Charles Manson and the Family

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology http://ijo.sagepub.com/

Charles Manson and the Family: The Application of Sociological Theories to Multiple Murder Andrew J. Atchison and Kathleen M. Heide Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol published online 7 June 2010 DOI: 10.1177/0306624X10371794

The online version of this article can be found at: http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/06/04/0306624X10371794

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology can be found at: Email Alerts: http://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://ijo.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com by Sergio Tonkonoff on October 15, 2010

Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol OnlineFirst, published on June 7, 2010 as doi:10.1177/0306624X10371794 doi:10.1177/0306624X10371794

Charles Manson and the Family: The Application of Sociological Theories to Multiple Murder

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparativee Criminology Comparativ XX(X) 1 –28 © 2010 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermission sagepub.com/jo urnalsPermissions.nav s.nav DOI: 10.1177/0306624X10371794 http://ijo.sagepub.com

Andrew J. Atchison1 and Kathleen M. Heide2

Abstract

In 1969, Charles Manson and his “Family” of followers killed innocent people in an attempt to start a counterrevolution in the United States. Despite the notoriety of this cult leader and his followers over the past 40 years, the sociological literature on crime has not addressed the dynamics behind these seemingly senseless killings. To our knowledge, no serious attempt to apply criminological theory to these murderers and their actions has been made. In this article, labeling theory, general strain theory, and social learning theory are used to explain these murders using a case study approach. The article begins with a description of the goal of Manson’s actions. The murders that took place and their victims are briefly summarized, and several criminological theories are introduced. Charles Manson’s life is then chronicled, and the theories’ connections to events in his life are illustrated. The article also highlights the lives of three followers and how the theories relate to particular events in their past history. The article concludes with a discussion of the limitations of this study and directions for future research. Keywords

Charles Manson, multiple multiple murder murder,, sociologi sociological cal theories, the ories, social learning learni ng theory, theo ry, general strain theory, labeling theory

1

The Florida State University College of Law, North Port University of South Florida, Tampa

2

Corresponding Author: Kathleen M. Heide, University of South Florida, Department of Criminology, Social Sciences Building 107, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL 33620 Email: [email protected]


2

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology XX(X)

In November 1968, the Beatles released the White Album containing a song by the name “Helter Skelter.” Less than a year later, the term Helter Skelter took a sinister meaning from events that shocked a nation and made global news. Through what was a nonstop media circus stemming from California, the public became graphically aware of eight brutal killings that had taken place within a few days of each other in a wealthy Los Angeles neighborhood. These murders involved a rising film star and several upper-class California residents. These horrifying events were attributed to Charles Manson and his Family, a group of young, dysfunctional, and homicidal followers. The following well-publicized trial and later a detailed book written by Vincent Bugliosi (with Curt Gentry, 1974), lead prosecutor of the case, captured worldwide attention and propelled Manson and his followers into the limelight and the lives of everyday people. The Manson murders brought the end to an era of free love, peace, and happiness. Relative to today, young people in the 1960s were more open to hitchhiking across the United States. Living on a commune with other like-minded individuals was appealing to many youths, and the novelty of materialization and structured lives, so popular in the 1950s, was declining. Many young people across America wanted to move to California and be a part of the social revolution taking place. Television, movies, and music were inundated with references to this revolution. The faces of the movement were movie stars, musicians, and social activists from all over the world. The late 1960s were a time when heavy substance abuse and counterculture movements were embraced by many youths. Young people across the nation were rebelling against conservative values and norms by growing their hair long, rejecting traditional dating graces, and demanding rights for minorities, women, and homosexuals. Marches for civil rights and women’s rights were commonplace. It seemed that the youth in the United States were attempting to create a utopia in which their ideals would stand in contrast to conservative values and put an end to war, pain, and evil. Many of the younger generation were invested in affecting change in the world and creating a better society. Some of these young people came into contact with Charles Manson and became members of the Family. When details of the Manson Family murders began to be broadcast, this dream seemed to be shattered. The murderers themselves were some of the people trying to start this utopian movement, and they had taken the lives of some of the most popular and recognizable faces of the scene. In masterminding these crimes, Charles Manson introduced violence into what was supposed to be a peace-loving utopia (Bugliosi & Gentry, 1974). The destruction caused by Manson and the Family was a watershed event in the United States and abroad and remains a subject of fascination and discussion four decades later (T. Watson, 2009). Since 1969, Manson and his followers have remained in the public eye, as evident from coverage repeatedly given to numerous parole denials (“California: Prison Release Denied,” 2008; “Charles Manson Denied Parole,” 1997). In August 2009, Lynette Fromme, who attempted to kill President Gerald Ford in September 1975, was paroled after spending 34 years behind bars (Jacobson, 2009).


3

Atchison and Heide

Prosecutor Bugliosi explained Manson’s place in the “Pantheon of American criminal outlaws” 40 years after the mass killings (T. Watson, 2009): Manson not only is very bright—but as misunderstood as his violence was, his murders were revolutionary, political, and therein lies his main appeal to those on the fringes. The other thing that has separated him is the fact that all these other mass murderers committed the murders by themselves. Manson, on the other hand, was pulling strings, and getting people to go out and kill strangers at his command without asking any questions. And that makes him more frightening to other people. (p. 40) Manson and his followers have been the subject of many popular and professional writings. The sociological literature, however, has done little to explain the murderous behavior by Manson and his followers. This article uses three sociological theories to explain the forces that influenced Manson and his followers to kill.

Literature Review The murders engineered by Manson and carried out by his followers have been the subject of popular books (e.g., Baer, 1972; Bishop, 1971; Bugliosi & Gentry, 1974, 1994; Sanders, 1972, 2002; Wilson, 1996; Wooden, 2000), a play in San Francisco, and a “multimedia music drama” that premiered at New York’s Lincoln Center in July 1990 (Bernstein & NetLibrary, 1992). Manson himself has been a source of interest for law enforcement experts on serial murder (Douglas & Olshaker, 1995) and correctional personnel (George & Matera, 1998). Manson is included in the World Encyclopedia of 20th Century Murder (Nash, 1992) and in a recently published encyclopedia of terrorism as “among the most serious and influential terrorist personalities” in modern history (Combs & Slann, 2007, p. viii). Moreover, Charles Manson and his cult of followers have been a focus of scholarly studies in hypnotic leadership (Popper, 2001), philoso phy (Cooper, 1974), moral experience and cultural expression (Nielsen, 2005), press coverage of crime (Chiasson, 1997; Dardenne, 1997), the politics of everyday fear (Massumi, 1993), the literary analysis of culture (Bernstein & NetLibrary, 1992), the perverse use of Eastern thought (Zaehner, 1974), and abnormal behavior (Meyer, 1992). His letters to a young follower, trial testimony, and songs have been a source of fascination to many readers (Wizinski, 1976). Psychological analyses have portrayed Manson as the quintessential psychopath (Livsey, 1980; Magid & McKelvey, 1987) and focused on his early development (Magid & McKelvey, 1987; Wooden, 1976). Psychiatrist and family therapist Livsey who interviewed Manson and several of his followers, including Charles Watson, Leslie Van Houten, and Lynette Fromme, characterized the Manson followers as character-disturbed young adults attracted to a cultish lifestyle rather than innocent youth seduced by a charismatic leader. Livsey argued that Manson and his followers, the “Mansonites,” had a parasitic relationship wherein Manson fed his followers’


4


narcissism and megalomania (Livsey, 1980). Similar to other cults and terrorist groups, the Mansonites had a “cause”—assuming the leadership of the nation—and banded together, eventually actively engaging in violence, in an effort to achieve their aim and to make their mark on society (Levin & Fox, 1985; Livsey, 1980). Books written about completely different events use the Manson murders as a backdrop and setting for other events, almost using the killings as a reference point with which to gauge time (Heymann & Kenety, 1985). Despite the notoriety of this cult leader and his followers, very little has been published in the sociological literature to address the dynamics behind these seemingly senseless killings. Prior to the convictions of Manson and his followers, Geis and Huston (1971-1972) asked 54 college students to write in open-ended fashion “their explanations for the close and unusual relationships in the Manson family” (p. 349). The negative effect of drugs was the factor identified by the most students. The authors noted some support for the Durkheimian thesis that crime functions to bring about social censure and to reinforce social conformity and called for further sociological investigation (Geis & Huston, 1971-1972). To our knowledge, no other serious attempt to apply criminological theory to these murderers and their actions has been undertaken. The lack of sociological inquiry about this case seems odd. Sociological theories are geared to explaining crime in terms of the social environment. Clearly, the place and time—California in the late 1960s—were important factors in the genesis of the Manson Family and their acts of destructiveness. Families, peer groups, communities, and society are also critical com ponents of sociological analyses. In this article, a case study approach is used to illustrate the utility of three sociological theories in examining a series of homicidal events that defy easy classification. Labeling theory, general strain theory, and social learning theory are used to explain the murders and the destruction perpetrated by Manson and his followers. These theories were selected because they help to explain how social environments contribute to individuals’ adopting deviant solutions and committing crimes. Although these theories have been heavily researched, they have largely been applied to explaining minor delinquency, smoking, alcohol or drug use, or involvement in illegitimate or criminal behavior measured as a composite (e.g., re: labeling theory, Adams, Robertson, Gray-Ray, & Ray, 2003; Kaplan & Johnson, 1991; Zhang, 1997; re: general strain theory, Agnew & White, 1992; Broidy, 2001; Rebellon, Piquero, Piquero, & Thaxton, 2009; Tittle, Broidy, & Gertz, 2008; re: social learning theory, Akers & Lee, 1996; Akers & Sellers, 2008; Krohn, Skinner, Massey, & Akers, 1985; Winfree, Sellers, & Clason, 1993). Social learning theory has been used more often than labeling theory and strain theory in investigations and discussions of violent behavior (Bandura, 1973; Batton & Ogle, 2003; Bellair, Roscigno, & Velez, 2003; Boeringer, Shehan, & Akers, 1991; Pratt et al., in press). Snethen and Van Puymbroeck (2008) recently used social learning theory to investigate the incidence of aggression among girls in their study of social learning and physical aggression. None of these theories, however, has been


