Release and Die

            In the posting of 14 August 2011, I stated the following:

            "I am, of course, rather skeptical regarding medical death prognoses for ill prisoners. Susan Atkins was supposed to have only 3 months left when she petitioned the California Parole Board for compassionate release, and she lived another year-and-a-half.  Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi, the "Lockerbie Bomber," was released on "compassionate" grounds because he was given 3 months to live, and, nearly 2 years later, is still alive and revered as a hero in Libya."

            [Note:  Mohmet al-Megrahi persisted for another 9 months before he stopped wasting the world's precious oxygen.].

           
            Now we have another "compassionate" release of a criminal.  Lynne Stewart, who, who supposedly has less than 18 months, has been sprung, with the approval of the Bureau of Prisons and U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara (who is not particularly reputed to be a wimp).  If indeed she has Stage 4 breast cancer that has metastasized to her lungs and bones, then she will not exceed the 18 month goal line by much if indeed she does reach it.

            My personal view is that she should have been left where she was behind bars (albeit in a specialized prison medical facility).  But if the BOP and the US Attorney are not putting up too much of a fuss at Lynne Stewart's release, then neither will I.  And no, I do not wish cancer upon anyone.

            Judge Koeltl has decreed that Lynne Stewart will be released from prison.  The judicial compassion of Judge Koeltl does not particularly debase my respect for the criminal justice system, particularly when I can confidently foresee Ms. Stewart being held to account, very soon, by a Judge on an Infinitely Higher Bench.

Society's Investment in Felons

It seems that Diane McCloud couldn't stop stealing if her life depended on it. As reported here, here and here, Judge Francis Ricigliano had seen fit to show the 47-year-old Ms. McCloud some humane compassion by springing her from jail so that she would be eligible for the waiting list for a heart transplant. But Judge Ricigliano's humane compassion does have its limits, and Ms. McCloud pushed them too far with her 27th felony arrest last month. She now has to complete the sentence Judge Ricigliano cut short, plus serve the one on the latest charges for which she has pled guilty -- stealing cosmetics and diet pills from a CVS Pharmacy. Her incarceration puts her off of the waiting list for the heart transplant.

[I am, of course, rather skeptical regarding medical death prognoses for ill prisoners. Susan Atkins was supposed to have only 3 months left when she petitioned the California Parole Board for compassionate release, and she lived another year-and-a-half. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi, the "Lockerbie Bomber," was released on "compassionate" grounds because he was given 3 months to live, and, nearly 2 years later, is still alive and revered as a hero in Libya.]

If indeed the purpose of the criminal justice system is to rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated, then society must be willing to invest in people who have been convicted of crimes. Judge Ricigliano was willing to invest in McCloud, but, like any prudent investor, decided to cut society's losses when the investment went sour.

Some people have been successfully rehabilitated by the system, and are worthy of society's investment. Judge Denny Chin believes (and I agree) that Vernon Lawson is one of them. Lawson, who served 13 years in prison for killing his wife, has, in Judge Chin's opinion, completely turned his life around, and should be granted his citizenship so that he can remain in America. Anent to the case of Lawson v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, the following observations are now proffered:

1. Judge Chin is himself a naturalized American citizen.

2. Judge Chin is not reticent to incarcerate those who truly deserve incarceration. Remember that it was Judge Chin who sentenced Bernie Madoff to 150 years.

3. The USCIS's misplaced zeal in denying Vernon Lawson's application for citizenship stands in contradistinction to USCIS's willingness to hold America's door open for Muslim terrorists, Mexican drug dealers, and other assorted thugs and thieves.

Susan Atkins (Part 2)

The 13 June 2008 posting on this Blog was about Susan Atkins, one of Charlie Manson's girls, and California's most senior woman inmate. You will recall that Ms. Atkins sought compassionate release because she had been diagnosed with terminal illness (and that previous March had, according to the medical pundits, three months remaining). The folks on the California Parole Board, in their wisdom, denied the compassionate release for the brutal mutilatrix-murderess.

Well, it is already more than a week into 2009, and Susie Q still hasn't clocked out.

My compliments and plaudits to the able medical staff at the Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla, for the fine care they have thus far rendered. Who says that the government doctors don't know how to practice medicine?

Susan Atkins

The Los Angeles Times reports that Susan Atkins is now being considered for "compassionate release" from the California prison system, due to what is supposed to be a terminal medical condition.

If you were not born before the early 1970's, you might not recall that Susan Atkins is one of the Charles Manson Gang who committed several brutal murders. She is California's female prisoner with the most seniority, having been incarcerated since her 1969 arrest.

I have mixed feelings about this so-called "compassionate release." Atkins didn't just commit murder on a single occasion. She actively and zealously participated in at least three brutal and grisly murder incidents. She has little to show to recommend compassionate treatment.

The Bloomberg article by Charlotte Porter states that Atkins "was sentenced to life in prison." What neither the Los Angeles Times article nor the Bloomberg article mention is that Atkins was initially sentenced to death in 1971, but that Pollyanna's sob sisters on the bench of the California Supreme Court invalidated all pre-1972 California death sentences a year later in the Anderson case. By all rights, she shouldn't even be alive today!

But if indeed, as reported, she has brain cancer and her leg in fact has been amputated, then she arguably no longer presents any threat to society, and allowing her to go out and die with her family would provide a small modicum of relief to the taxpayers of California.