|
Post by pumpkinpie on Jul 18, 2008 12:57:05 GMT -5
As for the Susan Atkin's thing...first who cares if she served fortyyears her sentence isn't over yet and second because a brain tumor is considered natural causes and life without parole means you die in prison due to natural causes does that mean all those sick prisoners should be let out because their dying? Did the their victims get to spend their last minutes surrounded by their family? I honeslty don't care if the prisoner is dying due to an illness we all die...but some of us who i don't know don't commit a crime have the privellage of being with our families those who do should not. I guess LWOP won't really mean your whole natural life in prison...so maybe life which is 25 years but hey that might be to long too. So where is the happy medium? Because if we take pity on one person we set a legal precedent and then no more death penalty, no more lwop, no more life, no more sentences cause what would happen if a murderer who only served one year of his sentence do if he was dying as well....be let out? Susan Atkins can take her finally breath in a prison hospital where she belongs--then once she dies, she can be let out in public--she's no longer a threat when she's dead. And can someone please explain to me how not letting her out is revenge? She's serving a fricken sentence that she got because she killed Tate and her unborn child....keeping her in jail is not called revenge it's called she's serving her time. Uh yeah, we all know about the crime Andie. She already served 40 years and is now on her death bed, with half her body paralized, unable to even snap her fingers together, and is dying of brain cancer. Who is she a threat to now? She is serving her time and has served her time and will die in prison. But what if she were let out to die at home with her family? Would that really be a privelege? I'm sorry but it's revengeful and completely uncompassionate not to let her home, in the condition she's in, to die. There are all kinds of exceptions to rules Andie. Things aren't always as black and white as you seem to think they are. She served 40 years, and yes, if she were even remotely healthy, then she probably shouldn't be let out. Even though, chances are pretty good that she may have changed in 40 years. Or maybe not, I really don't know. Either way, she should be able to die comfortably in her home. She's suffering anyway, and has paid the price for what she's done. Yet society is saying, "Make her suffer more, make her die in hell." If that's what you feel she deserves fine. That's certainly your opinion, but definitely not mine.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jul 18, 2008 20:07:11 GMT -5
No matter how you spin every type of system costs money. If there are going to be arguments about how much money its going to cost to keep a person who is terminally ill in prison who is serving a life without parole sentence or a life sentence or even a five year sentence then we might as well let them all roam free....why because excluding prison murders guess what those serving lwop sentences will die of natural causes. It kind of defeats the purpose of your natural life in prison. BTW her sentence is life in prison and because she has been denied parole she will spend her life in prison....life without parole only means you cannot apply for it. The Green River Killer didn't get ( life) death, neither did BTK, Jeffrey Dahmer or many more. It's all a crap shoot any way - there are no rules except that the public bloodlust for revenge must be satisfied if prosecutors are to be promoted.
|
|
|
Post by briseis on Jul 19, 2008 7:47:36 GMT -5
This is a difficult one. People who murder should really spend the rest of their days in prison. They have, after all destroyed at least one life, which can never be undone. So in principle, why should their prison sentence be undone?
However, this case is more complex as this particular inmate is dying, and is of no threat to the public anymore. So therefore not releasing her to die with her family is merely a matter of principle, and has got nothing to do with protecting the public, which is one of the main reasons she was imprisoned for life in the first place. She has already served 40 years and has no quality of life any longer, and even if she did, she has little time left.
This case has replicated so many that I see when I look at inmates. As you all probably know, Atkins had a difficult childhood, with alcoholic parents, her mother dying when she was only 14, the breakdown of her family when she was just a teenager, and eventually being left to fend for herself when her father abandoned her and her brother, being left homeless, and being manipulated and brainwashed by Manson who apparently she thought to be Jesus, the horrific murders, and then losing her son when she was sentenced to death ... Still, none of this excuses her behaviour, but it's just typical of these cases.
My main concern is the public's safety, and as this particular inmate is no longer a threat to the public, then I see no reason why she shouldn't be released to die amongst her family.
