“anyone but you has mentioned Scott Peterson” they didn’t mention it….the point is the same. Clemency for vile murderers. No way. Atkins wants to go die in Laguna Beach. She should have thought about that 40 years ago.

She is eligible for parole. She has been up for parole a number of times. Her sentence was changed from death to life with the possibility of parole.

John—-There’s her answer. Hurry up and die and then you get to leave. Do they have a Hallmark card for that?

{Mugsy} “Well, Suzanne, I actually know quite a bit more about the trial than many because I was very close to people in the human rights community who attended a good part of it as international observers. [Response}—What I said was that people who differ with your view that a mass murderer should be released because she is sick, are not ‘unprincipled, lacking in compassion, unmerciful, against clemency for those who deserve it. The vast majority of people just have it for the victims, not for the mass murderer. THE FAMILIES of the VICTIMS have used the last 37 YEARS fighting to keep the mass murderers in prison. Sharon Tate’s mother was in a deep depression throughout the 1970s until she became one of the foremost advocates for victims rights—as a result of fighting a request for parole of one of the murderers in 1982—-that changed her life. She personally changed the laws, started a major support group for victims rights. THE ENTIRE FOCUS of the rest of her life was to keep the killers of the victims loved ones in prison where they belong. [Mugsy] “There is no discussion that it was a godawful terrible thing that happened. Have you ever seen someone killed? Because I saw someone shot five feet from me in cold blood, and had the blood all over my face. And I have personally been the victim of violent crimes.” {Response} the discussion here isn’t about your experience with violent crime. I’m not getting dragged into a tit for tat on that. You took an insupportable position, and then try to enlarge it by every unrelated thing (and cheap shot) you can think of to support it. The thread is should or should this mass murderer not be released. You repeatedly stated, and reiterated, that we are lacking in compassion, mercy, and principle if we do not share your view, and that we should go read some ‘The Lottery” and then rethink whether we believe that a mass murderer of 8 innocent people and a baby should be released early due to illness. The point is that instead of simply stating your views and supporting them however you wish to, your position was that yours is the moral high ground and that anyone differing is unprincipled, unmerciful, not compassionate, not showing clemency to a mass murderer. [Mugsy} “If you would stop shouting stfu at everyone” {Response} I said it to you and Frank, not ‘everyone.’ Try to be somewhat accurate. And I said it because your usual fall back position of sanctimony is sickening, as is your inferring that for us not to hold your view is unprincipled, because some of us do not support releasing a mass murdered thereby inflicting more emotional damage on the victims families, and which goes against what they have fought against for 37 years. I have repeatedly said this is about justice for the victims and their families. You keep using everything but the kitchen sink becuase you find yourself in a not very supportable position. {Mugsy} And listen to what Ms. Dona is saying, you might actually learn something.” {Response} I don’t need you to tell me who to listen to. The point of that comment is a very cheap shot. I guess Dona knows what I think or don’t think by our exchanged posts, and I don’t need your comments in this regard at all. Your point is to use Dona to gain sympathy for you. {Mugsy} “And, if under California law, as someone else said” {Response} Who is someone? If you have a point of view support it yourself. You argued at first that no one should even be answering the question posed by the owners of this site, unless they have directly related experience. Now you’re stating someone eles said “if under California law”. So you don’t know the related law yourself, and you don’t know that the Director of California Prisons has already said NO—the mass murderer cannot be released from the hospital that she’s been in since March. So your point then, since you don’t know the law yourself, nor did you know she was in a hospital, and your opinion is directly against that of the victim’s families—-is just that she is ill? A lot of people get ill and die in prison. If you don’t want to die in prison shouldn’t mass murder people. The State of California can’t set a precedent of releasing mass murderers because they are ill and ready to die. People who mass murder die in prison. Have you not heard this before? {Mugsy} “Atkins is eligible for compassionate release on account of her terminal illness,” {Response} She isn’t eligible for RELEASE. She is eligible to APPLY for release. The question was do we believe she should or should not be released. {Mugsy} then she is eligible under the law, the same as anyone else to whom this law applies. {response] She is eligible to APPLY. {Mugsy} 1) Anyone who believes the State of California, whose number one legitimate industry is prisons 2) would actually let her out if they believed for a second she could hold a pen to write a book is loony. {Response} 1) The State of California’s #1 industry is education. K-through higher educations is 41.3% of the budget. Health and Human Services is 25.35, Business, transportation and housing is 9.5% and prisons and rehabilitation is 7.3%. 