5

Atchison and Heide

used to explain multiple acts of murder committed by a social outcast and a group of adolescents raised in middle-class families.

Method A case study approach is used because the destruction caused by Manson and his followers is neither easily explained nor categorized. The eight murders discussed further below occurred on three occasions over the course of 2 months. On July 27, 1969, one person was killed. On August 8, 1969, five individuals were slain; the following night, another two people were murdered. The murderous destruction engineered by Manson involved a single murder on the first occasion, a mass murder on the second, and a double murder on the third. These acts of death and destruction do not easily fit into existing typologies that differentiate between mass murder, serial murder, and spree murder. There is not widespread agreement on the minimum number of victims for any of these types of murder (Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2005; Fox & Levin, 2005; Wright, Pratt, & DeLisi, 2009). Minimum victim counts for serial and mass murder have been identif ied as 2 (DeLisi & Scherer, 2006), 3 (Holmes & Holmes, 1994, 2001), 4 (Duwe, 2000; Fox & Levin, 1998; Levin & Fox, 1985), to as many as 10 (FBI, 2005). Mass murders are frequently identified as involving 4 or more victims killed at one time in one location (FBI, 2005; Wright et al., 2009). Serial murders are categorized as typically involving 3 or more victims killed in separate incidents without a cooling off period (Holmes & Holmes, 1994; Keeney & Heide, 1995). Spree murders are typically defined as the killing of multiple victims within a relatively short period of time ranging from hours to weeks in one continuous event involving at least two locations with little to no cooling off period (DeLisi, Hochstetler, Scherer, Purhmann, & Berg, 2008). Recently, DeLisi and colleagues (2008) set the threshold for killing as 1 for spree murderers provided the death occurred during a crime spree. Clearly, Manson and his codefendants merit study as examples of multiple homicide offenders (see, Wright, Pratt, & DeLisi, 2008). The case study method has some disadvantages. These studies are typically retrospective. Accordingly, the data on which interpretations are based may be inaccurate. This potential limitation can be remedied to some extent by using primary sources, corroborative data, and collateral sources, as done in this article. Another potential draw back is that each case study is unique and cannot be replicated. One cannot predict how far the results found in a particular case generalize to the larger population. Causation cannot be determined with this method because the case study method only investigates individuals who fall into a particular category and does not focus on those who do not (Heide, 1999; Rosenhan & Seligman, 1989; Shipley & Arrigo, 2004). The case study method, however, has several advantages. It permits the study of actual individuals and, unlike laboratory experiments, is not artificial or contrived. In addition, a clinical case study facilitates the investigation of phenomena so rare that, as in the case of Manson and his followers, it is unlikely that these cases could be studied ethically and practically with any other standard method of research. Clinical


6


case studies are often instrumental in generating hypotheses about the causes of particular problems and in suggesting solutions. On occasion, case studies can also be helpful in confirming or disconfirming evidence for a particular hypothesis (Heide, 1999; Rosenhan & Seligman, 1989; Shipley & Arrigo, 2004). The case studies in this article focus on Manson and three of his followers: Watson, Fromme, and Van Houten. These followers were selected because each demonstrated their willingness to kill for Manson and detailed information was available on their childhood and adolescent years. The sources used in these case analyses include books written by the principal participants, alone or in concert with others, and are as close to firsthand accounts as possible. Close inspection of these books, including published book reviews, indicates that these are credible and reliable sources of information. Details about the crimes are taken from prosecutor Bugliosi’s book Helter Skelter (Bugliosi & Gentry, 1974). Bugliosi was intimately involved in the investigation as well as the successful prosecution of Manson and his followers. This book includes police reports and an accurate timeline of actions and movements by Family members. It has been praised for presenting the complexities of this case in an intelligent, comprehensive, and detailed manner (Coyne, 1975; Lehmann-Haupt, 1974; Spence, 1975). Manson in His Own Words, by Nuel Emmons (1986), contains details about the life of Charles Manson. Emmons served time in jail with Manson in the 1950s and became a photojournalist later in life. Manson agreed to Emmons’s request to interview him after his conviction of the multiple murders. Emmons spent hundreds of hours over 7 years interviewing Manson (Lehmann-Haupt, 1987). Accounts given by Manson of his childhood are consistent with accounts written by others using official records (see, e.g., Livsey, 1980; Wooden, 1976). Emmons’s book has been described as “a worthwhile document, a glimpse of part of the American experience that is rarely described from the inside. It is not literature, but neither is it merely exploitation” (Black, 1987). Tex Watson’s book titled Will You Die for Me? was written from interviews conducted by prison chaplain Ray Hoekstra regarding the murders as well as Watson’s life growing up in Copeville, Texas (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978). Hoekstra founded the International Prison Ministry in 1972. During the 25 years he served as its director, he made thousands of visits to prisons across America and the former Soviet Union (International Prison Ministry, n.d.). Hoekstra was convinced that Watson’s account of his life and criminal involvement was an honest one. The information about Lynette Fromme and Leslie Van Houten comes from books that also include firsthand accounts of biographical information (Bravin, 1997; Faith, 2001). Squeaky: The Life and Times of Lynette Alice Fromme was written by Jess Bravin, a law student and former New York Times reporter (Stuttaford & Simson, 1997). A Library Journal review noted that “the author has done his research thoroughly, capturing the texture of an era and Fromme’s journey” (Burns, 1997, p. 122). Other reviewers remarked that Bravin had done a “fine” and “commendable job” chronicling Fromme’s life (See, 1997; Stuttaford & Simson, 1997). The Long Prison Journey of Leslie Van Houten was written by Karlene Faith, a criminology professor


7

Atchison and Heide

at Simon Fraser University, and was published by Northeastern University Press. Faith taught Van Houten in prison in 1972 and visited and corresponded with her for almost three decades prior to the publication of the book (Rotella, Abbott, & Gold, 2001). Publishers Weekly noted the book’s appeal to readers of sociology, criminal justice, and women’s studies (Rotella et al., 2001). The Library Journal recommended this book for both public and academic libraries (Standiford, 2001). The goal of Manson’s actions is described below. The murders that took place and their victims are then briefly summarized. Thereafter, each of the three criminological theories is briefly highlighted and then illustrated in the case of Charles Manson. The article also highlights the lives of three followers and how the theories fit particular instances in their past history.

Helter Skelter Little variation exists in explaining the rationale behind Helter Skelter. Accounts agree that Manson was concerned with having and maintaining power. FBI agents who interviewed Manson years after the murders believed Manson saw the murders as a way to maintain control over his followers (Douglas & Olshaker, 1995). Bugliosi and some of the killers maintained that Manson’s interest in power extended far beyond the Family (Bugliosi & Gentry, 1974). Watson indicated that Manson’s goal in engineering these murders was to start a race war. “The central doctrine of Charlie’s new teaching was Helter Skelter—Armageddon, the Last War on the Face of the Earth, the ultimate battle between Blacks and Whites in which the entire white race would be annihilated” (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978, p. 93). After listening to The Beatles’ 1968 White Album, Manson began to see predictions encoded throughout the lyrics and saw parallels to the ideas he had had about growing racial tension between Blacks and Whites. Manson took the Beatles’ lyrics and told his followers that the band was trying to push Blacks into rebelling violently against Whites. Manson Family members told Watson over the telephone that he had to return to the ranch because “Helter Skelter is coming down fast, and we’re getting ready for it” (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978, p. 91). Manson saw this war as inevitable, and he sought to bring about the race revolt himself.