I don't think it hurts to show human compassion to people who need it so badly, as Atkins does. I am in agreement that Atkins didn't let her victim die beside her family, didn't show compassion for her victim etc ... but why replicate her behaviour if you are so disgusted by it? If you think it is so awful the way she treated her victim, why would you want to treat her in the same way? Why stoop to that level?
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jul 19, 2008 10:15:25 GMT -5
This is a difficult one. People who murder should really spend the rest of their days in prison. They have, after all destroyed at least one life, which can never be undone. So in principle, why should their prison sentence be undone?.... I have heard that recidivism for homicides is generally low, unlike that for child molesters. So a case can be made for limited sentences for this crime.
|
|
|
Post by briseis on Jul 19, 2008 12:58:09 GMT -5
This is a difficult one. People who murder should really spend the rest of their days in prison. They have, after all destroyed at least one life, which can never be undone. So in principle, why should their prison sentence be undone?.... I have heard that recidivism for homicides is generally low, unlike that for child molesters. So a case can be made for limited sentences for this crime. I don't see how recidivism, low or not, has got anything to do with the point I've been making. Atkins is no longer a threat to the public, so it isn't an issue in this case, and even it it were, the point I made was that murderers have deprived other people of life. Why should they get to walk freely again while their victims are in their graves, their families grieving? Where is the justice in that? As I have said before, my ONLY argument is with the death penalty, and not with Life Imprisonment. Life Imprisonment is the alternative to the Death Penalty. Are you suggesting that most of the men and women on Death Row should be released again one day because chances are low they'd kill again? I'm sorry but to go from facing the death chamber to walking free is too big a step to be taking! LWOP is the only realistic chance these inmates have. I sympathise with so many of these inmates, they have destroyed their lives just as they have destroyed the lives of others. I feel for them, I do. I feel for the 21-year-old Atkins, whose son was taken from her, and who went to Death Row, and I feel for the 60-year-old Atkins, who has spent 40 years in prison, and now will die in prison to a terrible illness. And certainly, I would probably allow her to die amongst her family if it were up to me, since she is no longer a threat to the public and has already spent her life in prison since she was arrested, and will die very soon. BUT, am I the only person here who thinks for the most part, and in normal circumstances, life should mean life?
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Jul 19, 2008 18:05:25 GMT -5
I have heard that recidivism for homicides is generally low, unlike that for child molesters. So a case can be made for limited sentences for this crime. I don't see how recidivism, low or not, has got anything to do with the point I've been making. Atkins is no longer a threat to the public, so it isn't an issue in this case, and even it it were, the point I made was that murderers have deprived other people of life. Why should they get to walk freely again while their victims are in their graves, their families grieving? Where is the justice in that? As I have said before, my ONLY argument is with the death penalty, and not with Life Imprisonment. Life Imprisonment is the alternative to the Death Penalty. Are you suggesting that most of the men and women on Death Row should be released again one day because chances are low they'd kill again? I'm sorry but to go from facing the death chamber to walking free is too big a step to be taking! LWOP is the only realistic chance these inmates have. I sympathise with so many of these inmates, they have destroyed their lives just as they have destroyed the lives of others. I feel for them, I do. I feel for the 21-year-old Atkins, whose son was taken from her, and who went to Death Row, and I feel for the 60-year-old Atkins, who has spent 40 years in prison, and now will die in prison to a terrible illness. And certainly, I would probably allow her to die amongst her family if it were up to me, since she is no longer a threat to the public and has already spent her life in prison since she was arrested, and will die very soon. BUT, am I the only person here who thinks for the most part, and in normal circumstances, life should mean life? Your saying 2 different things in your posts. 1.- that Atkins would be released to die with her family if it were up to you. 2.- that life should mean life. What is it that your disagreeing with here, and what are you agreeing with? What do normal circumstances have to do with this case? In a normal circumstance I do agree that life should mean LIFE, yes. But some cases, like this one, end up being not so normal. Won't all inmates get to that point of having cancer or other severe medical problems, and be on there death bed someday? And when that happens should they be released? It depends on circumstances, how long they've been in prison, the condition they are in, if it's only to die and they are physically no threat, or if the illness could go into remission. It all depends on the circumstances. If someone has already served 40plus years and they're weaker than a beaker, barely able to move or care for themselves, then yes, they should be able to die with there family, I'd say. If they've served a 10 year sentence for a crime they were sentenced to life for, then in no condition would I say they should be allowed home to die.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jul 19, 2008 18:07:07 GMT -5
No one has found any evidence that punishment reduces crime - and the US is proof of that. A reasonable case can be made for releasing people when they are a lower risk to public safety that the public at large is. IOW, if the risk from a random member of the public is 1:100,000 and if it can be determined that the risk from prisoner X is 1:1,000,000 then what is the argument for continued incarceration? Example (LINK)Plymouth, MI—Despite being subjected to a long and horrid trip in chains from San Diego to Plymouth on a prisoner bus this Soccer Mom can still muster a smile.