2) Mark Klein is the one who made the statement re the book thing at the front of this thread. I had nothing to do whatsoever with the statement because it would not enter into the Parole Board’s decision making. I’ve watched the tapes of these mass murderers including Susan Atkins when they’ve attempted release before. Anyone who thinks that would even be a weighed is loony. IF the parole board wants to make anything a non issue, they put it in the terms of their release. That has no relationship to the question—I don’t even know why you’d mention it except as another diversion to obscure the fact that you haven’t been able to make any viable argument for your position. [Mugsy} I personally don’t think she should be released because in prison she is safer than she would be without armed guards protecting her from people like you. {Response} And now just about the most vile remark I’ve read on this site ever. You can’t support your position, and keep using things that have nothing to do with it. And finally the ultimate cheap, sleazy shot that a mass murderer in some obscure town, in some unknown hospital is in any danger whatsoever from a blogger in Northern California who is arguing along with the majority view, the State’s view, the families of the victims view, that this mass murderer be kept incarcerated. So now your view is that no she belongs in prison not because she has committed one of the most heinous crimes in the 20th century, but because in you mind she is in danger from, and needs to be protected from, bloggers. that’s quite amusing. Low, very low and ridiculous. But also amusing. {Mugsy} Dona, I am sad, too, and so will leave this thread because this helps no one, and I know it is very upsetting to you personally. {Response} It doesn’t help for YOU to take a position that you do not defend except by inferring that others are not principled etc for not agreeing with yours, And Dona is a grown-up. If she found this thread too upsetting she wouldn’t be here. You made that statement again to try to garner symphathy for you. You’ve yet to make one unsanctimonious clear, non-self congratuatory statement of why you believe a mass murderer should be released, instead of honoring the victim’s families unambigious, clearly stated desires, and all of Doris Tate’s work to ensure that none of the mass murders be released. {Mugsy} “I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Manson family or am I otherwise associated with groups intent on committing similar acts.” {Response} what a totally bizarre and again purposefully cheap shot to infer that anyone said you were. {Mugsy} I supported Sen. Clinton for the Presidency of the United States. This in no way means that I support the illegal and unjust war in Iraq, or any of the other illegal and unjust policies of the current illegitimate administration in Washington. {Response} Right. that makes perfect sense. Not for the war, just vote for someone that votes for it. Great logic. {Mugsy} The fact that I disagree with Suzanne does not mean I am a liar, a hypocrite, or whatever else she said because I did quit reading after it became clear that her posts had nothing to do with me. {response} I don’t see the word hypocrite anywhere on this thread, but you did credit news stories with statements for which I could find no support and when challenged you couldn’t produce a link for the statements you used. If you are going to allege a statement to support yourself should be able to produce the reference. You couldn’t. {Mugsy) I am unequivocally opposed to the death penalty. If that means people don’t like me and want me to “go away,” well tough beans. I have had this stance my entire life and have no evidence that I should change my mind. {response} This thread isn’t about the death penalty. We haven’t been debating the death penalty. Who gives a rat’s behind about your stance on the death penalty. The question is should she be released or not because of her illness, and thus far you haven’t used one logical statement to support your assertion that it if we have mercy, compassion, principle…then we support clemency in this case meaning release. Why do you continually enlarge an argument and not just answer the question? {Mugsy} While I am no longer willing to respond to personal insults or attacks against me on this website, which I think is not good for the community as a whole, I have absolutely no intention of giving up my right to speak because others don’t like what I said. Again, tough beans. {Suzanne} YOU are the one that started this thread with 1) only people with direct related experience should answer 2) You stated that if people here have mercy. compassion and principle they would agree with your position. 