Susan Atkin's Dad blames himself and the courts

It is my understanding that Susan's father had a drinking problem.

Yes, dad....perhaps you should've have been more firm and set some limits for your daughter.

Being an alcoholic is not condusive to good parenting.

Obviously not every child who has parents struggling with addictive behavior turns out like Susan Atkins. The lack of effective parenting contributed to Susan's social disintegration, it was not responsible for life choices that brought about her incarceration.

It wasn't weak limits but outright overburdening her with adult responsibility to mother the family and to financially support it from the age of 13 when her Mum died. Also lack of supervision that led to her being sexually abused by a brother and his friends. Dad up and left home so she had to work to feed her siblings plus attend school but failed school as it was too much. Then once it was discovere the kids wee abandoned they were farmed out but she wasn't made welcome at an Aunts so voluntarily set out on her own, ill prepared. Lonely and depressed (shortly after an attention stunt suicide attempt) she falls into bad then worse crowds. Alcohol and drugs are a constant prop (some say addictions are genetic and both her parents succumbed)and I suppose the Mansons were seen as escapism from possibly worse lifestyles like full on hooking - they offered belonging, communal life etc and she did have a baby to think about and her Nan had declined the unwed mother refuge as a "sinner". Lack of support and options plus 5

So by your definition, because I started digging ditches at age 13 when my father died, I should have gone down the same path? What about my late mother who was orphaned at age 7, was passed around from relative to relative until any money her realtives could get their hands on was gone and then on to the next stop, or attending 28 different schools until she graduated? She did not turn out to be a killer. The fact is hardships happen to people everyday and it is how we handle life that defines us. This is about personal responsibility, not the blame game.

The science of psychology has well established differences in personal resilience. I'd just say your deprived relatives were incredibly lucky to have high resilience levels due to winning a genetic lottery. It gives no reason to condescend to judge others who aren't so fortunate.
I actually think it's pretty lacking in personal responsibility to fail to see that personal responsibility is only available in different quantities to different people. We aren't actually all born equal in resilience and inner resources, and therefore in choices. I see this with my dogs - and most parents see this in the temperaments of their children. It is just easier for some to be good, or to cope or to win a marathon, or to figure out positive ways to deal with lifes hardships. If this weren't true the Justice system would take no interest in peoples backgrounds often considered as mitigating factors etc. The concept of mercy is central to a lot of justice systems, as they deal with human beings - not perfect wee computers.

She was most certainly the poster child for the "Manson women". He preyed upon the outcasts and forgotten who were looking for somewhere to belong.

TL,

Here in America, this country was built on resilience and hard work, not on winning a genetic lottery. From the birth of a nation, to weathering a brutal civil war, surviving a global depression, and waging a world war, it was down with the help of many different types of people, from all walks of life and opportunities, yet we got it done. Why? It wasn't anything more than different values than exist today. It had nothing to do some being more fortunate than others, nor is it condescending, but your response is. Pardon me, but it is my opinion that your textbook based analysis, is crap pure and simple. The science you state is nothing more than conjecture. You do not have solid proof or facts on this, only opinion from a profession that believes what ever sounds good at the time. Your profession believes there must always be an underlying cause that allowed for a person to do the things they did. Sometimes there are just bad people who do bad things, nothing more. Susal Atkins certainly fell into this category.

And in regards to my past relatives, they were not deprived, they were depraved and greedy, using a 7 year old girl for teir own benefit, gettig what money they could then passing her along to the next relative. My mother was actually dropped off in the middle of the night in Blythe, California (a desert town) on her grandparents front door, who did not need or desire any money. They were hardworking people who ultimately finished raising their granddaughter into the person she became. She graduated high school in 1944, the last of her 28 schools, but never complained about her life or made excuses, she simply moved forward without playig the pity card. That is what we do here in America, those that can do, and those that can't complain about how unfair the world is and blame everyone and everything else. Since the passage of the Great Social Experiment in 1964, this country has spent more money in programs and efforts to help those less fortunate people, ignoring personal responsibility and creating a society of dependants which have no desire to take responsibility for their lives. Look at where that has gotten us. So make any excuses you wish about SA, but she had many chances but pissed them away, and she paid the price.