Susan Lefevre now known as Marie Walsh is seen in her latest prison mug shot.
Walsh is preparing to make her case that she has been punished enough for that youthful drug commerce indiscretion as a teen 33 years ago in Saginaw, Michigan.
Walsh’s original sentence of 10 to 20 years was off the charts of harshness for similar first time drug felons.Why are the citizens paying to keep her in prison?
|
|
|
Post by andie on Jul 19, 2008 20:59:16 GMT -5
I'm getting confused with your argument. You believe in LWOP-the definition of LWOP (as to my understanding) is to spend your natural life in prison until well the prisoner dies. Then you said if it were you you would probably release Atkins to be with her family due to her illness and then you say again that you believe life should mean life. my confusion with your argument is that you believe in lwop yet you would probably make exceptions due to illness. Now if most of the prisoners who are serving lwop sentences who are not likely to commit suicide or be murdered by another prisoner then they would most likely die of natural causes whether it be sudden like a massive stroke or heart attack or as in Atkin's case a brain tumor or cancer. Ok, so, if you were to probably let out those prisoners who are in the process of taking their last breath to be with their family would it not defeat the whole purpose of LWOP? Because techincally they are being paroled to spend their last days with there family--however short it may be. Maybe you can clarify what you meant but I believe that lwop or life in prison for that matter (when not granted parole) means the prisoner dies in prison. Irony--lwop is kind of like the long no execution version of death row. I have heard that recidivism for homicides is generally low, unlike that for child molesters. So a case can be made for limited sentences for this crime. I don't see how recidivism, low or not, has got anything to do with the point I've been making. Atkins is no longer a threat to the public, so it isn't an issue in this case, and even it it were, the point I made was that murderers have deprived other people of life. Why should they get to walk freely again while their victims are in their graves, their families grieving? Where is the justice in that? As I have said before, my ONLY argument is with the death penalty, and not with Life Imprisonment. Life Imprisonment is the alternative to the Death Penalty. Are you suggesting that most of the men and women on Death Row should be released again one day because chances are low they'd kill again? I'm sorry but to go from facing the death chamber to walking free is too big a step to be taking! LWOP is the only realistic chance these inmates have. I sympathise with so many of these inmates, they have destroyed their lives just as they have destroyed the lives of others. I feel for them, I do. I feel for the 21-year-old Atkins, whose son was taken from her, and who went to Death Row, and I feel for the 60-year-old Atkins, who has spent 40 years in prison, and now will die in prison to a terrible illness. And certainly, I would probably allow her to die amongst her family if it were up to me, since she is no longer a threat to the public and has already spent her life in prison since she was arrested, and will die very soon. BUT, am I the only person here who thinks for the most part, and in normal circumstances, life should mean life?
|
|
|
Post by andie on Jul 19, 2008 21:06:10 GMT -5
And what can we learn from all this? Stay away from crime and maybe the unfair sentencing could have been avoided. I am a person of precedents so if one got x amount of years for the same thing then two should too BUT because life isn't as simple as staying away from crime and the legal system is f'ed up then your only options are a) stay away from crime b) commit a crime and don't get caught c) get caught, and hope for a lenient punishment d) get caught and get a hard punishment e) gamble your options and finally f) it's just better to stay away from crime No one has found any evidence that punishment reduces crime - and the US is proof of that. A reasonable case can be made for releasing people when they are a lower risk to public safety that the public at large is. IOW, if the risk from a random member of the public is 1:100,000 and if it can be determined that the risk from prisoner X is 1:1,000,000 then what is the argument for continued incarceration? Example (LINK)Plymouth, MI—Despite being subjected to a long and horrid trip in chains from San Diego to Plymouth on a prisoner bus this Soccer Mom can still muster a smile.
