This may be a tired old question but my attention was drawn to it again recently when I was reading a book by Colin Wilson called Rogue Messiahs. Why did Charles Manson’s encouragement to murder make him guilty of being a murderer? How many other people are in prison for “ordering” or suggesting crime rather than doing it themselves?
Exactly how risky is it to tell someone to go jump in the lake or screw themselves? Does it make a difference if you know they can’t swim or easily extricate themselves from a door handle? How can it matter whether there is serious intent in a suggestion or not?
Well…
Adolph Hitler never “killed” anybody.
Joseph Stalin never “killed” anybody.
Sam Bowers never “killed” anybody.
“Bull” Conner never “killed” anybody.
Jim Jones never “killed” anybody.
I, for one, am glad that these evil f**kers have been dealt with.
You might want to read Helter Skelter by Vincent Bugliosi, the former Los Angeles DA who put Manson in prison. He provides detailed descriptions of the crime scene, the investigation, and subsequent trial. It’s been a while since I read the book, but I believe the thrust of Bugliosi’s argument was that Manson exerted tremendous influence over his followers. Manson didn’t actually kill Sharon Tate or the LaBiancas, but the murders would never have occurred if he had not ordered them.
Actually, WC, I think Hitler did in fact kill Eva Braun & himself, and Jim Jones may have personally administered poison, though the point was made.
In the U.S., there’s a few ways to not kill anyone and still get convicted of murder (even be executed for it).
Aside from conspiracy and the influence discussed, there’s felony murder, which is a killing occurring during the commission of a felony. In other words, even if you’re just the wheelman for a bank robbery and someone inside gets killed, you are responsible since you planned a crime in which someone could get killed.
There is a slightly different standard for punishment with this. In Enmund v. Florida, the Supreme Court established that capital punishment was not allowed unless the person killed or intended to kill the victim. But this was expanded by Tison v. Arizona to allow for simply “reckless disregard for human life”. Those in this case did not in any way intend to kill the victim, but it was ruled that they did nothing to prevent the death and had played a major role in setting up the fatal situation.
non-legal disclaimer : IANA lawyer, so these statements should in no way guide you in matters of swimming, screwing, or legal research.
It would take me a while to locate a copy of that book. I browsed through it years ago though and, if I remember correctly, it said that the court accepted evidence that Charles Manson possessed supernatural powers. What does your average Skeptic think about that? The fact that the supernatural has been proven to exist?
Two men rob a bank. A silent alarm is sounded and the police surround the bank. One of the fellows surrenders and is driven to the police station and placed in jail. The second gunman refuses to surrender; two hours later he shoots and kills a policeman.
Both men are guilty of felony (1st degree) murder even though one man was behind bars at the time of the murder.
IANA lawyer or a Manson expert, but I doubt that the court would have accepted “supernatural” powers as evidence of Manson’s involvement in the murders. Manson’s motivation for ordering the murders (according to Bugliosi) was “Helter Skelter,” his convoluted blending of Biblical imagery, lyrics from the Beatles’ White Album, and belief in a race war into a prediction of a pending revolution. He believed that the murders would somehow spark a black revolt against the white race. Weird, but not supernatural. Certainly Manson’s followers believed in his divinity, but again, that’s evidence of his influence over them, not of supernatural powers.
And as luck would have it, I managed to dig up my copy of Helter Skelter in a box upstairs, and here is what Bugliosi has to say about the conspiracy/murder angle:
It’s pretty much what others have already said here, but I thought it might be worthwhile to hear it from the man who actually prosecuted Manson.
It seems the original poster was asking why does C.M. get life and other people get out.
C.M. is up for parole. Quite often. But C.M. has never admitted guilt, he espouses the government is out to get him, and he is infamous. People know everytime he is up for parole and it gets denied. So in his case life imprisonment is just that for life.
Has the case been not so infamous he might very well have made parole.
Let’s flip this. How many people really believe it OJ Simpson was just a regular black guy he would have got off? No his notariary helped him. Manson’s hurts him. (rightfully so for society’s sake)
So far as Manson’s notoriety hurting him, Manson has made mention a few times that he knows that if he were ever paroled, he would be killed within minutes of leaving the safety of the prison.
Take note that we never really hear anything from Manson until close to time for parole. Then he starts spouting off his anti-government rhetoric and his regular insanity. I apologize for not having the actual reference but there is a book that was written by someone from supposedly Manson’s telling of events. In the book, Manson points out that he does not want to be paroled because it is much safer for him within the confines of the prison walls than it is outside.
I’m at your mercy, headshok (you have the book in your hands and I don’t), but didn’t Bugliosi believe that Manson
was responsible for influencing over 100 murders?
Including the murder of a lawyer defending one of his own followers?
