<p>^^yes, completely agree with that.</p>
<p>Anyone happen to know when she married her attorney-husband? When did he begin to represent her, and when did they marry? Maybe I watch too much “Boston Legal”, but the cynic in me has to wonder if there isn’t some secondary gain to be had by the publicity surrounding this request for her release. Were there press conferences scheduled in conjunction with the hearing and the decision? What type of clients does he represent? Does he work with other death row or indigent clients? What kind of practice does he have? Is he truly just trying to get to spend a few days with his dying wife, or are there other potential hidden agendas and potential for personal gain? Would her release be used as a springboard to pursue other releases? I haven’t seen the CA criteria for making this decision, nor have I seen the contents of their particular motion for her release. While I agree that the criteria for determining a compassionate release should be done as consistently as possible, the specifics of this high profile case make it, IMO, very difficult to justify releasing her under any circumstances. IMO it sets a bad precident-- if they will release a person who was on death row, who is so well known for having done such a heinous crime, I would think others incarcerated for less heinous crimes could make a strong argument for compassionate release. </p>
<p>I am surprised that these individuals arent on some sort of medicaid-type health coverage. I would strongly suspect that the state penal system has some negotiated/contracted rate with hosptals and doctors who provide services to these individuals. I know that Drs. who go into the prison system to provide treatment are contracted. They don’t get to charge top dollar. And while this may sound harsh, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were doctors not required to treat her (ie not contracted with the penal system) who might be reticent, or unwilling to take her on as a patient. My thought-- while I understand the request for a compassionate release, I think the correct decision was made.</p>
<p>I am particularly disturbed by this line in the article
</p>
<p>"I am surprised that these individuals arent on some sort of medicaid-type health coverage. I would strongly suspect that the state penal system has some negotiated/contracted rate with hosptals and doctors who provide services to these individuals. I know that Drs. who go into the prison system to provide treatment are contracted. They don’t get to charge top dollar. "</p>
<p>To me, it still “costs”, even if the cost is born by the doctors. Not that many docs will do that kind of work, and fewer and fewer are taking those patients. Most who are doing this kind of essentially “pro bono” work would like to know they are helping society, if they are not making money ( and sometimes even losing money). Personally, I wouldn’t mind so much if it didn’t all seem so hopeless.</p>
<p>I am not sure I follow your thought, shrinkrap. Regardless of whether she is incarcerated or released, she will require medical care, even if she is under hospice, and unless the family is taking full financial responsibility for this, as was said above, the cost will be absorbed by the system and passed along to consumers in the form of higher taxes and/or higher healthcare costs. So, it’ll cost no matter what.</p>
<p>She should not get compassionate release. For such a horrific crime, she ought to spend the rest of her life in prison. Period. To die in prison with bars and locked doors and guards, not in comfort at home with loved ones around — that is the fate she deserves. I don’t care how much it costs for those additional weeks or months at taxpayers’ expense. It represents some modicum of justice for Sharon Tate and the other victims.</p>
<p>"I am not sure I follow your thought, shrinkrap. "</p>
<p>That makes two of us! ( I’m not sure I follow my train of thought either!)</p>
<p>“So, it’ll cost no matter what.”</p>
<p>Agreed!</p>
<p>I’ve got a better solution:</p>
<p>If Ms. Atkins is not satisfied with her commuted sentence of life in prison, take her from her hospital bed directly to the California electic chair to carry out the orginal sentence she received. Of course, allow her family to be there with her when they throw the switch.</p>
<p>That should satisfy just about everyone’s concerns in this case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What horrible thing to say ID. </p>
<p>Now, if you had said death by lethal injection – that’s the ticket.<br>
:)</p>
<p>Um, I assume you mean Susan Atkins, as Sharon TATE was one of the victims. Oops!!</p>
<p>Thanks coloradomom. Bad typo. I fixed it!</p>
<p>^^^^ You’re welcome. I knew what you meant, though.</p>
<p>I can see and agree with specific points on both sides of this issue. What has truly interested me for some time are the possible economic arguments in the sentencing phase of the criminal justice system. Years ago I read about conservative federal Judge Posner essentially advocating that the criminal justice system was so inefficient (didn’t prevent crime and didn’t punish criminals) that punishment should largely be based on a programatic comparison of punishment and efficiency. Posner was a professor at U of Chicago I believe and has written a few books on justice.</p>
<p>I noticed that her brother wants family time with her. Not a good enough reason for me, unless her family intends to pay all of her bills. The victim’s family lost all possibility of time spent, no reason to grant it to the criminal.</p>
<p>Here’s the wikipedia article about her.<br>
[Susan</a> Atkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Atkins]Susan”>Susan Atkins - Wikipedia)<br>
It appears that she was eligible for parole, but that it was repeatedly denied. As with compassionate release, I think that if there’s going to be parole, the criteria should be applied evenly, and should not be affected by press attention.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>But the good book also says that amount of compassion and mercy we show will be shown to us. I would have granted compassionate release.</p>
<p>“… the good book also says that amount of compassion and mercy we show will be shown to us.”</p>
<p>The good book also says “judge not, that ye not be judged.” Yet a civilized society requires citizens to take up responsibilities that conflict. In the current case, it required a jury to judge Atkins guilty, a judge to decide her sentence, a prison system to decide appropriate conditions for her, and a parole board to judge whether she be released – not to mention society’s judgement of whether the criminal investigation and prosecution were valid.</p>
<p>The parole board surely knew if they released her they would be heavily criticized due to the notoriety of her crime.</p>
<p>And the lawmen who assassinated Bonnie and Clyde knew that they would be vindicated. Were these lawmen (and the TX parole board) wrong? expedient? just?</p>
<p>The purpose of jail is not only rehab. It is punishment for crimes done already. Some crimes can never be undone and this is one of the worst ever.</p>
<p>Here’s a thought… Given her advanced brain CA, I have to assume she is probably not competent to care for herself or her affairs. So, if they get her released early on a compassainate release, they then file for an emergency competency hearing, declare her incompetent (with the H as her guardian) and he then signs book/movie deals, trying to profit off her past bad acts. Well, it could happen…</p>