I believe Atkins was first given a death sentence which was changed to life in prison when the Supreme Court invalidated the death penalty.

To me, this whole case points at the incoherence of our approach to punishment versus rehabilitation. Which one? Some combination of the two? Justice or mercy?

If it is rehabilitation, it appears that Susan Atkins qualifies for release. If punishment, she should die alone and forgotten behind bars.

Justice dictates that she should receive unrelenting punishment. Mercy recognizes that but goes further.

I find it interesting that Bugliosi favors her release.

"Officials with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation said Thursday they have scheduled a Sept. 2 parole hearing for Atkins in Los Angeles.

"Atkins has served 38 years in prison, longer than any other female prisoner, officials said. Before last year's attempt, she was most recently considered for, and denied, parole in 2000.

"In early 2008 Atkins was diagnosed with brain cancer. With one leg amputated and the other paralyzed, Atkins has only six months to live, doctors say. Atkins petitioned for so-called compassionate release, igniting a debate about when mercy is appropriate.

"Those backing her release argued unsuccessfully that the cost of keeping Atkins in prison, which by now could be well over a million dollars, should have favored her release because it would save the state substantial amounts of money.

"Others, including former Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, said it was a question of mercy and told The Times it was wrong to say "just because Susan Atkins showed no mercy to her victims, we therefore are duty-bound to follow her inhumanity and show no mercy to her."

Here