This is an unusual dilemma. And yet it does not seem that unusual to answer. The answer should be obvious. If I was speaking to either pro-leniency or the anti-lenient, my answer would be the same.
Susan was given a “death” sentence, which was commuted to “Life with the possibility of Parole.” There is the leniency given by the “mercifully compassionate” people. Her sentence of Life is the sentence handed out by our judicial system. It did not stipulate that if she became terminally ill she would be considered for more leniency. This is the sentence that was meted out. This argument has nothing to do with her exemplerary conduct while serving a prison term and it has nothing to do with her “conversion,” it does have to do with serving her sentence.

This being said, an argument can be made that once in a comatose state with no chance of recovery, it would serve all interested parties to allow her release if the family would be willing to pick up and take posession of her body. This should be allowed for everyone in this position for humanity’s sake.

Firstly, I wonder if characterizing this decision as being between justice and compassion is a false dichotomy. There are other ways one might look at it, such as simply a legal matter, interpreting the laws and policies regarding the early release of prisoners for various reasons, and any precedents from similar cases. The ghastly particulars of this prisoner s past and the sad particulars of her future prospects might be irrelevant or at least less important from that point of view.

But justice vs. compassion is the framework of the question posed. The first thing to do then is to clarify these two terms. Because they have roots in philosophy, people certainly do not universally agree on their meanings, so rushing to the dictionary probably won t help much. Besides, we all have our uniquely personal visceral responses to these concepts which are not going to be influenced much by Mr. Webster. So I would approach them pragmatically and consider what would actually happen if we were to be swayed by one of those words more than the other.

The compassionate thing might on the surface seem to be to simply release her, but we need to consider if that really would have an effect on her life that we would call compassionate. If our purpose is to give her the comfort, dignity and privacy of her own home where she can live out her last days and presumably die in less distress than she would have in prison, then we need to ask some questions: Does she even have a home after 39 years in prison? If not, where would she live? Would she have any privacy or sanctuary from a public that overwhelmingly loathes and despises her? If her health permitted it, could she ever appear in public or would she have to remain hidden away and guarded for her own safety? Would that situation begin to resemble prison? How long is the expected time she has left? Who would take care of her as she became more ill? Who is going to pay for all this? Would she be able to afford in-home hospice care or would she end up dying in an instit ution anyway, with a guard outside the door?

The adage, The road to hell is paved with good intentions comes to mind. Our blessing might be just another curse. We cannot call ourselves compassionate if we simply release her but we take no responsibility for the actual consequences that would have on her well being.

Now to justice. In my mind, the most preferable justice is restoring intact that which was wrongfully taken. Unfortunately, the lives of Roman, Sharon and her unborn son Paul cannot be restored, so we are reduced to less preferable forms of justice. Some will see justice as receiving the legally prescribed consequences of breaking laws, while others will unapologetically see it as naked vengeance. As with compassion, the dictionary probably stays on the shelf because definitions won t satisfy our personal, internal sense of justice.

To serve either of these second choice forms of justice, the heinous details of her crime and her subsequent behavior in prison do come into relevancy. Few would disagree that what she did was incomprehensibly unspeakable, and her gleeful defiance during her trial is well documented.

Leading an exemplary life in prison is not necessarily an impressive testimonial, since her life is extremely controlled and strictly monitored. She behaves herself while locked up and surrounded by armed guards and dangerous inmates? So what?

Jailhouse conversions are the best way to bring out the cynical side of all of us. She found God s unmerited love. If that isn t merely what she thinks will warm the hearts of the prison board but is a genuine testament of her salvation, then perhaps we should take her at her word. If she is truly saved, then it doesn t matter where she dies, does it?

Finally, there is the issue of what exactly is meant by a terminal illness? Does that mean she will die within a few days? Weeks? Months? Years? Without specific time parameters, are we all not afflicted with a terminal illness? Lifers die in prison every day. Is her illness a special case because of the pain or disability she will suffer?