The Murders In July of 1969, the murders began with the stabbing to death of Gary Hinman, a 34-year-old music teacher living in Malibu, California, by several Family members. Hinman was an acquaintance of Manson and several Family members. At one time, Manson had lived with Hinman. The motivation for this murder was thought to be robbery; Manson had sent followers to take money that Manson believed Hinman had recently inherited (Bugliosi & Gentry, 1974; Livsey, 1980; C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978). On the wall of Hinman’s living room was the statement, “Political Piggy,” written in the victim’s blood, as well as a sketch of an animal’s paw print, drawn in blood by one of the attackers (Bugliosi & Gentry, 1974).


8


These Family members lived together on a deserted piece of property once used for movie locations called Spahn’s Movie Ranch, located in Chatsworth, California. They followed Manson like a cult would a leader. They took his statements as gospel, believed in his supposed music talent, and took his orders without hesitation. Following this murder, Family member Bobby Beausoleil was arrested on August 6, 1969 (Bugliosi & Gentry, 1974). Manson took this event as a catalyst to begin Helter Skelter and summoned Family members Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, and Linda Kasabian to destroy both a home and its occupants at 10050 Cielo Drive, in the Santa Monica Mountains within Los Angeles. This home had been owned by a record producer; Manson did not know the current occupants (Bugliosi & Gentry, 1974). On August 9, 1969, the four Family members arrived at the home of film director Roman Polanski and his wife, actress Sharon Tate. After their arrival, Watson climbed a telephone pole and cut the phone line to the home (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978). Shortly thereafter, a car driven by Steven Parent approached on the driveway near the gate to the property. Parent was a recent high school graduate and electronics salesman at a local store. Parent had been visiting the residence’s caretaker and was on his way home. Watson stopped the car and confronted Parent (Bugliosi & Gentry, 1974). After cutting off Parent’s wristwatch, Watson shot him four times. The group then climbed a wall into the property and headed up a hill to the house. As Kasabian stood guard at the bottom of the hill, the remaining Family members entered the home and gruesomely murdered the four occupants. Sharon Tate and her unborn child, Wojciech Frykowski, Jay Sebring, and Abigail Folger were all stabbed to death in or around the home. Another message was left written in blood on the property; this time, Atkins wrote “Pig” on the door to the house with Sharon Tate’s blood (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978). Frykowski was a 32-year-old Polish actor who knew Tate from an acting role in one of Polanski’s films and was dating Folger. Folger was the 25-year-old heiress to the Folger coffee fortune, and was a popular socialite and political activist in Hollywood. Sebring, aged 35, was best known as a celebrity hair-stylist. He had been introduced to Folger and Frykowski by the Polanskis. The quintet was a familiar group in Hollywood at the time of the murders. The following night, Manson accompanied the same four Family members and two additional followers, Leslie Van Houten and Steve Grogan, to the Los Angeles home of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. Manson had previously attended a party next door to the LaBiancas home; he had never met Mr. and Mrs. LaBianca. Accordingly, the selection of Mr. and Mrs. LaBianca as murder victims, as well as that of Sharon Tate and her friends, was completely random. Leno LaBianca, a 44-year-old graduate of the University of Southern California, was a grocery store owner. Mr. and Mrs. LaBianca were killed shortly after the Family members entered the home through an unlocked back door (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978). Although Manson helped tie up both LaBiancas, he departed before any stab bings took place and sent in two Family members (Van Houten and Krenwinkel) with instructions for Watson to kill the couple and “make it as gruesome as you can”


9

Atchison and Heide

(C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978, pp. 148-149). Each present Family member was sup posed to participate in these killings per Manson’s instructions. Accordingly, Watson insisted that both Van Houten and Krenwinkel stab the deceased body of Mrs. LaBianca (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978). Watson carved the word “WAR” into Mr. LaBianca’s abdomen (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978). “Helter Skelter” was incorrectly spelled by Krenwinkel as “Healter Skelter” when she scrawled a message in blood on the LaBiancas’ refrigerator door, and the phrases “Rise” and “Death to Pigs” were written on the walls of the home (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978, p. 150). After the LaBianca murders, Manson attempted to pin the killings on African Americans by having the wallet of Mrs. LaBianca discarded in the bathroom of a service station in Sylmar, California. Manson had believed that this was a “black neigh borhood” (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978, p. 150). Manson had planned more nights of murders, until the race war was started, and then planned to take his Family into the desert to wait for the war to end and the African Americans to transfer their new power to him (Bugliosi & Gentry, 1974, p. 312). “Charlie had made it clear that two nights would not be the end of it, that we would do more and more killing until either the Blacks or the Whites took matters into their own hands—and Helter Skelter would begin” (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978, p. 151). Manson had planned these killings to kick-start Helter Skelter. Through the placement of various messages like “Pig,” “Rise,” and “Death to Pigs” at the crime scenes, Manson had attempted to frame African Americans for these eight murders (Bugliosi & Gentry, 1974). Once the war began, Manson believed the African American race would triumph over all others, and later transfer power to the surviving White people because they could not handle restarting civilization (Bugliosi & Gentry, 1974). “In Manson’s mind, his Family, and particularly he, would be the ultimate beneficiaries of a black-white civil war” (Bugliosi & Gentry, 1974).

Arrest and Conviction Beginning in mid-August, 1969, authorities raided several ranches on which various Family members were residing. During a raid on October 12, 1969, Manson and other members of the Family were arrested on charges ranging from arson to grand theft of dune buggies (Bugliosi & Gentry, 1974). The raids were initiated after two young girls escaped from the Manson compound and asked for protection from the Family. One of these girls told authorities that she had overheard Manson direct several members to attempt to procure money from Hinman, and that Susan Atkins had fought a man and stabbed his legs in a separate incident. Atkins was later arrested in October 1969 for the Hinman murder. While incarcerated at Sybil Brand Institute, Atkins told two inmates about her involvement in the murders, who later told authorities. Murder charges were subsequently filed against Manson and other Family members (Bugliosi & Gentry, 1974). Manson, Atkins, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten were found guilty of varying counts of murder after a 7-month trial. Watson was tried and convicted separately a few


10


months later. All five were sentenced to death. Their sentences were commuted to life sentences in 1972 after the death penalty was found to be unconstitutional (Bugliosi & Gentry, 1974). Each Family member has come up many times for parole consideration during the past 40 years. Only Fromme has been released on parole (Jacobson, 2009).

Application of Sociological Theories Each theory is highlighted and then illustrated in the case of Charles Manson. In the following section, the theories are used to explain the homicidal involvement of three Family members whose life circumstances were radically different from those of Manson.

Labeling Theory Labeling theory initially focused mainly on the effects of formal sanctions on those who deviated from society’s norms. The theory posited that lawbreakers feel labeled as a result of being processed in the criminal justice system for committing a delinquent or criminal act (primary deviance). After feeling the negative effects of the label and seeing how society now reacts to them, these individuals’ self-concepts become altered. Defined as bad, they come to see themselves as bad. Consistent with a self-fulfilling prophecy, these individuals then embrace this deviant label by committing more criminal acts and they become locked into their deviant roles (secondary deviance; Akers & Sellers, 2008; Becker, 1963; Lemert, 1951; Schur, 1965, 1971; Tannenbaum, 1938). More recent formulations of labeling theory regarding lawbreakers have placed more emphasis on the effects of informal labeling by parents and close friends on lawbreakers’ self-perceptions and behaviors (Braithwaite, 1989; Matsueda, 1992; Paternoster & Iovanni, 1989; Zhang, 1997).

Manson and Labeling Theory Charles Manson’s attitude toward criminal activity is easily explained by labeling theory. Emmons’s book provides compelling data concerning Manson’s own thoughts on being labeled a criminal and how this label affected his future choices. From an early age, Manson was entangled with the law and had a reputation around the neigh borhood as being “trouble.” When he was seven, Manson received no toys at Christmastime because he was living with his poor grandparents. He reportedly rounded up all of his classmates’ toys and out of spite burned them in a pile on top of some wood he had stacked. “They had toys of all kinds: wagons, trains, cowboy hats and chaps” (Emmons, 1986, p. 32). The other kids’ parents alerted authorities to this act and Manson thus began his life of being labeled a delinquent. Manson remarked that although the authorities did not take him to jail, it was his first encounter with the law.


11

Atchison and Heide

Manson communicated to cellmate Emmons that he was labeled the “ringleader” of an escape attempt early during his stay at the Indianapolis City Juvenile Home. Manson stole a maintenance employee’s tools and organized an escape for about 35 other delinquents. Two hours later, Manson was picked up by authorities behind the wheel of a stolen car and taken to county jail rather than back to the county home for juveniles. Manson was told that he was the youngest offender to be booked into that particular county jail. The “ringleader” label, along with a photograph, appeared on the front page of the newspaper. The year was 1948; Manson was 13 years old (Emmons, 1986). In another instance, Manson told Emmons that he lost a possible parole date because of a reportedly consensual homosexual encounter between Manson and another delinquent at the National Training School for Boys in Washington, D.C. Manson was accused of threatening a boy’s life with a razor to his throat in order to sodomize the boy against his will. Manson stated that the boy was a willing participant in the sexual activity and that they had an agreement about the razor in order to protect the reputation of this boy, who was an in-the-closet homosexual. The agreement was that if the pair was discovered, the boy could say that Manson had forced him into the act. After being caught, Manson’s file listed him as a homosexual with violent, assaultive tendencies. Manson then communicated that although both boys knew the truth, because of the new label acquired by Manson, it was not long before the prophecy was fulfilled and he indeed put a razor to another boy’s throat (Emmons, 1986). He stated: “If you keep pushing something off on a person, pretty soon that person stops fighting the reputation and becomes everything he is accused of being. It has proven itself out over the years. You start to think, ‘Fuck them. If that’s what they think I am, and I have to bear that cross, I got nothin’ to lose in being all they think I am’” (Emmons, 1986, pp. 47-48).

General Strain Theory Strain theories, building on the work of Durkheim, have presented a compelling explanation for criminal behavior (Durkheim, 1938). Merton adapted Durkheim’s concept of anomie to explain crime. Merton defined anomie as the feeling an individual experiences when he cannot obtain goals (Merton, 1938). When a person cannot accomplish his goals legitimately, he may turn to deviance or crime. Merton noted the strong societal importance placed on financial success. The importance of monetary success is what drives people without legitimate means to achieve these goals by committing crime. Agnew (1992) broadened and built on the classic strain theories by increasing the defined types of sources of strain. Agnew’s general strain theory defined three types of sources for strain: failure to achieve financial goals, the presentation of noxious or negative stimuli, and the removal of positive stimuli (Agnew, 1992). The failure to achieve positively valued goals is relevant to the disjunction between aspirations and achievements. These aspirations may be financial in nature, or they may be more general, just referring to immediate goals in an individual’s life. This


12


variation is different from previous versions of the theory because it includes goals other than middle-class status or monetary success (Agnew, 1992). Strain can also result from the difference between the person’s expectations and his or her achievement (Agnew, 1992). Expectations can be created by individuals using their similar peers as a reference, or they may be influenced by past experience. Individuals will want to narrow the difference between their achievement and their expectations, even considering deviance as a method to meet their expectations. The perceived fairness of the outcome of a situation also plays a role in how individuals view their achievements. When an individual perceives a situation as unfair, the individual will be more likely to react with deviance, when compared to a situation that he or she perceives as fair (Agnew, 1992). Strain can also result from a situation where positively valued stimuli are removed from an individual’s life (Agnew, 1992). For example, strain can be the loss of a loved one, such as a parent, friend, or relative. Strain may also be caused by the presentation or anticipated presentation of negative (noxious) stimuli. Negative stimuli can include abuse, criminal victimization, physical punishment, negative relationships with parents or friends, verbal threats, noxious odors, negative school experiences, or parental neglect (Agnew, 1992). Being arrested or incarcerated may be thought of as loss of freedom (positive stimuli) or presentation of negative stimuli, as it may represent negative relationships with authority. Negative stimuli may lead to aggression or delinquency in individuals (Agnew, 1992). Delinquency can occur when the individual attempts to escape the negative factors, takes revenge against those responsible for the negative stimuli, or terminates the negative stimuli. Agnew’s research has shown that delinquency is a direct result of negative stimuli (Agnew, 1992). In addition, the theory describes the conditions that would exacerbate the effect of strain. When strain is greater in size or magnitude, the effect is stronger on the individual. Events that are longer in duration (“chronic stressors”) also make the effect stronger. Life in prison could be an example of a chronic stressor producing strain. Strain is also magnified by a shorter time elapsed from the exposure to one negative stimuli and the presentation of another. Finally, the clustering of strain-inducing negative relations will make the effect of strain stronger on an individual (Agnew, 1992). Because people are subject to these different sources of strain, they cope with strain in several ways. Cognitive, behavioral, and emotional coping strategies are used by individuals to deal with the stress strain places on them. Delinquency or using drugs as well as other, more legitimate strategies are means to relieve strain (Agnew, 1992). Research has indicated that most forms of strain have only moderate or weak effects on delinquency. Personality traits, however, may determine which individuals react to strain with delinquency (Agnew, Brezina, Wright, & Cullen, 2002). Personality traits influence an individual’s reaction to strain. This influence affects the emotional effect of strain, the ability of an individual to respond to strain legitimately (without delinquency), the knowledge of the costs of reacting to strain with delinquency, and an individual’s disposition to react with crime (Agnew et al., 2002).


13

Atchison and Heide

Manson and General Strain Theory Manson’s life before entering prison for the last time was filled with many examples of loss that would fit into general strain theory. These include Manson’s experienced failure to achieve financial goals, the presentation of noxious or negative stimuli, and the removal of positive stimuli situations early in his life, even before he turned to crime and deviance. Evidence suggests that these strain-inducing experiences left Manson with feelings of emptiness and resentment and might have led him to attempt to ameliorate these feelings with crime and delinquency. Manson communicated to Emmons that he had always been a “half-assed nothing.” In reference to possessing some mystic controlling powers, Manson stated that as soon as he started believing in the media quotes and printed materials and attempted to “work a whammy” on a prison guard, the guard shut the cell door in his face. Manson has been constantly reminded of his failure to achieve positively valued goals his entire life. At the age of 51, he stated that he had been a ward of the state (i.e., reformatories, foster homes, prisons, jails) for at least 37 of those years. In 2009, 40 years after the murders, that count is now 60 of his 74 years, or 81% of his life. He was first jailed at age 12 and first sentenced to prison at age 16. Manson was quoted as saying he experienced more rejection from his mother and family than love or acceptance. Manson frequently experienced the loss of loved ones early in life. The strain of being abandoned by a parental figure weighed heavily on the development of his feelings toward unity and closeness. Manson was first deserted by his mother in a small bar where, for a pitcher of beer, Kathleen Maddox left her child in the care of a want-to-be mother working as a waitress. Days later, Manson’s uncle had to search the town to find him (Emmons, 1986). At the age of 6, Manson’s mother once again placed her son’s future in jeopardy by attempting to rob a service station with her brother. After using a Coke bottle as a weapon, they were later caught and sentenced to five years in prison. Manson was left in the care of his grandparents. Manson’s mother again abandoned him when she petitioned for Manson to become a ward of the state at age 12, pleading hardship. Manson was placed in the Gibault Home for Boys in Terre Haute, Indiana, by the court. Manson remarked to Emmons that he felt incredible loneliness and a definite longing for his mother (Emmons, 1986). Manson experienced the loss of positively valued stimuli when he was confined in this boys’ home. He was punished because of his primary nocturnal enuresis. He also experienced the presentation of noxious stimuli when he witnessed forced homosexual acts on other children. After a short stay, Manson escaped and returned to his mother’s residence. However, Maddox turned her son in to the authorities. Manson remarked that there were no tears; at that time he knew real hate (Emmons, 1986). The authorities returned Manson to Gibault. “The trip back to Gibault was a waste of gas and time. I split the very first chance I got. Goodbye Gibault. Goodbye Mom” (Emmons, 1986, p. 36). After his escape from the Gibault Home for Boys, Manson lived with bums and winos until he was again picked up and sent to several reformatories.


14


At the Indianapolis School for Boys, Manson was faced with what he called the worst place of confinement he had experienced. Located in Plainsfield, Indiana, Manson was abused within 3 hr of intake procedures. After an escape attempt less than 15 min into his stay, Manson was beaten by his supervisor with a leather strap. In another instance, Manson was forcibly raped by four schoolmates. When discovered by a supervisor, the attackers were told to quit horsing around and leave the area (Emmons, 1986). In January 1955, Manson married an Irish waitress whom he had met at a racetrack. This woman was the first with whom Manson had sexual intercourse, and he said he felt true love toward his new wife. Manson told Emmons: “I was loving someone and she was returning my love. A huge void was being filled. For the first time in my life I felt like I could conquer the world” (Emmons, 1986, p. 50). Manson moved along with his pregnant wife to California in a stolen car. After completing an automobile theft-for-hire, Manson was arrested in California for the previous car theft. Before the authorities learned of the theft-for-hire, he fled to Indiana. There he was again arrested and sentenced to prison in California at age 21. Manson’s wife and their newborn child visited over the course of the next year. A short time later his wife left the state with a truck driver, taking their child. Manson told Emmons that after his family’s abandonment all thoughts of becoming a straight person left him at that time. The loss of something that represented true love and satisfaction introduced an immeasurable amount of strain into Manson’s life. Manson wanted to have flashy clothes, nice cars, and plenty of money (Emmons, 1986). He went about trying to procure these things by starting a prostitution ring, a way of life about which he heard from fellow prisoners. After Manson was paroled, he engaged in prostitution as his main source of income. He met and fell in love with a young female named “Sandy.” After several months of “being her john” as his friends snidely remarked, Manson asked Sandy to sell herself (Emmons, 1986, p. 57). Sandy appeared “eager” to earn money for Manson by turning tricks, and solicited sex on the streets of Hollywood to support herself and Manson (Emmons, 1986).