Susan Lefevre now known as Marie Walsh is seen in her latest prison mug shot.
Walsh is preparing to make her case that she has been punished enough for that youthful drug commerce indiscretion as a teen 33 years ago in Saginaw, Michigan.
Walsh’s original sentence of 10 to 20 years was off the charts of harshness for similar first time drug felons.Why are the citizens paying to keep her in prison?
|
|
|
Post by justme on Jul 19, 2008 21:52:38 GMT -5
Wow - Pros are arguing with pros, and antis are arguing with antis.
I am not sure why recidivism is relevant. We are talking about punishment, not rehabilitation. However, I do know that the rate of recidivism amongst executed offenders is zero.
Concerning Adkins, I was not so much concerned about money. It was more the issue that she must require several people looking after her, and if it prevented prison personnel from giving more attention to other, more dangerous, prisoners, then maybe it would be in the state's best interest to release her.
But the victim's remaining family felt very strongly she should die in jail, so I do give a lot of weight to that.
|
|
|
Post by briseis on Jul 20, 2008 7:13:19 GMT -5
I thought I did clarify what I meant in my initial post but I'll try to be clearer.
Initially I can see both points. She can't expect to be released simply because she's going to die.
On the other hand, I find it difficult not to feel compassion for her family, who would like to spend more time with her and be with her when she dies. Also, given that she is no longer a threat to the public, there is no reason why she can't be with them. This inmate is going to die very soon, in a matter of a few short weeks, if even that, and so can be trusted to be amongst the public. (which is my main concern)
So I'm suggesting a medium.
I never suggested releasing her from her sentence, letting her out and having done with it! God no. I suggested allowing her to die in a different environment where she can be surrounded by her family. I'm saying let her spend her final days in her family home or hospice, taken care of by her family, which would of course be guarded as long as she is alive, the same way her hospital bed is at the moment. In this way, she is still guarded as much as any prisoner is, but allowed to die with her family.
But so long as Atkins is alive, she is still a guarded prisoner, wherever she is being held, be it in prison or the hospice. At least in the hospice, her family can be around her at all times, and can be with her when she dies.
If it is not possible to guard her outside of prison (which it is for I have seen it happen here a few times, when prisoners needed to be taken to a specialised hospital for a few weeks outside of prison) then no, she should be kept in prison. She must be guarded as long as she is a prisoner. But as it is possible, then I see no reason why it can't be done for the good of her family, if nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jul 20, 2008 11:57:38 GMT -5
And what can we learn from all this? Stay away from crime and maybe the unfair sentencing could have been avoided. I am a person of precedents so if one got x amount of years for the same thing then two should too BUT because life isn't as simple as staying away from crime and the legal system is f'ed up then your only options are a) stay away from crime b) commit a crime and don't get caught c) get caught, and hope for a lenient punishment d) get caught and get a hard punishment e) gamble your options and finally f) it's just better to stay away from crime Despite being one of the most vengeful generations of one of the most vengeful nations in recent history, the US still has a very high crime rate. A few hundred years ago, despite routine and torturous executions the UK still had high crime rates. Later, despite methods such as transportation, the UK and France still had high crime rates. There is no proven connection between the viciousness of the punishment and the crime rate. Social cohesion, positive social policies and united purpose seem a better method to reduce crime.