3) You are the one infering people are unprincipled and that a mass murderer is in danger from and should be protected from bloggers. 4) Who has any power here to stop you from pposting except the owners of the site. What you really mean is that you will not be challenged, and if challenged you bring in all sorts of unrelated garbage instead of supporting your stance, after you have been the one personally insulting and stating outright others should not speak unless they have personal related experience. You’re arguments and responses are all weak. Your logic is non existent. {Mugsy} 1) My support of clemency for Ms. Atkins has nothing to do with her personally and everything to do with my support of the law. 2) As someone else said previously, it does not matter that her victims were rich people or well known. 3) The people convicted of murder have done despicable things, but we as a society are not excused from our obligation to remain civilized in the face of those deeds. 4) Our support of the rule of law is one of the very very few things that separates us from barbarianism, and it is indeed a thin membrane.5) If the law says Ms. Atkins is eligible for clemency based on her medical condition, the law must be applied equally to all people. 6)This has nothing to do with Ms. Atkins and everything to do with us. {response} 1) You don’t know the law as you said earlier you are just making assumptions based on what ‘someone’ said. 2) Her victims were all INNOCENT—that is their common denominator as has been repeatedly stated here. That they were slaughtered for no reason whatsoever. Steven Parent wasn’t rich or well known. Neither were the La Binacas. Nor was the musician she murdered before the Tate residence massacre. This has absolutely nothing to do with the question. The question is should a mass murderer of 8 people plus a baby be released because she is ill. 3) This is nonsensical. Your idea maybe that releasing a mass murderer because she is ill is civilized, others don’t agree. 4) The ‘rule of law’ in this case is that she has a right to apply for a release. Which she did. Again, no one kept her from her rights. And the question was should it be granted, should she be released. That was the question. The state isn’t ‘uncivilized’ if they don’t release her. Just as none of us aren’t unprincipled, lacking in compassion or mercy etc if we don’t agree with you that she should be released. 5) The LAW DOES NOT SAY THAT SHE IS ELIGIBLE TO BE RELEASED BASED ON HER MEDICAL CONDITION—-it says SHE CAN APPLY FOR A COMPASSIONATE RELEASE BASED ON HER MEDICAL CONDITION. No one said she couldn’t apply. The law is not being applied differently, or unequally. A SMALL PERCENTAGE get approved for comapssionate releases. 6) No, it has EVERYTHING to do with Susan Atkins, and NOTHING to do with us. When you mass murder 8 innocent people and a baby, you get to die in prison—that’s how it works. And the prison system isn’t going to change that otherwise….that would set a dangerous precedent….because EVERYONE in prison for mass murder will eventually die there. {Mugsy} Ms. Dona’s posts are heart-breaking and informative, and I suggest others read and consider them. {Response} Its is assumed that most everyone is reading Dona’s poists, because many of us have been responding to them and posting back and forth with her directly. Dona supports victims rights, as she has said. And that’s not why you pointed to this again. But to conflate everyone’s symphathy for Dona and JB’s situations, with your unsymphathetic one. Neither Dona or JB [from what I’ve read in their posts} are for giving GREATER benefits to the criminals.They’ve both been badly hurt by criminals getting off. That’s been my entire point as has been the posts of the majority here.She doesn’t deserve a compassionate release. That she is ill doesn’t matter. She’s in a hospital near the prison and she has been since March. Her husband is also her lawyer he can freely visit her there. She is a mass murderer, convicted of 8 1st degree murders. (The baby wasn’t counted back then but would be today because today fetuses are recognized as another human being.) -So again, you didn’t make distinctions about what the law is and isn’t -You didn’t really answer the question. -This is NOT about us, it is about HER and HER VICTIMS and the LAW. -The law is that she gets to apply. Most requests are denied. Her’s was denied. She can proceed to other levels. And they will also be denied. Because as a mass murder who committed one of the most grisly murders in US history, on totally innocent people, she does not deserve a compassionate release. The state is not going to set the precedent. Mass Murders die in prison all the time because they are typically lifers. -To give her a compassionate release would be unjust because most are denied, including for people much more deserving. ie it is difficult to find more heinous criminals than her. -She has already been given more compassion than she deserves because