​Charles Manson and nature of violence

I came to know about the history and legacy of Charles Manson when I read the news of his death in prison recently. For those as uninitiated as me, this is a Wikipedia excerpt on him:

Charles Milles Manson (November 12, 1934 – November 19, 2017) was an American criminal and cult leader who formed what became known as the Manson Family, a quasi-commune in California in the late 1960s. Manson's followers committed a series of nine murders at four locations in July and August 1969. In 1971 he was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Manson was originally sentenced to death, but after California invalidated the state's death penalty statute in 1972, his sentence was commuted to life with the possibility of parole.

At the time the Family began to form, Manson was an unemployed ex-convict who had spent half of his life in correctional institutions for a variety of offenses. Before the murders, he was a singer-songwriter on the fringe of the Los Angeles music industry. Manson believed in what he called "Helter Skelter", a term he took from the Beatles’ song of the same name to describe an impending apocalyptic race war. He believed the murders would help precipitate that war. From the beginning of his notoriety, a pop culture arose around him in which he ultimately became an emblem of insanity, violence and the macabre.

I am sure there are details and intricacy to the whole episode but this is what I could understand in a quick research. His thoughts led him to galvanise individuals to commit crimes. Of course, like most cult leaders he possessed charisma, which was quite an achievement given he was a short person - just 5'2''. He had been a lifelong criminal who had grown up with an unweeded teenage mother without a father, and spent almost half his life in foster homes and correctional homes. He had history of armed robberies, and other crimes before he decided to become a cult leader. His thoughts and mobilisation culminated into two heinous crimes in particular, committed over two consecutive nights by his followers. The Manson Family members who committed the said crimes mainly included 1 guy and 4 females out of which 1 did not actually commit any murder but mainly acted as an accomplice and eventually turned witness for the prosecution.

Now this was the history which forced me to read further. While the group had committed more crimes, their sentencing was focused on the murders done over the two nights which were called Tate-Labianca murders. I am sure the fact that among those murdered was Sharon Tate, a Hollywood actress and then wife of famous Hollywood director Roman Polanski, gave greater mileage to the case. The fact that Sharon Tate was heavily pregnant when the incident happened brought extra attention. The reading itself of the crimes was enough to make me feel nauseous, leave along seeing any images. And I consider myself fairly solid as far as being able to absorb graphic and written material of gore. Over the two nights the group killed eight people, inflicting more than 100 stabbings. The motive behind the murders is highly bizarre - a mix of revenge as well as an ignition of revolution, one from which Manson was to emerge as the saviour. While there was some randomness in the choice of victims, the pattern or intention was to be brutal and to horrify and shock. As per the news accounts I read, Manson had given instruction for murders at the Tate residence as “totally destroy anyone... as gruesome as you can”. So the targets were repeatedly stabbed and shot, at times even when they had died. And after the crimes, the murderers relaxed in the house of their crime - dining, taking bath, washing the blood stains. And the gang included three women who one expects to be more sensitive. The reading of these details just shocked me and made me pause.

The psychology of cult is a widely researched topic, something which I do not have much knowledge (although India has its own endless stream of cult leaders). But mostly I understand that it is a mix of religion, charisma, desperation, mental conditions, economic depravity, and social ostracism. These form a cocktail of emotions which can push people over the edge. Charles Manson had his own interpretations of Beatles songs and the religious text of the Book of Revelation. And his Family found solace in his preachings, along with drugs, alcohol, and sex. These seem to be the common themes in most cults - possibly as means to brainwash, delude and to give the feeling of liberation. Such people usually end up arguing that wrong ways may have a right goal, that history would remember the end and not the means - as it has always done, examples being all those rulers who butchered and massacred their way to glory. Or that most visionaries are misunderstood and it is only natural for people to detest what they do not understand or foresee.

Still this did not diminish my shock. And I kept thinking what went behind this. First thing to strike me was the randomness of the events. It seemed so needless, unprovoked, and bizarre. And the brutality made it worse. The experience of reading about this case was worse than seeing violence in any other fictional form - be it movies (where it is more live and graphic) or literature. The key difference is that subconsciously one differentiates between fiction and reality. With fiction, one has the false comfort of assigning it to the creativity of the maker and presuming that it does not happen in reality. It is only when one sees it happening in reality that it hits the gut.  