|
|
|
Post by andie on Jul 20, 2008 16:27:00 GMT -5
but doesn't life still mean life if not granted parole? And if she is granted parole due to illness won't that open doors or set precedents for other inmates to be released under the same circumstances..whether it be them only serving ten years of a life sentence? I don't see how recidivism, low or not, has got anything to do with the point I've been making. Atkins is no longer a threat to the public, so it isn't an issue in this case, and even it it were, the point I made was that murderers have deprived other people of life. Why should they get to walk freely again while their victims are in their graves, their families grieving? Where is the justice in that? As I have said before, my ONLY argument is with the death penalty, and not with Life Imprisonment. Life Imprisonment is the alternative to the Death Penalty. Are you suggesting that most of the men and women on Death Row should be released again one day because chances are low they'd kill again? I'm sorry but to go from facing the death chamber to walking free is too big a step to be taking! LWOP is the only realistic chance these inmates have. I sympathise with so many of these inmates, they have destroyed their lives just as they have destroyed the lives of others. I feel for them, I do. I feel for the 21-year-old Atkins, whose son was taken from her, and who went to Death Row, and I feel for the 60-year-old Atkins, who has spent 40 years in prison, and now will die in prison to a terrible illness. And certainly, I would probably allow her to die amongst her family if it were up to me, since she is no longer a threat to the public and has already spent her life in prison since she was arrested, and will die very soon. BUT, am I the only person here who thinks for the most part, and in normal circumstances, life should mean life? Your saying 2 different things in your posts. 1.- that Atkins would be released to die with her family if it were up to you. 2.- that life should mean life. What is it that your disagreeing with here, and what are you agreeing with? What do normal circumstances have to do with this case? In a normal circumstance I do agree that life should mean LIFE, yes. But some cases, like this one, end up being not so normal. Won't all inmates get to that point of having cancer or other severe medical problems, and be on there death bed someday? And when that happens should they be released? It depends on circumstances, how long they've been in prison, the condition they are in, if it's only to die and they are physically no threat, or if the illness could go into remission. It all depends on the circumstances. If someone has already served 40plus years and they're weaker than a beaker, barely able to move or care for themselves, then yes, they should be able to die with there family, I'd say. If they've served a 10 year sentence for a crime they were sentenced to life for, then in no condition would I say they should be allowed home to die.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Jul 20, 2008 18:03:09 GMT -5
but doesn't life still mean life if not granted parole? And if she is granted parole due to illness won't that open doors or set precedents for other inmates to be released under the same circumstances..whether it be them only serving ten years of a life sentence? Your saying 2 different things in your posts. 1.- that Atkins would be released to die with her family if it were up to you. 2.- that life should mean life. What is it that your disagreeing with here, and what are you agreeing with? What do normal circumstances have to do with this case? In a normal circumstance I do agree that life should mean LIFE, yes. But some cases, like this one, end up being not so normal. Won't all inmates get to that point of having cancer or other severe medical problems, and be on there death bed someday? And when that happens should they be released? It depends on circumstances, how long they've been in prison, the condition they are in, if it's only to die and they are physically no threat, or if the illness could go into remission. It all depends on the circumstances. If someone has already served 40plus years and they're weaker than a beaker, barely able to move or care for themselves, then yes, they should be able to die with there family, I'd say. If they've served a 10 year sentence for a crime they were sentenced to life for, then in no condition would I say they should be allowed home to die. Maybe so. That just might be why she wasn't granted parole. What does happen to an inmate when they get to the point of needing to be in a nursing home? Is that kind of care provided for them in prison?
