<p>“ColoradoMomof2, how exactly would the state/public be on the hook for medical expenses incurred by Atkins after her release? Generally, folks who have little or insufficient medical insurance are stuck with their huge hospital bills, unless they have benefactor or if the hospitals waive their charges.”</p>
<p>LakeWashington, from where I sit, the public is on the hook for her medical expenses because they’ll never collect a dime from Atkins for her treatment, and any health facility that would treat her would pass the cost on to us (the public) through increased rates and higher insurance costs. Surely you don’t think they’d do it out of the goodness of their corporate heart?</p>
<p>“Let her die in a prison cell. Take her out of the hospital and save money right there. She’s in prison-- there should be SOME suffering!!”</p>
<p>She’s been in prison for 37 years. I would also like to think that our society has a little bit more compassion than the people who are already in prison.</p>
<p>What about her husband? If he wants her out so badly, shouldn’t he pay for her medical treatment? If he is a lawyer, shouldn’t he have some assets.</p>
<p>I think that the severity of the crime should have lots to do with compassionate release. What was done to Sharon Tate was beyond horrific.
Maybe a condition of her release would be to have life size photos of the crime scene covering the walls of her room. It’s what Sharon Tate saw when she died.</p>
<p>If she would be released, then would Charles Manson qualify if he was dying of Cancer?</p>
<p>According to the article, Atkins performed good services while a prisoner. I don’t think that’s true of Manson. Just because two things have some similarities doesn’t mean they are the same.</p>
<p>If there is a compassionate release program, that is part of what the definition of “life in prison” is. I can’t believe that having it or not having it would have any effect whatever on the crime rate, since it only benefits people who are at death’s door. I have very mixed feelings about all of this–I’m strongly opposed to the death penalty, and I realize that the concept of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is politically necessary to persuade people to let go of capital punishment. But I just don’t see what the benefit is of keeping an incapacitated, dying person in prison. It doesn’t make us any safer. It costs money. It punishes the person some more, I guess, but they’re just a step away from their final judgment, so I don’t see much value in that, either.</p>
<p>People without money are usually on Medicaid which is paid by the Fed and State so her care would be paid out of one government pocket or the other. Why grant her any relief? The murders shocked the world. They should have been executed decades ago.</p>
<p>Hunt, a large part of the rationale for punishment is to deter others from doing the same or similar crimes, not just to punish the perpetrator. </p>
<p>Since her sentence was “life imprisonment” (not “life without parole” – she has been up for parole a lot of times), I think that’s what her sentence should be. </p>
<p>BTW, she was actually sentenced to death, but California changed the law before she was executed, so her sentence was automatically changed to life imprisonment. </p>
<p>I’m absolutely anti-death penalty, but given that that was what she was originally sentenced to, I’m not so keen on having her get out of prison for any reason.</p>
<p>“Hunt, a large part of the rationale for punishment is to deter others from doing the same or similar crimes, not just to punish the perpetrator.”</p>
<p>How can one possibly think that letting a terminally ill incapacitated person leave prison to die after 37 years could possibly reduce the deterrent effect of the sentence?</p>
<p>Hunt, I could see scenarios under which this could be abused by lawyers with an agenda or just by moving the line back a little bit. When would you decide to do the release? If someone hung on, they could get a long time of freedom.</p>
<p>When the people she helped kill come back to life she can be freed. Otherwise she can stay where she is and live out her sentence as well deserved for the crimes.</p>
<p>Well, out of 60 requests, they only granted 10, so presumably they are applying some pretty tough criteria. I’m also not too concerned about the “freedom” to be enjoyed by a person who is partially paralyzed, has had a leg amputated, and is terminal, and who has been in prison for 37 years.</p>
<p>Colorado, I realize that some state governments reimburse hospitals for indigent care, but the state sdetermines the level of reimbursement, usually meaning that the payment won’t match the full amount of the bill. Thus, the hospitals take the hit.</p>
<p>I’m against capital punishment and won’t even eat animals with legs because I so strongly disagree with factory farming, but I strongly agree with the parole board’s decision. To kill a woman 8 1/2 months pregnant, lick her blood and use it to write a word on a wall, well, there was absolutely no compassion in that act, and I have no sympathy for her need to die outside of prison. Had she shown decades of remorse while in prison, I might feel differently, but apparently that was not the case. We reap what we sow.</p>
<p>LakeWashington, those hospitals pass that “hit” on to us. We, the public, would be paying for Atkins’ care, one way or the other, should she be granted a compassionate release. The same thing would happen if she were on Medicaid - we all pay for her care. I happen to prefer that she remain exactly where she is, receiving her medical care exactly as she has, funded in the current manner. I respect that you disagree with this. </p>
<p>For me, Atkins’ medical treatment goes beyond the funds expended to provide it. I think of it as a humanitarian way to assist her as her life winds down, in confinement, without doing great injustice to the Manson family victims by allowing Atkins to breathe free air.</p>
<p>What if you could actually trade the real cost of her imprisonment, for something specific? What if we could vote to trade the cost of her imprisnment for say, successful rehab for 10 substance abusers, or the cost of mental health care and housing for 10 severely and peristantly ill mentally ill folks. Would that impact your decision?</p>
<p>Shrinkrap, interesting point that made me stop and think. I’m not certain, but I think that “trading” the real cost of her continued imprisonment for something practical (like rehab of 10 substance abusers, as you suggest) starts us down a slippery slope where the idea of justice is mitigated by economic incentives. I find that to be unethical at some level, as if never the twain should meet, or something. I realize that they meet all the time in lower court decisions, but I think the most grievous crimes (not to mention the most emotionally scarring for a society) should be punished without regard to economics.</p>
<p>Well I guess I was just thinking what she did was pretty “crazy”, and while that doesn’t mean SHE shouldn’t be locked away for life, the jails are full of people who would probably cost less in the long run if they had access to very good mental health care and social services.</p>