Tate murder and the author of Helter Skelter, doesn't oppose her release on compassionate grounds.

and here I thought you liked poking me :p
I like poking you with things that make you squirm and squeal like a girl.

I like poking him with things that show how bad he is at the NSG game.

Where are y'all getting the info that Susan Atkins "shows no regret?" She's expressed remorse on a number of occasions. She's been a model prisoner by any reasonable definition of the phrase. Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor on the Tate murder and the author of Helter Skelter, doesn't oppose her release on compassionate grounds.
I may be confusing her with another of the Manson women, but I think I saw an interview with her a year or so ago in which she claimed that what she did was right at the time. But in any event, I don't think she should be released so she can die at home. I still believe that incarceration for the duration of her natural life is appropriate to her crime. I also believe she should receive proper care for her cancer while she is in custody.

I like poking you with things that make you squirm and squeal like a girl.


Oh hey now haven't we gotten things switched....

My thinking is this: If releasing Susan Atkins brings Sharon Tate and her unborn baby back to life (not likely), then do it. If Sharon Tate and her unborn baby remain dead after releasing Susan Atkins (much more likely), then she should stay in jail.

This isn't the best reason to release her, but some legal experts believe she would have been paroled eventually anyway.

Oh hey now haven't we gotten things switched....

Oh, do we? ;)