Opinion: They don’t want to read about Charles Manson. But they are writing a lot about him.

Since Charles Manson finished serving his life sentence Sunday, scores of readers have sent appropriately angry letters to The Times, each with all the requisite identifying information to have their words printed in the paper and online. There are enough usable letters to the editor on the late cult leader and convicted murderer to fill significant portions of print pages for several days.

And what most of those readers — who have submitted content for publication in The Times, thereby providing more material on Manson for us to print — want is not to read so much about Manson.

The truth is, on someone as singularly menacing as Manson, most of us probably have something to say — even if it’s to say people should stop talking about a dead killer.

Adam Mekler of Pasadena raises issues he feels are more worthy of coverage:

Has your paper lost its mind and integrity? I find that to waste so much space on a disgusting murderer is an abomination.

Remember, there are many more topics and stories that are far more important: Puerto Rico, our failing educational system, the corrupt president and his cabinet, the so-called tax relief for middle-class Americans, the moral corruption of our political system, the climate change that is destroying our planet and more.

Shame on The Times for abrogating its public responsibility.

San Diego resident Gene E. Schwartz, like many readers, pointed out an irony in The Times’ coverage:

In the paper on Tuesday, The Times Editorial Board admonished the public to stop obsessing with Manson: “He’s been effectively dead to the world for more than 40 years, except to the extent that we insisted on keeping him alive in print, on television, in pop music and film.”

The Times has published multiple front-page articles since his death. Capitalizing on the sensationalism of Manson’s legacy was OK for The Times, but shame on us for reading? If The Times wants the public to stop this obsession, then it should follow its own advice and stop printing these salacious and repetitive articles about this horrible loser.

I was over Manson’s death when I heard it on the evening news, but The Times won’t let him die.

Jo Iannello of West Hollywood suggests the appropriate place to report on Manson’s death:

Why are you giving so much publicity to Manson? He hardly deserves a one-liner in the obituaries section.

I don’t need to see his face when I open my morning Times. How much longer must we endure stories about him?

Kathleen McCord of Encinitas is one of only a small handful of readers to suggest Manson’s death deserves extensive reporting:

In the summer of 1969, I was a young newlywed and I remember the Manson killings clearly. They were horrific and beyond anything anyone had ever experienced. The sheer brutality of the killings, in particular that of the pregnant actress Sharon Tate, who begged Manson’s followers not to kill her nearly full-term baby, was beyond comprehension.

These murders are incomparable.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook