Feb. 27 – I wrote a letter (Jan. 30) in which I described the recent choice by Guns ‘N Roses to produce a song written by Charles Manson. My letter has been rebutted.

Since some people freely admit that they agree with the point of my letter, their complaint seems only that I was the one to voice it. To tell you the truth, I was a little upset about it myself. Perhaps, if the more “upstanding members of society,” who question and condemn me for trying to do something productive, had taken the time to voice their outrage when the record was first released, then the thankless job of trying to tell these young people what a truly terrible person Charles Manson is would not have fallen to me.

But then, perhaps, that is only appropriate. I do not think that the type of people who would be impressed by a song by Charles Manson would care in the least if the “upstanding members of society” were outraged. In fact, that’s probably the only reason Guns ‘N Roses recorded the song in the first place. But there’s a chance — perhaps, just a slight chance — that some of them might believe me when 1 tell them what type of person he is.

That my attempt to make a positive impact on these misguided young people should not be valued, just because some question my sincerity, is unconscionable. Some claim that I “haven’t paid for my crime,” implying a social debt, while they argue that I should be condemned for trying to provide a positive contribution to the community.

In their zest to attack my efforts, I am afraid that they have overlooked the tragic fact that we live in an age of escalating violence among the young and that no one knows how to stop it. We have 18-year-olds in this prison doing life sentences. Surely, people’s suspicions about my sincerity pale when measured against the possible good my speaking out might do.

Perhaps, their suspicions would be lessened if I told them what prompted my letter. I saw a segment on the Channel 9 news, KCAL, about the young men who produced the Charles Manson shirt worn by Guns ‘N Roses lead singer Axl Rose on their video. When asked how they could justify making money this way, they responded that Charles Manson was never convicted of murder, he was only convicted of conspiracy.

This disturbed me, but what really upset me was that when they’d finished showing this 15-second clip, the newscasters never bothered to correct this incredible fallacy. It made me wonder whether anyone in the KCAL news room even knew that this wasn’t true. Even more frightening was the thought that maybe they didn’t care. Certainly, this misinformation deserved comment.

In closing, I would like to thank those who write that my letter sounded like that of an “upstanding model citizen,” and remind them that they’ve probably never read anything I’d written before — only things written about me.

When you see someone only through another’s eyes (in this case, the district attorney’s eyes), you generally see only what that person wants you to see. Sometimes, you get misled (ask the district attorney why the coroner’s report doesn’t substantiate the DA’s allegation that I killed Sharon Tate).

So, if you have a son or daughter who thinks that Charles Manson is amusing (or worse, if they believe he’s “misunderstood”), please tell them for me that Charles Manson can do for them exactly what he did for me (and Thurgood Marshall isn’t around to save them anymore).

SUSAN ATKINS
California Institute for Women Frontera
Feb. 21