Social Learning Theory Social learning theory is one of the most frequently tested and supported criminological theories (Pratt et al., in press). Social learning theory (Burgess & Akers, 1966) is essentially a reformulation of Sutherland’s differential association theory that is more amenable to empirical verification (Akers, 1985; Akers & Sellers, 2008). The main tenets of differential association theory are that criminal behavior and the attitudes that facilitate engaging in crime are learned from interaction with others (Sutherland, 1937). Akers’ social learning theory, as it is currently conceptualized, is organized around four principal themes: (a) differential association, (b) differential reinforcement or punishment, (c) definitions, and (d) imitation. Social learning theory posits that a person’s likelihood of engaging in deviance or crime increases as he or she differentially


15

Atchison and Heide

associates with those who commit crime and have favorable attitudes toward committing crime. The impact of such exposure varies according to the frequency, duration, intensity, and priority of different associations (Akers, 1998). Individuals are likely to commit deviant acts if the actual or perceived likelihood of their being rewarded is greater than the likelihood of their being punished (Akers, 1997; Krohn et al., 1985; Sellers, Cochran, & Branch, 2005). Individuals are also influenced to commit crimes according to the definitions or attitudes they have toward crime as a lifestyle. These definitions are largely determined by the attitudes toward crime of their close friends and “role models” (Akers, 1997; Akers & Jensen, 2006; Batton & Ogle, 2003; Bellair et al., 2003; Sellers et al., 2005). They are likely to imitate or emulate the behaviors of those whom they admire. These role models typically come from primary groups, such as parents and friends with whom they have close relationships (Akers, 1997; Bandura, 1977; Krohn et al., 1985; Sellers et al., 2005). However, they may also come from sources such as the media (Donnerstein & Linz, 1995).

Manson and Social Learning Theory Consistent with social learning theory, Manson had many opportunities to be influenced by and to learn criminal behavior from those around him from the time he was very young. Manson was first confined at age 12 in the Gibault Home for Boys. Manson maintained that he learned from other boys how to beat the law at this institution. Manson stated: “And though guys there were not necessarily juvenile delinquents, they did share the same resentments against parents, the law, and confinement as those in reform schools. I was exposed to a lot of things the average kid doesn’t experience until a much older age. . . . I was told about all kinds of ways to beat the law” (Emmons, 1986, pp. 35-36). Manson was essentially surrounded through his formative years by persons who despised the law and those by whom it was enforced. The boys who were housed at Gibault espoused definitions favorable to crime, influencing Manson’s own attitude toward deviance and criminality. As Manson grew up in these “homes” and “schools,” it is likely that his definitions relating to deviant behavior became favorable, thus increasing the probability of his continued offending. “Those were my smothered feelings. On the outside, I projected arrogance and disdain for rules and regulations. I strove to prove myself to the others to be a person who experienced everything, was afraid of nothing and could get by with anything” (Emmons, 1986, p. 47). After his escape from Gibault, Manson traveled from town to town using the rail and for a few weeks lived with hobos, winos, and bums. After stealing a bicycle, Manson was arrested. The authorities could not believe that a 12-year-old was living alone on the road. He was admitted into Boys Town, a school for boys, and soon escaped with a partner. The pair fled to the other boy’s uncle’s home, a World War II veteran living on disability, who was also a thief by trade (Emmons, 1986). This man immediately recognized that the boys were small enough to crawl through skylights and put them to work. The uncle would “case” a job and send the boys in to


16


do the crime. The uncle would give the boys a small portion of “the take” for each job (Emmons, 1986). This man was one of a few male role models in Manson’s life. Instead of recognizing the illegality and wrongfulness of committing these crimes for the uncle, Manson only saw the payday (Emmons, 1986). Following his stay at the county jail at age 13, Manson was placed in the care of the Indianapolis School for Boys. At this facility, Manson was abused both physically and mentally by those who were supposed to be helping him become a better person. Manson was once again placed in a situation where an authority figure was abusive and hurtful. When Manson was raped by four other boys, the authority figure made the experience worse by taunting Manson about the event in front of the others at the school (Emmons, 1986). Manson later resided at the National Training School for Boys in Washington, D.C. This facility was a federal reformatory, where less abuse took place (Emmons, 1986). Manson felt the National Training School contained a “higher caliber” or “class” of delinquents (Emmons, 1986, p. 46). Manson listened with admiration to these inmates’ tales of cars, girls, parties, and nice clothes. Manson was next housed in a federal reformatory in Chillicothe, Ohio. Here Manson resided alongside hardened gangsters and “higher caliber” criminals. These men fascinated Manson, who tried his best to learn their ways. “My heroes weren’t the movie stars or the headline-making sports figures, but the guys who got away with the biggest bank heist; the Al Capones, the Mickey Cohens, all the mobsters who defied the system that was keeping me locked up” (Emmons, 1986, p. 48). Manson spent his free time being regaled by these outlaws who loved and wanted others to embrace their violent and criminal lifestyles. Manson’s attitudes toward deviance were strengthened by these months inside the Chillicothe reformatory. Manson met New York gangster Frank Costello during this time and felt “admiration bordering on worship” when he sat at the same lunch table or walked down the same hall as the mobster (Emmons, 1986). Manson explained: “Yeah, I admired Frank Costello, and I listened to and believed everything he said” (Emmons, 1986, p. 49). Throughout his years in jails, prisons, reformatories, and state schools, Manson had extensive contact and association with those who favorably viewed deviance, lending support to the theoretical tenets of social learning theory.

Manson Family Members Criminological theories clearly offer persuasive explanations for Manson’s deviance. More engaging and interesting, however, is the underlying reasons that might have led some of Manson’s followers to choose crime and, ultimately, to engage in murder. As noted in myriad popular media coverage, these followers came from backgrounds and lives distinctly different from Manson. Below, this article presents a synopsis of the lives of three followers: Charles Watson, Leslie Van Houten, and Lynette Fromme. After these summaries, the sociological theories of social learning, general strain, and


17

Atchison and Heide

labeling are used in an attempt to explain how youths raised in middle- to uppermiddle-class environments were drawn to worship a career criminal and committed horrible crimes when so ordered.

Charles “Tex” Watson Charles Denton Watson (“Tex”) was the only child of Denton and Elizabeth Watson, a couple residing in Copeville, Texas. Born on December 2, 1945, Watson appeared to live a normal middle-class life. Watson’s parents married during the Great Depression and raised their son in a deeply religious home. Watson was baptized in 1958 and was taken to church by his parents every Sunday. Watson participated in a youth group, was an accomplished high school track star, and raised an award-winning calf for the county fair (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978). Watson was chosen three separate times as “Campus Kid” by the Hi Life school newspaper staff and was lettered in football, basketball, and track (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978, p. 33). Watson lived 18 years in the same white frame home. He was graduated from Farmerville High School with honors and he looked forward to college (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978). Watson commented in his autobiography that one of the many reasons he escaped his small hometown was that he desired freedom. He noted that sexuality was never discussed at home. It was looked down on by town elders and especially by his mother (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978). Watson began attending class at North Texas State University in September 1964. Watson committed a theft of typewriters during a fraternity scavenger hunt. Unlike Watson, his parents did not find the event funny when Watson told them about his escapade. In an effort to rectify their son’s behavior and attitude, Watson’s parents took him to Roland Boyd, an attorney. Looking back, Watson noted the irony when Boyd lectured him about how poor choices could affect his outstanding high school record, as four years later Watson’s parents approached Boyd to represent their son on multiple charges of murder (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978). Watson soon grew tired of the perceived stifling of his freedom at college and began to consider moving away to California (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978). Watson noted that the Mamas and the Papas released the song “California Dreaming,” and California was painted as freedom and easiness. Watson recalled that Richard Carson, one of his fraternity brothers who had moved to the West Coast, returned to Copeville and had a different air about him. Carson had longer sideburns, dressed differently, and was more at ease (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978). Watson envied him and the freedom he seemed to have found (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978). Watson decided to visit Carson in Los Angeles. Right before his plane trip to California, Watson had a date with a stewardess, when he first experimented with mari juana. Watson did not initially feel the psychedelic effects; instead, he just suffered from a scorched throat. However, he enjoyed the process of smoking and passing the same marijuana cigarette from person to person (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978). “Sharing a joint was the basic social ritual between friends, and it was one of the things that set


