> > In article <h_qfk.64173$fX5.56595@fe109.usenetserver.com>,
> > Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Suzanne D. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Bob Rudd" <bobrudd@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:MPG.22e75f8679383019898af@news.albasani.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Justice prevails....or karma comes full circle.
> >>>>
> >>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25692507/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Eh, why not just release her for the next three months she has to live?
> >>>If
> >>>that football star who murdered his wife and that other guy is still
> >>>walking
> >>>around free (despite having written a detailed book about how he "would
> >>>have
> >>>done it"), then the woman who killed an actress 40 years ago under a
> >>>drugged, quasi-religious stupor should get the last three months of her
> >>>life
> >>>to go to a movie.
> >>
> >>OJ not being convicted doesn't mean Susan Atkins should be set free.
> >>She was convicted of participating in eight murders and originally
> >>sentenced to death. At no point should she ever see the world outside of
> >>a prison cell. To hell with her. I hope she's in pain.
> >
> >
> > I wonder how much money California would save if they released her?
> > Her medical bills are apparently pretty ridiculous, something like a
> > quarter of a million dollars every month.
> >
> > If she lasts six more months, California could save $1.5 million by
> > letting her go.
> >
> > I wouldn't even consider letting her go if her health care costs
> > weren't an issue.
> condition. Let her suffer. It's the least we can do.
