INTRODUCTION
Throughout human history there has always been crime, from the most petty of crimes to the most heinous of criminal injury, abuses and murder. The most gruesome of crimes are those involving murder, whether premeditated or “heat of the moment,” which carry heavy criminal consequences. These cases are tragic, but no murders are more disturbing and shocking than those committed by serial murderers. These are killers who torture, dismember and murder victims in very specific and very ugly ways that are an extension of the killer’s needs. There have been many serial killers who have become famous for the heinous crimes, Jack the Ripper, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy and Jeffery Dahmer (Oleson, 2005). There is another infamous serial killer and cult leader, Charles Manson who led a group of young people into committing two of the most vicious and senseless crimes of the 20th century. Sociologists, psychologists and criminologist have all worked to understand the inner workings of these killer’s minds. Criminologists do so by applying the different theories of crime to the cases. After reviewing the available sources, it become abundantly clear that there are three theories that do seem to fit in the killings by Charles Manson and his “Family,” the strain theory, the social control theory and social learning theory.
BACKGROUND
Since the early 1990s, with the release of the feature film “The Silence of the Lambs,” which focused on the relationship between a convicted serial killer, Hannibal “The Cannibal” Lector and a novice FBI profiler, Clarice Starling, that people became fascinated in the phenomena of serious killers and how their minds work and how and why they do what they do (Hickey, 2013)? Charles Manson and his “Family” are no exception. Not a great deal is known about Charles Manson’s youth; what is known is that he had a criminal record from a young age, his mother was a neglectful parent and he spent years in state boys homes and juvenile facilities. His earliest known crimes involved petty thefts, stolen cars and acting as a pimp. While in prison he had learned to play the guitar, and believed that he would make a successful folk musician (Cook, 2011). After years of heavy drug use he saw himself as a “prophet-like” being that foresaw a great “race-war,” he even adopted the phrase “helter skelter” from a Beatles song to title this future war. Taking the “hippy” counterculture of the late 1960s, Manson drew together a number of wayward youths and those of unconventional ideologies into forming what he would call, his “Family.” Using a great deal of drugs and isolation from the outside world the group saw Manson as a modern messiah (Altman, 2015). When Manson had the opportunity to possible win a record contract, but the offer fell though, he felt cheated. He traveled to the Hollywood home of the man who had promised him the deal. He no longer lived there. The new tenants were famed director Roman Polanski and his pregnant wife, actress, Sharon Tate (Cook, 2005).
DISCUSSION
In August 9, 1969, he decided to take out his desire for revenge by sending Charles “Tex” Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel and Linda Kasabian to the Polanski-Tate home to murder whoever was home. Polanski was out of the country and his wife had four guests that evening, writer Wojciech Frykowski and his partner, Abigail Folger, heiress to the Folger Coffee legacy, and Hollywood hairstylist Jay Seabring. The first victim was a Steven Parent, an 18-year-old boy who was visiting the tenant in the properties guest house; the four murderers shot him in his car (Fox & Levin, 2015). The “Family” members invaded the home and beat and shot Jay Seabring. Frycowski and Folger managed to get out of the house but were both killed on the lawn. Sharon Tate begged for the life of her unborn baby, it had no effect. The killers specifically stabbed her in the stomach brutally, killing both Tate and the baby. Manson found their endeavor too messy (Altman, 2015).
The next night Manson drove two members of his “Family” to the Los Feliz home of a wealthy couple, Leno LaBianca and his wife Rosemary. They invaded the home and savagely restrained and stabbed the couple to death. At the crime scene he instructed the family members to leave bloody paw prints on the wall and leave behind watermelon skin, so that the police would believe that the crime had been committed by the African American Civil Rights Organization “The Black Panthers.” He believed that this act might inspire the race war he imagined (Fox & Levin, 2015). It did not have that effect. When the family members, including Manson, were arrested for the murders it presented a rather unique serial killer case for one unique reason. Manson was both a serial killer and a cult leader at the same time, but he did not physically kill any of those people. His influence allowed him to mastermind the crimes, but actually manipulate others into committing them. Manson did not kill anyone in either of these murders, but most modern researchers argue that there is little doubt that Manson may have committed a great deal of murder throughout his life, but none could be proven. All involved would ultimately receive maximum sentences for the Tate-LaBianca murders (Cook, 2011).
Understanding the nature and details of these crimes is necessary to understand the different criminal theories that can be applied. There are legitimate arguments for three different criminological theories that can apply to the Manson family murders in 1969.
Strain Theory:
Stain theory argues that most people have the same overall wants, desires and aspirations. Unfortunately, to everyone with dreams and aspirations have the same opportunities to achieve them. When people feel that they have failed to meet the standards and expectations of society, then they may look outside conventional means of achieving one’s goals and turn to criminal activity to get want they want (Atchison, 2011). This may have had a great deal to do with Manson’s motivations and desire to have the Tate household killed. He felt that the record producer had lied to him and could not tolerate the rejection of his work. In Manson’s mind, under the heading of strain theory, he had followed the normal and honest means of getting what he wanted. However, after the rejection he turned immediately back to his previous violent and criminal ways. He no doubt forced his viewpoints into the minds of his “Family,” and with the benefit of potent drugs, alcohol and violent outbursts, was able to coerce his followers into committing his crimes for him, eagerly, to please him (Altman, 2016). He felt justified in his murderous pursuits because he had been wronged and was going to make someone pay and through the hands of his followers, he did.
