Re: Latest news on Susan Atkins

Uh, were you  not stating I was showing "empathy"? not it is sympathy?
Have you looked up empathy yet?

Thanks but I know the difference between the two words. I think you're
displaying some odd attachment to her more than to her victims. You
can call with whatever word you'd like.


 I am stating why she should be medically release, because of her
medical condition, not for any sympathy.  Whether she is in a prison
hospital or in a private hospital, she still has to be cared for, and
treated as a patient.

Whether she deserves to be release or not, she will have to receive
medical care will probably be in a drug induced coma. Basically she is
between a rock and a hard place.  

Yeah it does.  If the prisoner doesn't know what is punishment, (like a
paranoid schizophrenic ie Mental Health) or is incapable from a terminal
disease, the State Correctional System has to decide what to do with the
prisoner.  If the only thing they can do is a hospice, then it is more
practical to release the patient and set up a hospice outside of the
prison hospital.

   No, Once again you are trying to make a fallacious argument. a cancer
diagnosis is different than a diagnosis of a terminal case of cancer.  
Being diagnose with a terminal case of cancer, means there is nothing
that can be medically done to fight the cancer. The cancer is going to
kill the prisoner/patient.  Much like there is a difference between a
patient  being tested HIV positive and a patient with with full blown
AIDS.  99% of the time, the patient is already very sick when given a
terminal disease diagnosis. The priority concern is feeding, washing and
cleaning the patient, not if the felon/patient is strong enough to
commit more crimes.

 If a prisoner is diagnose with cancer, there are still ways to fight
it, which is one a reason for prison hospitals in the first place.  For
example, Susan Atkins having her leg amputated is a standard procedure
and last gap effort to stop the sarcoma from spreading throughout her
body, and it failed.


LOL - You are getting mixed up in your own words. Let's say a
terminally ill Stage 4 cancer who has been given 2 months to live
decides to kill someone. Your logic is that the person should not be
put in prison even if the crime was a 1-degree murder and he is found
to be sane. You're saying he should be let out to roam free BECAUSE OF
HIS MEDICAL CONDITION.

I'm saying that's RIDICULOUS. If you commit a crime, it doesn't matter
if you're going to die in 6 months or 6 years. You still belong in
prison.

Susan exaggerates everything about herself in an effort to get out of
jail. They have been doing this during every parole hearing for years.
Her disease is just the latest thing they're using to make her seem
sympathetic. Just like when her lawyer told her to stop tinting her
hair so she could appear older and fragile. It's all a contrived
attempt to get out of prison.

Whether she dies tomorrow or in 3 years, she deserves to die in jail.
Period.

.