The devil always shaves his head.
Today marks the 40th anniversary of the Manson "family" murders, including 8 months pregnant Sharon Tate.
It occurred to me that it's likely quite a few may be unfamiliar with Vincent Bugliosi's book Helter Skelter or the movie of the same name. You're probably fortunate, for Steve Railsback's portrayal of Charles Manson still gives me the heebie geebies.
Included, for educational purposes only, is a current picture of Charlie, at age 74. (HT Lance)He's been denied parole 11 times, but is eligible again in 2012.
Read Friday's story about Susan Atkins (aka Sadie Mae Gluts) having brain cancer and desiring to be released after nearly 40 years of a 7 years to life sentence, which she received after California did away with the death penalty shortly after the family was so sentenced.
Atkins held Sharon Tate while she was stabbed 16 times.
"She asked me to let her baby live," Atkins said. " I told her I didn't have mercy for her."Reportedly, Atkins, like other "family" members have experienced the mercy of God through the cross of Christ. I hope so and I know that He is mighty to save.
But, should she be paroled? She's reportedly no longer a threat to society and her advocates say she's a drain on the economy of California. (Last year she cost the state$865,000 in medical expenses.)
Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, the Manson family member notorious for trying to kill President Ford, is being paroled on August 16th, after 34 years of her life sentence, at age 60.
Will she be the first in a trend? Should any of them be paroled?
Labels: history
posted by GUNNY @ 05:32
5 comments
5 Comments:
"...her advocates say she's a drain on the economy of California. (Last year she cost the state$865,000 in medical expenses.)"
That's a red herring. Unless she has personal or family wealth (probably not after 40 years in prison) she'll still get charity cancer care.
Railsback should never be paroled.
It shifts the burden for the state of California. In prison she cannot get Medicaid or what ever its called in that state. Released she could qualify (that is if she as not married to a rich lawyer) and the state and feds will split the bill. So its a cost saver for the state. However she is married to an attorny who is not impovished and was heir to an estate. He could easily pay for her care.
I wonder if the monetary issue has had any success. It isn't the first time I've heard pragmatic reasons for thinning the prison herd (e.g., overcrowding, absurd costs, etc.).
If that hasn't been fruitful, I'm sure once it does it will set precedent for many other attempts.
Of course, part of the discussion has include the purpose of prison: Is it primarily to be rehabilitative or punitive?
Lance, Steve Railsback played the role a little too well, if ya ask me! I'll never wear a watch in his presence.
Railsback should never be paroled. Nonetheless, CA will probably begin releasing such criminals in an effort to save money. The question then becomes, "Who will take care of the elderly criminals?" If their families won't support them, they'll likely end up committing more crimes in order to survive.
Post a Comment
<< Home