:wall:

Sorry BB,

You know it is hard for me to let some things go unchallenged, especially when no foundation for that position exists. Perhaps I will just go to bunker for awhile. C-ya.

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY !!!!! WHAT A CONCEPT. . . . .

Ping pong. A new word for your view invented just for you Dilligaff. Absolutist. It seems like (and correct me if I'm wrong) you think people have absolute control over their lives, choices and their actions enabling them to absolutely always do the right thing. Making it so elementary to be perfect that anyone who isn't must be just.... imperfect. Absolutely? And we are all absolutely the same in our capabilities too - that's what makes the system work. I'm reminded of a dear friend Ingrid Reidal a Freudian scholar with her Phd in myths. She grew up in Nazi Germany too scared to even talk in the house (informants make up stories). The quest of her life was to discover where intolerance and violence comes from.

The answer she taught me was that when people focus a lot of identifying others as bad and fail to see human complexity, struggle and recognise the good in other people, it's because they sare running from facing their own flaws. Because to give their life narrative value they have to process others into archetype roles like goody and baddy. This sometimes allows free floating anxieties and fears in the individual to find a focus. She showed me the illogic of some "instant dislike" prejudices I had. The knowledge she had was the source of her lightness, she was the least trroubled or burdened and most joyful person I know. Partly as she had overcome all fear and invited the scariest people into her life in order to help them. With an approach that assumed they were hurt or misguided so she did. The most judgment free person I know, her husband was murdered in the war kind of (died related to injuries) - but a long journey led her to understand that what went wrong in her culture was a manifestation of individuals going wrong, judging others as less than themselves.

Maybe this experience I had with Ingrisd is why I can call Susan one of my greatest inspirations. I place her among the actualised or ascended beings on this earth when she lived. Rare breeds they are - maybe 1000 such souls are alive at any time in history I'd guess. I've never committed an offence and amregarded highly inmy community - attend many vip functions etc but I hope to oneday be half the woman Susan was.

The difference between us might be that I'd not hold a retarded person to the same standard of exam pass as a genius - even though if they had personal responsibility they'd surely just study harder. Failing to realise we're not all born equal is a bit disingenious imo. Still don't know why you can't admit this is not always a matter of good or bad, that good people can stumble and fall quite seriously. Not to say that all who do major crimes are good but some are. In Atkins case 40 years of spreading a lot of love is fair evidence which camp she is in. She was functioning under serious handicaps in the late 60's.

Sorry about the cliche, but until you've walked a mile in her shoes of '69 can you really judge her "bad". I think it is elemental to differentiate between the behaviour and the quality of the person. Her behaviour was bad back then under influence of clear psychosis. As I person the evidence post that "not very good year" doesn't support the person being BAD. Unlike say Manson. Now there's a contrast - 40 years of boasting, game playing and loving the notoriety versus charty works. Why so harsh on Susan - have you ever given to the community as much blood, sweat and hard work as she has? I've given heaps, but can't make such a claim.

And no my professional don't come to the rescue of all offenders at all. We have a common slandg for bad/sanes and mad/bads ='s diagnosis a-hole. But we also deal with good mads who'vedone bad things and good sane individuals who've also done uncharacteristic bad things. Of the 4 categories I place Susan in mad/good in the late 60's, once she regained all her marbles she was just sane/good. Not a freak of any kind, just an average American chick.