To consider the pragmatic consequences of keeping Atkins in prison for the rest of her days, again there are many questions that must be answered first: Will she receive better or worse medical treatment behind bars? Will she be more or less comfortable in the familiar surroundings where she has spent the last two thirds of her life? Will the public pay more or less taxes to hospice and guard her in prison or outside? If we buy into the idea that the prospect of life in prison is a deterrent to would-be killers, would letting her out shortly before her death defeat that message, or would it matter after 39 years? Regardless of her good or bad behavior in prison, could she still be a danger to others if she is released? Will releasing her set legal precedents and open up a Pandora s box of inmates getting out because of less and less catastrophic illnesses?

If your second choice form of justice is that the legal consequences are applied, then will it be better served by her dying in or out of prison? If your second choice form of justice is that vengance is inflicted, will it be significantly reduced by her dying outside?

These questions, both on the compassion side as well as the justice side are what I would need answered first before I could make a recommendation. Ironically, it could very well be that this process would take so long that Atkins would let us off the hook by dying before we get it all settled.

If she had received the death penalty, and it had been carried out, we wouldn’t have an “ethics” problem. None other than H.L.Mencken said, “Capital punishment has probably been responsible for a good deal of human progress, since the majority of those executed were of the sort whose departures for bliss eternal improved the average intelligence and decency of the race.” She was spared and got “a life sentence.” No ethical dilemma. Serve it and stay converted for the next life.

Sounds hard nosed, but that is my belief. Indeed, just as good men die in war for a cause, (as in 58,000 for a ? cause in Vietnam), I am not deterred by the fact that occasional innocent prisoners are executed when death penalties are carried out swiftly after trial and sentence. The national statistics on murder and rape (once a capital crime) in the USA clearly show a straight line up about 1946 when death penalties began to be drawn out by litigation and states began ceasing to allow it even for murder 1. The cause was, in my mind, worth it. Today, we are numb to murder…such as “just another little girl raped and killed
and dumped in Vermont.” Big deal.

I read your July 1st article on Justice vs. Compassion and formed my opinion before finishing the second paragraph. Upon reading the rest of the article I had doubts about my decision, but only for a moment. My first reaction was immediate, you do the crime you pay the time. Atkins victims did not get a second chance at life, so why should she be shown considerably more mercy than them? Especially when she did not show any compassion when committing the crimes? I question why her being terminally ill, or not, should make any difference to the nation as to how she spends her last days on earth? Her illness does not change who she is or what she did. Her life imprisonment sentence was not an act of misery, it was an act of mercy when the alternative was death.

I reread the inspirational article you wrote on June 6th, 40 Years Ago, and some of Robert Kennedy s words: No one – no matter where he lives or what he does – can be certain who will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed. And yet it goes on and on and on in this country of ours. … Whenever any American’s life is taken by another American unnecessarily – whether it is done in the name of the law or in the defiance of the law, by one man or a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or in response to violence – whenever we tear at the fabric of the life which another man has painfully and clumsily woven for himself and his children, the whole nation is degraded. … Yet we seemingly tolerate a rising level of violence that ignores our common humanity and our claims to civilization alike. We calmly accept newspaper reports of civilian slaughter in far-off lands. We glorify killing on movie and television screens and call it entertainment. We make it easy for men of all shades of sanity to acquire whatever weapons and ammunition they desire. … and I wonder, what Kennedy would say to the prison board?

I can not put my personal feelings aside and give you a professional opinion. Atkins request for freedom defies all ethics in my personal and professional opinion. If indeed, God s audible voice said that her sins had been forgiven, why is she not accepting what punishment she has been dealt and be at peace with God s forgiveness? Why make those that she already caused great suffering from her senseless act of bloodshed, endure more suffering for her own self centered request for freedom? In addition, as I ve mentioned before, she has already been given a second chance at life, and thus been shown mercy when her death sentence was reduced to life imprisonment.

You asked who I would want to speak to? I reach out to the Reverend at my church to get his opinion about this conflicted relationship on justice and mercy. He is a very wise and scholarly man with incredible insight into righteousness, forgiveness and mercy. Unfortunately due to the holidays he was not available until long after your deadline.