18


us apart from the square world of cops and parents and teachers” (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978, p. 44). As the plane descended into Los Angeles, Watson recalled that he “liked it even before we landed” (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978, p. 40). Carson took Watson into the Whiskey a Go-Go. As he watched the unabashed erotically dancing couples, Watson felt he had found freedom (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978). “It was a long way from Texas and if freedom was what I’d been looking for, I was certain this was it” (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978, p. 41). Watson and his friend partied and smoked marijuana the entire weekend, and Watson felt the people were freer and more loose than the kind he was used to in Texas. Just a few trips to L.A. later, Watson broke the news to his family: He was moving to California (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978). Despite much objection from his family, Watson left August 28, 1967, for Los Angeles (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978). “I’d be totally on my own man, totally free, without anyone telling me what to do. That was what it boiled down to: I didn’t want anyone, ever again, to tell me what to do. It sounded so good” (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978, p. 42). Watson had a 1935 Dodge pickup and was inclined to pick up hitchhikers frequently. One night, Tex picked up Dennis Wilson. Although at first the name did not mean anything to Watson, when Wilson explained that he was one of the Beach Boys, Tex was impressed. When they arrived at Wilson’s house in Pacific Palisades, Watson was invited in and met several of Wilson’s friends (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978). One of Wilson’s friends introduced Watson to Charles Manson. “There he was— surrounded by five or six girls—on the floor next to the huge coffee table with a guitar in his hands. He looked up, and the first thing I felt was a sort of gentleness, an embracing kind of acceptance and love” (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978, p. 50). Watson commented that as the group sat around the coffee table smoking marijuana, Manson began to play his guitar and sing, almost to himself (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978). As Manson sang about love, finding love, letting yourself love, Watson recalled: I suddenly realized that this was what I was looking for: love. . . . I wanted the kind of love they talked about in the songs—the kind of love that didn’t ask you to be anything, didn’t judge what you were, didn’t set up any rules or regulations—the kind of love I seemed to be feeling right now, sitting around this coffee table getting zonked on some of the best hash I had ever had, with a rock star . . . and the little guy with the guitar who just kept singing softly, smiling to himself. It occurred to me that all the love in the room was coming from him, from his music. . . . Charlie Manson was the first person I’d met who really knew what love was all about. (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978, pp. 50-51)

“Lulu”—Leslie Van Houten Leslie Van Houten was the second child born to Paul and Jane Van Houten of Southern California (Faith, 2001). Born on August 23, 1949, Leslie’s father and mother


19

Atchison and Heide

were an automobile auctioneer and a schoolteacher, respectively. Leslie had an older brother, and later the Van Houtens adopted a boy and a girl who were orphaned in Korea. The Van Houtens divorced in 1963 when Leslie was about 14 years of age (Faith, 2001). The Van Houtens were described as honest, hard-working church attending people who devoted their lives to their four children. As Leslie entered her junior year in high school, she began experimenting with LSD. She continued to use LSD with her boyfriend on weekends and became pregnant. Van Houten had an abortion, which appeared to destroy her relationship with her mother (Faith, 2001). After graduating from high school in 1967, Van Houten attended a legal secretary course with a goal of living in a spiritual commune and handling the legal affairs of her fellow residents. At the end of the course, however, Van Houten was restless and decided to move to San Francisco. While living with friends in the Haight-Ashbury District of San Francisco, a roommate brought home a group of young people “with whom Leslie felt instant kinship,” including a female named “Gypsy” (Faith, 2001, p. 29). Gypsy invited Van Houten to join the group on their pilgrimage with “a guru of love and peace” named Charles Manson (Faith, 2001, p. 29). Van Houten left that day with these strangers—Bobby Beausoleil, Gypsy, and another girl named Gail— to join Manson. Van Houten and this group went to Spahn’s Movie Ranch for a visit. Three weeks later Van Houten returned to live permanently with Manson and the other followers. Manson had asked Van Houten to escape her personal identity, let her ego die, and become “like a finger on a hand” with the others (Faith, 2001, p. 30). Van Houten was prepared to drop out completely. This lifestyle likely reminded Leslie of her earlier goal of living in the spiritual community (Faith, 2001).

“Squeaky”—Lynette Alice Fromme Lynette Fromme was born on October 22, 1948, to William Millar Fromme, an aerospace engineer, and Helen Benzinger Fromme, a homemaker. Going by the nickname “Lynny” and living in Santa Monica, California, Lynette had two younger siblings: a brother, 2 years younger, and a sister, 8 years younger. Lynette excelled at dancing; she was a strong performer in the Westchester Lariats, a dance troupe with about 70 mem bers, ranging in age from 2 to 18 (Bravin, 1997). It appeared to neighbors that Lynette lived a relatively normal childhood until relationship problems with her father began to surface. The Fromme household seemed dark and cold to Lynette’s friends, who described the home’s atmosphere as unwelcoming, gray, and gloomy. The neighborhood buzzed with stories and gossip about the family’s strange habits and how William Fromme treated his family. Lynette’s father seemed to be obsessed with controlling every detail and object in his life, including his own family and their actions. William Fromme, for example, would observe the odometer readings on the family car when he left town for business, to curb what he deemed his wife’s excessive driving. He took grocery and spending money from his


20


family while he was away, forcing them to do odd jobs around the neighborhood to stock household goods (Bravin, 1997). Neighbors and friends noted that Mr. Fromme took young Lynette hunting quite often and sided with her over his wife on many occasions to satisfy Lynette’s desires. The relationship between daughter and father, however, seemed to change as Lynette became an adolescent. Mr. Fromme reportedly locked Lynette into her room without dinner, and he frequently punished her for no apparent reason. Lynette described these frequent punishments as random, severe, and harsh (Bravin, 1997). On one specific occasion, Lynette “escaped” to a sympathetic neighbor’s home and said that her father refused to speak to her for no reason and he would not let her have dinner with the rest of the family (Bravin, 1997, p. 25). Later, Mr. Fromme reportedly separated his daughter from those he felt were meddling in his raising of his child (Bravin, 1997). This separation exemplified a loss of positively valued stimuli in Lynette’s life. She experienced the loss of family, friends, and even the loss of her pastime, dancing with the Westchester Lariats dance troupe. These experiences altered Lynette’s socialization preferences and outlook. Instead of joining pep band and outgoing clubs in junior high like her peers, Lynette sought fringe social groups. Throughout her high school years, Lynette became more involved in the counterculture that was beginning to surface in American society. She experimented with drugs, possibly to alleviate and mediate the strain that her unhealthy relationships at home produced (Bravin, 1997). Lynette eventually was graduated from high school in 1966 despite continually drop ping grades. She later moved out of her family’s home after dropping out of community college. Lynette temporarily moved back in with her father to attend a nearby junior college and seemed to be excited about the possible change in her life (Bravin, 1997). Lynette’s positive outlook and temporary happiness were cut short, however, because of a bitter argument between Lynette and her father over an arbitrary dictionary definition. Lynette moved out of her family’s house and onto the streets of Venice, California, in 1967. It was in the Bohemian district of Los Angeles that “Lynny” met Charles Manson and became “Squeaky” (Bravin, 1997). When Manson first met Fromme, he called himself the “Gardener” of Haight-Ashbury (Bravin, 1997). Fromme thought Manson appeared as a hobo with a touch of class. After Manson told Lynette that as the Gardener he tended to all of the “flower children,” Fromme talked about the things she disliked about her current situation (Bravin, 1997, p. 48). Manson told Fromme that “the way out of a room is not through the door. Just don’t want out and you’re free” (Bravin, 1997, p. 48). Fromme felt this man had great understanding and asked where he figured out these life mysteries. Manson explained that he had spent 20 years behind bars and had had plenty of time to think. Although Manson did not withhold any information about his checkered past, Fromme accepted his invitation to accompany him north. Fromme wrote that she grabbed her books and ran to catch up with Manson as he walked away (Bravin, 1997). She wrote: “I didn’t know why—I didn’t care—and I never left” (Bravin, 1997, p. 48).