she is no longer on death row and as such got to go up for parole 12, now 13 times if she proceeds with this, putting her victims through hell each time. ie She is a far worse criminal than Scott Peterson, Richard Allen (killer of Polly Klaus), Steiner who murdered two teenagers and the mother of one of the girsl—all of whom are on death row. She is guilty of 8 counts of 1st degree murder and isn’t on death row because of lucky timing in having her sentence commuted. -Again this isn’t about us, it is about the law, her, her crimes, and her victims. The thread asked a question that you didn’t answer with anything to support your view. You incorrectly stated what the law is, that she hasn’t been treated fairly, that if we don’t agree with you we are unprincipled, uncivlilized, unmerciful, etc. etc etc and finally that she should now stay in prison where she isn’t but in a hospital to proect her against bloggers who don’t agree with you. Go take Logic 101. In the rules of argument you’ve pulled every “Don’t” and haven’t done one “DO.” Maybe that impresses your Clique. I am for the victim’s, their families who’ve fought so hard for so long to keep these mass murderers in jail—-AND FOR THE LAW. Which says she can APPLY for a compassionate release. Few get one. She doesn’t deserve it. getting sick isn’t a get out of jail term free. esp for mass murder. Guess she should have thought of that when she was stabbing to death 9 innocent people and then bragging about it later that the more she did it the more fun it was. She’s been in jail 37 years. That’s about 4 years for each of her innocent victims that met a very brutal end so that she could have “Fun”—-her words.

Mugsy: You’re right to leave this thread before these mean and vindictive attacks against you lead you to post something you’ll be sorry for. You have nothing to apologize for. Whatever opinions you’ve offered has never been launched as a personal attack against anyone. You’ve never put anyone’s comments down because they were from another country; you don’t attack with malice and bitterness, and you don’t repeat things ad nauseam as does your opponent on this issue. I don’t agree with you on the release of SA, but I do respect you and you’re right to state it.

I am not making ‘hateful’ attacks on “people” who disagree with me. There are only a few people on this thread think the mass murderer should be released. I responded to Mugsy’s inference that the only response is clemency, mercy, and compassion for a mass murderer otherwise we aren’t ‘principled.’ If she wants to hold insupportable positions, make them without characterizing people that hold another view as not principled. She’s also made a number of factually wrong and illogical statements besides. Like the prisoner should stay in prison (when she isn’t in prison but in a hospital as she has been since March) so that she won’t be in danger from bloggers who don’t agree with Mugsy, without armed guards. That is a ‘hateful statement’. She also stated that California’s # 1 legitimate business is prisons, when the #1 business of the state by 6 times is education. She has a position at variance with the Director of CA Prisons, the families of the victims, and the overwhelming numbers of the public, an insupportable position given the nature of the mass murders and she has also altered her assertions when proven they aren’t popular. First if we were principled then we would agree to compassion, mercy, clemency for a vile mass murderer; then no, she should stay in prison (where she isn’t anyway) so she is safe from bloggers who don’t agree with Mugsy. Then she falsely made statements attributing them to the press to bolster her position, statements that don’t exist anywhere in the press. Finally when she is just plain wrong on so much, we should all read a novel that is going to magically change our views, the views of the victims family, the vast majority of the public, and the courts, and the Director of CA prisons. And then that good old standby by dirty fighters who PRETEND high-mindness after 1) not having the facts right, 2) taking an unpopular position and then trying to support it by implying the opposite view is unprincipled, 3) switching viewpoints ie the prisoner should stay in prison afterall to be safe from bloggers who disagree with Mugsy, 4) enlarge her argument by bringing in things that don’t have anything to do with this thread. “I’m not sure I want to be associated with a website that contains these kinds of postings.” Then don’t no one has you chained here. Mugsy referring to people who don’t agree to her as being unprincipled etc….when she can’t make an accurate statement, nor have a supportable stand without attacking other people’s ‘compassion’ ‘mercy’ etc and surpised when responded to, then making false statements attributed to news reports etc…. is all very low. The person making the hateful attacks is your pal Mugsy, and if she doesn’t want to be responded to, then she should learn to make her statements without making the others wrong for holding a different view, otherwise she can expect a comeback.