Headshok: A soldier kills because he is ordered to by his superiors. A member of a criminal organisation can be coerced into it - they either kill or are themselves killed. In legal terms how do you describe Charles Manson’s influence over the people he ordered to kill? I may have this wrong, admittedly, but I thought the prosecution also had to prove at some point that Manson did have some kind of overwhelming “hypnotic influence” over the Tate killers. Even if this is wrong it’s a concept that gets thrown about quite often isn’t it? Rasputin was supposed to possess such a personality. When you think about it, though, can you see yourself easily falling prey to someone’s “personality”? If you can’t, why believe other people can be? It’s a kind of arrogance.
Incidentally, how many other murders committed in 1970 are remembered today? The truth is, if Charles Manson’s name had not been connected with Sharon Tate’s and Roman Polanski’s he would probably have been forgotten long ago.
Montfort: According to “Rogue Messiahs” the closest Manson ever got to killing anyone himself was when he put a bullet in a drug dealer named Crowe who survived. He told Bobby Beausoleil to kill man called Hinman which he did. Manson ordered four of his followers to kill Sharon Tate etc. The following night he walked into the house of the LaBiancas and tied up Leno LaBianca and his wife and then left the premises. They were stabbed to death by two others.
this is according to whom? Manson himself? Is he the credible witness now?
I recall the case quite well, thank you. There was no attempt to suggest that the influence he had was anything remotely supernatural (unless you include ‘creepy’ as supernatural). His followers did a bunch of things during the trial that underscored the level of influence (shaving their heads after he did, marking their foreheads, standing in unison and speaking etc. etc.).
As has been patiently explained, the person in charge of a criminal conspiracy is just as culpable as the person who shoots the gun. If that isn’t sufficient in your eyes, well, it was in our legal system. In addition to the vast #'s of examples given, there is another whole segment of those criminally responsible for murder when they did not do the actual act - anyone who hires a killer is just as culpable.
It seemed that you were ‘concerned’ that you might find yourself prosecuted for murder if you suggested to some one that they go jump off a building etc.
There would be some cases in which you may - but these would be very specific kinds of situations and relationships. If you had a friend whom you knew was suicidally depressed and you kept urging them to end it all, I imagine some one might consider that you had a hand in it, or if the relationship was such that your influence was considerable (a teacher, parent for example).
But to suggest that the only actions that Manson took in these murders were ‘suggesting’ to his flock to do stuff is disingenuous at best. He helped supply weapons and materials, gave specific directions (such as picking out the home for example, and telling them to bring a change of clothing). In the LaBianca case (IIRC), he was at the crime scene itself. So, his actions were much more direct and involved than merely ‘telling some one’ to do something.
Doug Bowe:
In the epilogue to the book, Bugliosi offers his opinion that the Manson family can be credibly linked to 35-40 murders, and that he believes the final tally was higher than that. There were a number of murders after the Tate-LaBianca trials of people connected in some way to the Manson family. Some were personally acquainted with the family, while a few were connected to the investigation and the trial. Not long after the trial, the body of Ronald Hughes, one of Manson’s defense attorneys, was found in a pool of water with his “head and shoulder wedged underneath a large rock,” according to the autopsy report. The report found no obvious evidence of foul play, although Bugliosi feels that any evidence might not have been visible due to the badly decomposed state of Hughes’ body.
G. Nome:
Again, I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know how qualified I am to answer that question. I would simply refer you to the “vicarious liability” issue that Bugliosi referred to in the book. According to him, the issue during Manson’s trial was not explaining how he gained control over the family but proving that the control existed. Bugliosi used evidence placing Manson at one of the crime scenes and testimony by some of the family members about Manson’s belief in “Helter Skelter” (the words “Healter Skelter” were found written in blood at the site of the LaBianca murders) to link him to the crimes and demonstrate that he was the driving force behind them. He planned them, and the others carried them out voluntarily.
As to the degree of Manson’s influence, there’s no doubt that he established himself as the leader of the family, but it wasn’t as if he found a few innocent people and brainwashed them until they became murderers. He simply found people who were willing to accept him as their leader, and willing to kill for him. As Bugliosi puts it:
wring:
Actually, G. Nome is correct on the Crowe incident. In mid-1969 Manson shot a former drug dealer named Bernard “Lotsapoppa” Crowe; the bullet lodged next to Crowe’s spine but he survived. Manson later claimed that Crowe had been a Black Panther, and that he had actually killed him, a claim which was proven false when Bugliosi interviewed Crowe before the trial.
You misunderstand. I don’t dispute that he shot Crowe. I dispute the statement that “the closest he came to killing some one [directly]” was shooting Crowe. He certainly is the lead suspect in other killings, and we would only have his personal assurances that he hadn’t personally done so. and I find him an uncredible witness as to his own actions.