Social Learning Theory:
Manson is clearly mentally ill, called a sociopath by some and a psychopath by others; he possesses traits that are common to many killers like Ted Bundy and cult leader Jim Jones. They are known to be arrogant, narcissistic charming and very good at emulating and faking emotions; such people are diagnosed not to have the ability to feel empathy, sympathy, compassion or remorse, but they are able to pretend. Social learning theory argues that people are influenced by their examples and environment (Cook, 2011). Charles Manson was raised in environments where he was hardly nurtured and encouraged. He became a criminal at a young age so continuing to commit crimes throughout his life because that was the environment he grew up in. In the case of the Manson family, Manson created an isolated environment where he was able to normalize his followers into his way of thinking. He was generous with the drugs, alcohol and free love, but was just as quick to dole out punishment when they disappointed him (Holmes & Holmes, 1998). The followers of Manson became killers because Manson had created a culture where murder was justified and as the members became desensitized to the horror of such crimes, it becomes much easier to consider it acceptable.
Social Control Theory:
Social control theory argues that the only reason that most people do not choose to commit crimes is because they are aware of and fear punishment that they would receive if caught. Without laws and consequences in place human beings would run wild disregarding all ethical and moral barriers (Fox & Levin, 2015). People development their societal controls from the law of the land, what is illegal and what is not, from their work environments, their churches and the family homes. Manson was able to control his followers and manipulate them to follow through with them because he became their law, their church and their homes. Manson now set the boundaries of his society; it no longer would matter what the laws and standards they may have had before (Holmes & Holmes, 1998). That being sad when Manson order his followers to become murderers it would be acceptable for them to justify it under the mini-society that Manson had created.
Charles Manson clearly had an agenda all of his own and he was entirely self serving. He believed himself to be the messiah of race war he would happily create. People with anti-social personality disorder, which includes psychopathy and sociopathy, are known to have an overvalued sense of self and any problems in their lives is always someone else’s fault. Using his followers did allow him to have a level of dominance and control that those with the psychopathic mentality of serial killers and cult leaders (Padilla, Hogan & Kaiser, 2007). However, Manson was not the only one with mental issues in the Manson family. Tex Watson was less of a mindless, drug addled follower in the killings and more of a willing participant, something which ingratiated him to Manson. Watson, unlike Manson, did not come from a life of crime; he did not have a violent history. However, once introduced to crime, torture and murder, he became comfortable with it and was, in many ways, Manson’s right-hand-man until their capture, trial and sentencing (Altman, 2015).
Strain theory, social learning theory and social control theory can explain some of the psychological, sociological and criminological behaviors shown by Charles Manson and the murderous members of his “Family.” However, for many, these theories are not sufficient to explain the extreme violence and inhumane nature of the crimes committed in August of 1969 (Oleson, 2005). Even after years of research, there are still many questions regarding the influence of cult leaders and the mentality of serial killers. Many may argue that there is no explanation or justification that could explain or excuse this level of brutality against innocent people, and specifically a pregnant woman.
CONCLUSION
Charles Manson was, again, convicted and has been incarcerated since his conviction for conspiracy in all of the murders and as the “shot caller” for his family’s heinous Tate-LaBianca murders. In that time he has been interviewed, he maintains his claims of race wars, his own importance and has openly admitted that he has no remorse for his crimes and would no doubt do it again if ever given the opportunity, even today in his advanced years. Ultimately, there may never be a singular, perfect theory that can account for how some people are able to commit terrible crimes, while others are not. We may never fully understand dangerous offenders who have no remorse or empathy for others. Criminology may never find a universal explanation as to why fairly normal people could be manipulated and coerced into committing heinous crimes against other people. In the meantime, the different theories, like strain, social learning and social control theories to shed some light upon these sorts of crimes and those that commit them, like Charles Manson and his “Family.”
REFERENCE
Altman, R. (2015). Sympathy for the devil: Charles manson's exploitation of california'a 1960s
counter-culture. University of Boulder. 1-68
Atchison, A.J. (2011). Charles manson and the family: The application of sociological theories to
multiple murder. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(5). 771-798.
Cook, B.I. (2011). Serial Killers: Evolution, antisocial personality disorder and psychological
interventions. Adler Graduate School. 1-82.
Fox, J.A. and Levin, J. (2015). Extreme killing: Understanding serial and mass murder. Third
Edition. Sage Publications, Inc. 1-360.
Hickey, E.W. (2013). Serial murderers and their victims. Sixth Edition. Cengage Learning. 1-
512.
Holmes, R.M. and Holmes, S.T. (1998), Contemporary Perspectives on Serial Murder. Sage
Publications, Inc. 1-246.
Oleson, J.C, (2005), King of killers: The criminological theories of hannibal lector, Part One.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R. and Kaiser, R.B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders,
susceptible followers and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly. 18. 176-194.