If I am not mistaken I believe that a recurring theme in the study of serial killers has been a history of childhood sexual abuse. I think that the trauma experienced by a child who is so victimized cannot be overstated. This trauma can lead to a complete lack of self worth and even self loathing. While this can and very often does manifest itself in antisocial behavior to varying degrees, it certainly does not justify it. To say that these circumstances absolve one of responsibilities for this behavior is shortsighted. To say that each and every one of us possess the tools to overcome such a history, without any outside intervention, is equally myopic. As to the jingoistic and somewhat comically simplistic view of American history....would that it were all so simple.

Not interested in ping-pong, but a few thoughts re: these ideas...

Collective evil isn't monolithic in nature - it's full of compromise and equivocation. Germany in the thirties is a good example of how, under the sway of a charismatic leader, people in crisis can be convinced to go along with things that violate their own values, often without a full understanding of the consequences. The German people didn't wake up one morning in 1933 and say, "I've got an idea - let's be evil for a few years." They were led down that path incrementally and with an imperfect understanding of what was happening during the postwar chaos of the Weimar years. By the time Hitler suspended the rule of law all nuance of thought had been smoothed over and disparate views silenced.

Jung wrote about the dangers of what he called the individual shadow joining with the collective shadow. Flawed human beings with petty Id-driven defects of character (selfishness, greed, bigotry) can become linked, through these very flaws, with coercive institutions that rationalize these shortcomings as something noble and good. When these institutions establish control over individuals through a system of domination, aided by brainwashing and propaganda, the results can be terrifying. Jung downplayed the significance of the individual shadow, writing that "biographies should show people in their undershirts," i.e., warts and all, no better than anyone else. But he feared the collective shadow and considered it the greatest threat to life in modern times. Sadly, one need look no further than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Cambodia, Rwanda, etc. to see his point.

And you can add my Argentina (Videla, Massera, etc.) to that list. Topically, too, as ex-President Bignone has just been sentenced to 25 years (see here).

Nice post, Mahler (a favourite composer of mine too). This is becoming a home for erudite discussion - well done us!

Jem

No editing ability drats. I meant to post initially that Ingrid is a Jungian scholar. That theory seems such a good fit, but why is it not being used to improve history before it happens. Is it a bit over the top of most peoples heads? Or is it that people don't believe their faults can become magnified to no good result under carefully manipulated circumstance. Or are these events so gradual that like a tidal wave many won't see the signs of great momentum gathering force till !!!! TooLate!!!!. My moniker seems very apt in this discussion, it is after all a SA quote, and the theme of her memoirs. Called on to "stop" the massacre by Kasabian, she said "too late" and that her knife was lost anyway. I doubt I'd have taken on Tex or Pat, even if I had a knife meself. Her later reflections were that she never realised the way things were turning at Spahn, not until... too late.
My main fault is actually trouble with time, punctuality and procrastination so I well relate to "too late". But I have luckily overcome my fence sitting, meaning at 40 I'd be confident to buck the trend in a culty group - not so sure about that at 20 though. Then I'd far more likely have felt that the group will is in control, diffusing my responsibility as either an actor or complicit bystander. CM can claim he was just a kid all he likes but in his mid 30s he really had it over many of those awe or fear struck kids.

Jeez for someone who only looks at the pictures you have a lot of words.

I fail to see why a reason for her errant way's is needed. you can take two brothers from the same family, with the same upbringing,treatment,love,and one turns out a good, kind , hard working, rule follower .... the other a bad , law breaking , drugie. with no care for anyone but them self.
and it has no rhyme or reason at all....
IMHO it's human nature..

Like all of us she was both, neither devil not saint, she improved with time to become the perfect substitute grandmother.

Again, I will say that there are thousand's of young women in this case, that have their mothers die early in life, or have even worse upbringings that do not become habitual criminals and ultimately, a murderer. In re the molestation, isn't it interesting thatthis card gets played so often in life by those trying to make excuses for their behavior? My Daddy molested me so I had to become a viscious killer. Funny, she recognized that being molested was wrong but apparently savagely killing others wasn't. This is not to say that there are not some cases in which such child attrocities contribute to later behavior, but, like finding God in prison, most claims are specious at best.