21

Atchison and Heide

The Three Followers and Sociological Theories The three theories, taken together, provide a lens from which to view the decision of three middle-class youths from reportedly good families to follow the dictates of a man even when the commands involved murder. As highlighted above, Watson, Fromme, and Van Houten disappointed their families as they grew into late adolescence. Although they did not experience economic press, these youths experienced strain in other ways. As they got into their late teens, they each drifted toward individuals who were testing boundaries and became involved in deviant acts. Watson stole typewriters initially as a prank. Fromme gravitated toward fringe groups and started smoking marijuana to ease her distress. Van Houten used LSD, became pregnant, and had an abortion, which further ruptured her relationship with her parents, particularly her mother. Manson encountered Watson, Van Houten, and Fromme as he did his other followers in ordinary ways, like at a party or a park bench. Somehow, he made complete sense of their lives to them at that moment. Watson had been scolded by his family and their attorney when he participated in a fraternity prank and thus may have felt that his family was labeling him a deviant because of his desire for freedom and lack of restraint. Furthermore, he experienced the strain of living in a small town with a strict code of morality. He left for California, breaking contact with his family and friends. Watson seemed to discover what he was seeking in life through a short encounter with Manson at Dennis Wilson’s mansion. “Like some mystic, so filled with the love of God that nothing is too great to ask, I was filled with Charlie. He was God to me. Charlie was Jesus. He was my messiah, my savior, my soul” (C. Watson & Hoekstra, 1978, p. 12). Watson’s actions fit with the propositions of social learning theory, as he was immersed into criminal activity and surrounded by people with favorable attitudes toward deviance as soon as he got off the airplane in California. When he began living with the other Family members, he was within a group of like-minded individuals who took their cues from Manson. Manson taught his skewed system of values to these followers and their attitudes became aligned with his. Manson then proceeded to order them to commit crime. Because of his apparent hold over them, they followed such orders. Social learning theory also applies to Van Houten, Fromme, and Manson’s other followers. As they lived together in the desert, they listened to Manson’s ramblings and were exposed to many attitudes toward crime and deviancy that were in opposition to the norms of society. The duration and frequency of the communications between Manson and his followers contributed to their learning definitions favorable to breaking the law. Van Houten seemed to find the lifestyle for which she was looking in the Family. The deterioration of her relationship with her mother was a source of strain for her. Unmarried girls who became pregnant in the 1960s were considered “bad girls.” Abortions were illegal in many states in the United States. The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade allowing abortions up until the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb was not decided until 1973. Shamed by her mother and possibly ashamed of her actions to terminate the pregnancy, Van Houten left her family’s home


22


in search of a life with other community-oriented persons. Manson offered love and support to Van Houten as well as the commune lifestyle that she desired. Manson directed her to become one with the Family and to let her former identity go. Van Houten complied and became one of Manson’s disciples. Fromme was confused and disappointed with her family life at the time of her first meeting with Manson. Charlie spoke to Fromme in riddles about philosophy, and Fromme was completely spellbound by this man calling himself the “Gardener.” His ramblings made complete sense to Fromme, who was confused by her current relationships with her family. The strain experienced by Fromme while growing up in her father’s household contributed to her desired break with norms. In high school, she began to socialize with outcasts and fringe individuals. She then began using drugs and sought a life with Manson, who offered Fromme a relationship that she perceived as representing love and a sense of wholeness.

Concluding Remarks The late 1960s were a time of youthful rebellion and attempted revolution. Although it seemed at first to be a revolution leading to peace, harmony, and free love, Charles Manson and his Family came to represent the loss of innocence to a generation who strove for a better world than they had inherited from their elders. The murders of eight Californians, including a wealthy grocery store owner and a rising beautiful actress, destroyed the idea of turning Southern California into a utopia. Manson entranced some young people he encountered and was able to entice them to kill in a bizarre plan to start a race war in which he would eventually emerge as the savior and ruler of the new world. Why young people whose lives were relatively normal compared to Manson decided to kill for the Family’s ideals can be understood, as we have seen, with the application of sociological theories. Furthermore, Manson’s multitude of crimes spanning his entire life can be attributed to his past life experiences by examining criminological theories. The experiences most commonly shared by the Family were those dealing with strained family relationships. Manson’s poor relationships began with his mother and from there spiraled downward. In essence, Manson had absolutely no positive role models or acquaintances. The three followers focused on in this article struggled to find a life that eased their perceived strain. In an effort to find something to fill the void of a supportive and accepting family, they became involved in fringe groups and eventually embraced a charismatic and disturbed leader. The emphasis in criminological theory today is on the integration of theories (Akers & Sellers, 2008). Taken together, these three theories—labeling theory, social learning theory, and general strain theory—helped to elucidate actions by a cult leader and his middle-class followers that have defied explanation for more than four decades. In this case study illustration, the utility of the combination of three theories is demonstrated. The analysis of Manson and his followers suggests that a theoretical model integrating these three theories warrants further consideration. Some attempts in this direction


23

Atchison and Heide

have already been made by combining the labeling perspective and social learning theory (Triplett & Jarjoura, 1994). In addition to combining sociological theories, the authors would like to encourage other scholars to consider integrating psychological approaches with sociological theories. As discussed earlier, Livsey (1980) provided an excellent analysis of the personality and character traits of Manson and his followers. Is Manson understood more clearly if the societal forces that affected him are examined in the context of a psycho path? Moreover, are the killings by Manson’s followers more comprehensible if the effects of strain and labeling are examined in the context of character-disturbed youth living in a commune under the tutelage of a psychopath? This study has several limitations. It is a retrospective case study undertaken 40 years after the murders. Although insight into Manson and three of his followers relied largely on primary sources, these firsthand accounts by Manson, Watson, Van Houten, and Fromme occurred years after the homicidal incidents and might have been altered by memory, social desirability, and/or the personal growth of the assassins. The study would clearly have been stronger had the biographical accounts of these four individuals been written closer in time to the murderous events. Moreover, the research would have been significantly enhanced if the authors had the opportunity to interview and evaluate Manson and these followers 40 years ago when they were in their late adolescence and early adulthood. Also, it is unknown whether these three theories would apply to other Manson followers who were not selected by Manson to kill. Moreover, if they had been invited by Manson to participate in these homicidal incidents, would other Manson followers have accepted? Would these three theories help to differentiate between those who killed and would have killed and those who would have refused to participate in murder? To what extent these theories, and possibly other sociological theories, would apply to other homicidal group incidents is unknown and is clearly another limitation of this study. Further research, particularly in the area of cult leaders and followers, would be helpful in this regard. Law enforcement and scholars of alternative religions have examined the thinking and theology of alternative religions as explanations of cult violence (Newport, 2002). Sociological explanations might be helpful in identifying the confluence of societal and individual factors that make some groups more at risk than others of succumbing to ideological factors that can culminate in homicidal violence and mass destruction (see, e.g., Bainbridge, 1978). For example, would similar dynamics be found in the backgrounds of the 900 individuals who followed Reverend Jim Jones in 1978 to their death in one of the largest mass murder-suicides in history? Would these theories be useful in explaining the dozens of Branch Davidians who embraced the teachings of “prophet” David Koresh and perished in the blazing inferno inside their compound in 1993? Understanding is the first step to prevention. Although these events are rare, the death and destruction that can occur by nihilistic leaders and their misguided followers are almost without bounds. Would these theories shed light on understanding the factors


24


that led Adolf Hitler and his close band of insiders to embrace the killing of millions of innocent people in the 1930s and 1940s in their flawed belief that these murderous acts would create a better society?

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References Adams, M. S., Robertson, C. T., Gray-Ray, P., & Ray, M. C. (2003). Labeling and delinquency. Adolescence, 38(149), 171-186. Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 47-87. Agnew, R., Brezina, T., Wright, J. P., & Cullen, F. T. (2002). Strain, personality traits, and delinquency: Extending general strain theory. Criminology, 40, 43-72. Agnew, R., & White, H. R. (1992). An empirical test of general strain theory. Criminology, 30, 475-500. Akers, R. L. (1985). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Akers, R. L. (1997). Criminological theories: Introduction and evaluation (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Akers, R. L., & Jensen, G. F. (2006). The empirical status of social learning theory of crime and deviance: The past, present, and future. In F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, & K. R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing. Akers, R. L., & Lee, G. (1996). A longitudinal test of social learning theory: Adolescent smoking. Journal of Drug Issues, 26 , 317-343. Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2008). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. Baer, R. (1972). Reflections on the Manson trial: Journal of a pseudo-juror . Waco, TX: Word Books. Bainbridge, W. S. (1978). Satan’s power: A deviant psychotherapy cult . Berkeley: University of California Press. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Batton, C., & Ogle, R. S. (2003). “Who’s it gonna be—You or me?” The potential of social learning for integrated homicide-suicide theory. In R. L. Akers & G. F. Jensen (Eds.), Social learning theory and the explanation of crime (pp. 85-108). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.