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Jul 21, 2008 15:58:26 GMT -5
Aging inmates taking its toll on N.C. prison system By Mandy Locke The Myrtle Beach Online RAEFORD, N.C. — At 87, where Woodrow Williams wanders, his oxygen tube and tank follow. Not that he's going far. Williams is a state prisoner and will likely spend the rest of his life at McCain Correctional Hospital paying for crimes he said he committed decades ago as an agile, reckless young man. "Looks like they mean for me to give out in here," Williams said last week, tugging at the suspenders that keep his prison-issue pants from falling off his frail frame. "I sure would like to go home, but I get it." Williams is a rapist. His 80-year-old arthritic roommate killed a man. In the last decade, the number of N.C. inmates over 50 has tripled to nearly 3,500, accounting for nearly 10 percent of all prisoners. Those numbers are expected to balloon in years to come as judges hand down sentences that ensure that inmates will die in prison. It's costing the state, as prison officials scramble to transform prisons into nursing homes and hospital wards. Since 2003, the state Department of Correction's medical budget has jumped more than $58 million, a 42 percent increase. "It's not a matter of locking them up and throwing away the key" said Paula Smith, medical director for the correction department. "We've got people like granny and granddaddy in here, and we must take care of them." It's easy to pinpoint the reason for the ballooning elderly prison population. N.C. legislators did away with parole in 1994 and established hard and fast prison terms for every crime. Inmates sentenced since 1994 serve their entire terms, and those committed for life will die in prison. Prison officials must nurse them through their geriatric years. Two years ago, prison officials turned a dorm at Randolph Correctional Center in Asheboro into a nursing home; nearly 100 inmates are on a waiting list to get there. Nurses hand out morning pills and make sure Alzheimer's patients don't wander. In the 1980s, state leaders turned an abandoned tuberculosis asylum in Raeford, in Hoke County about 75 miles southwest of Raleigh, into McCain Correctional Hospital to help treat sick inmates. There's another hospital and mental health facility at Central Prison in Raleigh. This month, the department will break ground on a new $152 million hospital and mental health facility at Central Prison. The facility will add 120 more inpatient beds and double the capacity of the mental hospital to 216. The new hospital is supposed to ease the number of ill inmates sent out to private hospitals, which accounted for the biggest jump in prison medical costs. In the year ending June 30, 2006, the state racked up more than $50 million in bills from private hospitals commissioned to take care of the sickest prisoners. To add to the cost, a correctional officer must guard them 24 hours a day while they stay at hospitals such as WakeMed or Duke. That cost won't go away completely. The Department of Correction won't ever handle the sickest inmates at its prisons. Intensive care patients must be handled at community hospitals. From 2004 through 2006, one inmate had a a $650,000 bill for treatment of his respiratory failure and personality disorder. Tough lives, failing bodies There's not much prison officials can do to tackle the problem. Inmates enter their system already prone to breaking down. They've often lived hard and had little access to doctors. "Many of them have never had health care before coming to us," Smith said. "They know they've neglected their bodies when they've been living on the street." Prisoners age fast. Doctors who treat inmates expect to find their bodies declining 10 years ahead of their age. Archie Miller, 63, had his first heart attack a year before a judge ordered him to prison for 20 years. He was 52. An adulthood spent driving tractor-trailers has landed him in a wheelchair, a bulging disk and pinched nerve robbing his legs of feeling most days. Since he's been in prison, the ailments are piling on. He's diabetic. He has an aneurism in his stomach. His sight is going, too. "I guess I was never too good to myself on the outside," said Miller, who was convicted of a first-degree sex offense in Rowan County. Discharged to die Prison officials sometimes allow an inmate to die at home, but only in rare circumstances. They are still considered prisoners, but allowed to finish serving their sentence at home. The release happens only at the behest of the medical director. The state Secretary of Crime Control and Public Safety can, and does, veto the release of some of these inmates. Earlier this year, senators debated a bill that would allow more sick inmates to go home to die. They'd be relieved of the rest of their sentences and allowed to spend their final days with family. It made sense from a financial standpoint. Some senators, however, didn't like the idea of letting criminals go early, despite their bad health, said state Sen. Tony Rand, a Fayetteville Democrat and sponsor of the bill. "Most everybody seemed to think it was a good idea," said Rand. "But when you're involved with 'gotcha' politics and people are judged in 30-second soundbytes, it takes a lot longer to get things done." Rand said they'll take up the bill again next session. Miller, the inmate, fears any kind of relief will be too late for him. He doubts he'll survive the 10 years left on his sentence to make it on the other side of McCain's barbed wire fence. Copyright 2007 McClatchy Newspaper www.correctionsone.com/corrections/articles/1350975The article points out that in "rare circumstances" inmates are allowed home to die. In Atkins case, she has served a 40 year sentence, and is literally on her death bed with brain cancer and half her body paralized. Why in the world was the release of Atkins vetoed? Because Schwarzinager is an un-comassionate ass?
|
|