>>>No. She didn't have any compassion for the victims. Why should the judge show compassion toward her? That would show a lack of respect for the victims family IMO.
>>>
>>>>Should she be let out of prison? Why?
>>>>
>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/13/manson.atkins/index.html
>>
>>I'm not really sure how I feel about this, but I'm stunned by how many people don't even consider that the woman might be a different person 39 years later. If I remember the details correctly, that's more than half her lifetime.
>>
>>Tamar
>
>She may well be, but the problem as I see it is that so few people ever actually serve out their sentences that the whole sentencing process has become somewhat of a joke. That's Canada too. A criminal knows before going into jail that if he gets 10 years or 20 years or life, he is not going to have to serve that much time. What is the point then of the sentencing? Why not have only one sentence that everybody gets regardless of the crime. "You are sentenced to be held in jail until such time as you are a good person."
>
>Everybody ever sentenced would then discover God and become a born again Christian a week after being incarcerated. If the whole system is to have any meaning at all, then the sentences should be served as handed down. Too often they are little enough for the crime anyway. For the crimes she committed, she should have to serve her time.
>
>The penal system is not only about retribution and rehabilitation, it is also about trying to make the next person think twice (or at least, it's supposed to be). If nobody serves their sentences, then what does it mean?

I agree with most of that. However, it also amazes me when people consider time served trivial if it isn't life or the full amount of the original sentence. This is an example. Being in prison for 39 years is not exactly just stopping by for tea. Think back to what you were doing in 1969. Now imagine you had been in prison ever since. Would you consider that a light sentence?