25

Atchison and Heide

Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York, NY: Free Press. Bellair, P. E., Roscigno, V. J., & Velez, M. B. (2003). Occupational structure, social learning, and adolescent violence. In R. L. Akers & G. F. Jensen (Eds.), Social learning theory and the explanation of crime (pp. 197-225). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing. Bernstein, M. A., & NetLibrary, I. (1992). Bitter carnival: Resentment and the abject hero. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bishop, G. V. (1971). Witness to evil . Los Angeles, CA: Nash Pub. Black, D. (1987, February 6). Manson on his own myth. The Washington Post , p. C3. Boeringer, S., Shehan, C. L., & Akers, R. L. (1991). Social contexts and social learning theory in sexual coercion and aggression: Assessing the contribution of fraternity membership. Family Relations, 40, 558-564. Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bravin, J. (1997). Squeaky: The life and times of Lynette Alice Fromme. New York, NY: St. Martin’s. Broidy, L. M. (2001). A test of general strain theory. Criminology, 39, 9-36. Bugliosi, V., & Gentry, C. (1974). Helter Skelter: The true story of the Manson murders . New York, NY: Norton. Bugliosi, V., & Gentry, C. (1994). Helter Skelter: The true story of the Manson murders (25 Anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Norton. Burgess, Robert L., & Akers Robert L. (1966). A Differential Association Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behavior. Social Problems, 14, 128-147. Burns, J. G. (1997). Squeaky: The life and times of Lynette Alice Fromme—Runaway. Library Journal, 122, 122. California: Prison release denied. (2008, July 16). The New York Times, p. 16. Charles Manson denied parole. Alternatives to incarceration. (1997). Bethpage, 3(2), 2. Chiasson, L. (1997). The press on trial: Crimes and trials as media events. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Combs, C. C., & Slann, M. W. (2007). Encyclopedia of terrorism (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Facts on File. Cooper, D. E. (1974). The Manson murders: A philosophical inquiry. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman. Coyne, J. R. (1975). Killing for love. National Review, 27 , 119-120. Dardenne, R. (1997). The case of Charles Manson. In L. Chiasson (Ed.), The press on trial (pp. 159-171). Westport, CT: Greenwood. DeLisi, M., & Scherer, A. M. (2006). Multiple homicide offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 367-391. DeLisi, M., Hochstetler, A., Scherer, A. M., Purhmann, A., & Berg, M. T. (2008). The Starkweather syndrome: Exploring criminal history antecedents of homicidal crime sprees. Criminal Justice Studies, 21, 37-47. Donnerstein, E., & Linz, D. (1995). The media. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime (pp. 237-266). Oakland, CA: ICS Press. Douglas, J. E., & Olshaker, M. (1995). Mindhunter: Inside the FBI’s elite serial crime unit . New York, NY: Scribner.


26


Durkheim, E. (1938). The rules of sociological method . New York, NY: Free Press. Duwe, G. (2000). Body count journalism: The presentation of mass murder in the news. Homicide Studies, 4, 364-399. Emmons, N. (1986). Manson in his own words: As told to Nuel Emmons. New York, NY: Grove Press. Faith, K. (2001). The long prison journey of Leslie Van Houten: Life beyond the cult . Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2005). Serial murder: Multi-disciplinary perspectives for investigators. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/publications/serial_murder.htm#two Fox, J. A., & Levin, J. (1998). Multiple homicide: Patterns of serial and mass murder. Crime and Justice, 23, 407-455. Fox, J. A., & Levin, J. (2005). Extreme killing: Understanding serial and mass murder . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Geis, G., & Huston, T. L. (1971-1972). Charles Manson and his girls: Notes on a Durkheimian theme. Criminology, 9, 342-353. George, E., & Matera, D. (1998). Taming the beast: Charles Manson’s life behind bars (1st ed.). New York, NY: St. Martin’s. Heide, K. M. (1999). Young killers: The challenge of juvenile homicide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Heymann, P., & Kenety, W. (1985). The murder trial of Wilbur Jackson: A homicide in the family. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing. Holmes, R. M., & Holmes, S. T. (2001). Murder in America (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Jacobson, S. (2009, August 14). Manson former follower Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme released from Fort Worth prison. Dallas News. Retrieved from http://www.dallasnews.com/shared content/dws/news/localnews/stories/081509dnnatfromme.dc8a1919.html Kaplan, H., & Johnson, R. (1991). Negative social sanctions and juvenile delinquency: Effects of labeling in a model of delinquent behavior. Social Science Quarterly, 72, 98-122. Keeney, B., & Heide, K. M. (1995). Serial murder: A more accurate and inclusive definition. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 39, 299-306. Krohn, M., Skinner, W., Massey, J., & Akers, R. (1985). Social learning theory and adolescent cigarette smoking: A longitudinal study. Social Problems, 32, 455-471. Lehmann-Haupt, C. (1974, November 8). Prosecuting the Manson case. New York Times, p. 37. Lehmann-Haupt, C. (1987, January 19). Book of the times. New York Times, C , p. 18. Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology: Systematic approaches to the study of sociopathic behavior . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Levin, J., & Fox, J. A. (1985). Mass murder: America’s growing menace. New York, NY: Plenum. Livsey, C. G. (1980). The Manson women: A “family” portrait . New York, NY: Robert Marek. Magid, K., & McKelvey, C. A. (1987). High risk: Children without a conscience. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Massumi, B. (Ed). (1993). The politics of everyday fear . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Matsueda, R. L. (1992). Reflected appraisals, parental labeling, and delinquency: Specifying a symbolic interactionist theory. American Journal of Sociology, 97 , 1577-1611.


27

Atchison and Heide

Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672-682. Meyer, R. G. (1992). Abnormal behavior and the criminal justice system. New York, NY: Lexington Books. Nash, J. R. (1992). World encyclopedia of 20th century murder . New York, NY: Paragon House. Newport, J. P. (2002). Cults, religious conflict, religious liberty, and frameworks of order. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 2, 5-29. Nielsen, D. A. (2005). Horrible workers Max Stirner, Arthur Rimbaud, Robert Johnson, and the Charles Manson circle: Studies in moral experience and cultural expression. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Paternoster, R., & Iovanni, L. (1989). The labeling perspective and delinquency: An elaboration of the theory and an assessment of the evidence. Justice Quarterly, 6 , 359-394. Popper, M. (2001). Hypnotic leadership: Leaders, followers, and the loss of self . Westport, CT: Praeger. Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T, Sellers, C. S., Winfree, L. T., Jr., Madensen, T. D., Daigle, L. E., . . . Gau, J. M. (in press). The empirical status of social learning theory: A meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly. Rebellon, C. J., Piquero, N. L., Piquero, A. R., & Thaxton, S. (2009). Do frustrated expectations and objective economic inequity promote crime? European Journal of Criminology, 6 , 47-71. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Rosenhan, D. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1989). Abnormal psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Norton. Rotella, M., Abbott, C., & Gold, S. (2001). The long prison journey of Leslie Van Houten: Life beyond the cult. Publishers Weekly, 248(22), 64-65. Sanders, E. (1972). The family: The story of Charles Manson’s dune buggy attack battalion . New York, NY: Avon. Sanders, E. (2002). The family (Rev. and updated). New York, NY: Thunder’s Mouth Press. Schur, E. M. (1965). Crimes without victims. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Schur, E. M. (1971). Labeling deviant behavior . New York, NY: Harper & Row. See, C. (1997, July 18). Charlie’s Angel; Squeaky Fromme: First serving Manson, now serving life. The Washington Post , p. B2. Sellers, C. S., Cochran, J. K., & Branch, K. A. (2005). Social learning theory and partner violence: A research note. Deviant Behavior, 26 , 379-395. Shipley, S. L., & Arrigo, B. A. (2004). The female homicide offender: Serial murder and the case of Aileen Wuornos. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Snethen, G., & Van Puymbroeck, M. (2008). Girls and physical aggression: Causes, trends, and intervention guided by social learning theory. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 346-354. Spence, J., III. (1975). Helter Skelter [Book review]. American Bar Association Journal, 61 , 928-929. Standiford, F. (2001). The long prison journey of Leslie Van Houten [Book review]. Library Journal, 126 (11), 89. Stuttaford, G., & Simson, M. (1997, April 7). Nonfiction [Reviews]. Squeaky: The life and times of Lynette Alice Fromme: Runaway. Publishers Weekly.


28


Sutherland, E. H. (1937). The professional thief . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and the community. Boston, MA: Ginn. Tittle, C. R., Broidy, L. M., & Gertz, M. G. (2008). Strain, crime, and contingencies. Justice Quarterly, 25, 283-312. Triplett, R. A., & Jarjoura, G. R. (1994). Theoretical and empirical specification of a model of informal labeling. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 241-276. Watson, C., & Hoekstra, R. (1978). Will you die for me? Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell. Watson, T. (2009, August 10 & 17). The Manson murders at 40. Newsweek , pp. 38-40. Wilson, T. (1996). Headline justice: Inside the courtroom: The country’s most controversial trials (1st ed.). New York, NY: Thunder’s Mouth Press. Winfree, L. T., Sellers, C., & Clason, D. L. (1993). Social learning and adolescent deviance abstention: Towards understanding the reasons for initiating, quitting, and avoiding drugs. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9, 101-125. Wizinski, Sy. (1976). Letters to a secret disciple. Terre Haute, IN: Moonmad Press. Wooden, K. (1976). Weeping in the playtime of others: The plight of incarcerated children . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Wooden, K. (2000). Weeping in the playtime of others: America’s incarcerated children (2nd ed.). Columbus: University of Ohio Press. Wright, J. P., Pratt, T. C., & DeLisi, M. (2008). Examining offending specialization in a sample of male multiple homicide offenders. Homicide Studies, 12, 381-398. Wright, J. P., Pratt, T. C., & DeLisi, M. (2009). Multiple homicide offenders: Arbitrary cut-off points and selection bias. Homicide Studies, 13, 193-199. Zaehner, R. C. (1974). Our savage God . London, UK: Collins. Zhang, L. (1997). Informal reactions and delinquency. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 129-150.


Charles Manson and the Family

Recommend Documents