Interestingly throughout the trial, the accused behaved most gailly. There did not seem to be any remorse, which makes the whole thing more cringy. There are pictures of the accused smiling, laughing during the trial. News give descriptions of how the trial bordered on farce at times - the Manson family members would suddenly start to sing, chant, laugh, shout slogans during the trial, or the proceedings would have to be stopped due to contempt of court. One news article describes the trial as ‘bleak circus’. More I read this, more I think that the defendants, especially the three females were not under any hypnotic spell. You would expect a spell to get broken at some point - after committing the crime, after being arrested, on being read the charges, on seeing the grieving family of those killed, on seeing the entire trial with lawyers arguing, on seeing the reaction and interest of the entire country. At some point you would expect them to realise what they had done, the senselessness and randomness of their crimes. But it was not a spell, it was more a brainwash. They believed in what they were doing, even if it was utter nonsense. They had conviction in their actions, and its consequences.      

As I wrote this piece, I kept going back to read more about the murders and the trial, including fishing out pictures. Was there something voyeuristic about extreme violence which appealed? I think it was more the case of my curiosity getting better of my loathing. A strong desire to know more, find clues about what went on in the heads of those people to do such heinous deeds. And how did the administrators or the people of the time deal with it? How did the policemen, security-men who were around the accused behave? Did they not have an urge to rough them up? Or how could the defending attorney bring himself around to defend such people (whatever is the right to representation!). What courage it took for the prosecution lawyer to build the case (Vincent Bugliosi got famous from the trial). And how did the judge and the jury sit through the trial? I mean how did all the people around those murderers keep their calm, balance, and neutrality?

Why the violence? From where does violence originate? Is it a base instinct for humans? It is definitely an animalistic trait - animals indulge in violence variously to: find food, protect territory, obtain a suitable mate, or to defend the offspring (that’s all I know). Humans too indulge in violence for all these reasons. But for humans, more reasons get added because we can think and perceive more. So humans indulge in violence also for power, money, ideology. Fundamentally, violence is a result of other vices, but it comes from one of the three needs - need to defend, need to gain/enhance, and need to punish/seek revenge. While there can be arguments for each, mostly violence cannot be justified by any of these reasons. Legally, violence of any form is prohibited, apart from self-defence. But is that like trying to suppress an irrepressible basic human trait?

Interestingly, violence is gender indifferent. While females are associated with gentleness, docility, lesser physical expression, cases like Charles Manson bust this presumption. Again a case of basic human traits. Also violence may not just be physical but can be emotional/psychological and verbal, where females are equally, if not more, capable. This form of violence can be very subtle and difficult to adjudicate legally, but can be equally devastating. Bullying, nagging, exploitation, all form in the category of non-physical violence.  

My own experiences with violence (meaning a physical altercation) have been limited. I shudder at the thought and any direct experience of violence. In my growing-up, it has been ingrained in me to avoid violence at all costs, even at the cost of pride or self-respect. And having doubts about my ability to physically rebut or inflict violence has only accentuated that feeling. Consciously or subconsciously, violence has been a vivid part of my psyche, such that I keep imagining it. During school days, there were incidences where I indulged in physical skirmishes, like most kids do. And on each occasion, I have been chastised at home which has deterred me.

Some incidents have stood out - once I was slapped by a guy in my apartment, for no great provocation. I was with a friend and neither of us did anything. I just turned back and returned home. I cried inside a lot and my father showed some disappointment at my chicken-heartedness. In another incident, I once saw a person slapping a taxi driver (the slapper was much burlier than the taxi driver) mercilessly. The taxi driver had a meek, submissive, imploring-for-mercy expression on his face. This was during early evening hours at an intersection and there were other vehicles around. Nobody did anything. I actively considered getting out of my taxi and intervening. But I did not and very soon the light turned green and my taxi drove away, taking me away from my misery. I recounted this incident to a friend, telling him that I had thought of intervening and he only guffawed and almost rebuked me for my thought, advising me to stay away in such cases. Yet another time, I was in a taxi when the taxi driver minorly brushed a car ahead of him. It was just a touch and there was not even a scratch on the other car. I would have understood the other driver getting irritated and mildly angry but I did not expect what followed. He was furious as he came out of his car. And then quickly retracted, took out a wrench, rushed to the taxi driver in rage and brought the wrench down on him with full force, but just stopping short of hitting him. The taxi driver apologised profusely and the other guy drove away. But the taxi driver was in a state of shock. While he was driving, he started crying - the incident had shaken him emotionally, hurt his pride. He stopped some minute later to wash his face and regain his composure.   

The reason I remember these incidents vividly is because of the way violence overpowers my psyche. One place where violence comes readily is the road, especially Delhi roads. Here I go through two, almost opposite experiences. One - despite my self-control, on many occasions when I see someone driving rashly, or wronging me, I have a strong urge to pull him out of his car and punch him, or even worse. In short, be extremely violent. On the other end, I keep wondering that if I were to mistakenly brush another car, would I be able to respond to the violence which may come my way. Beside the road context, I keep having visions of facing extreme violence to which I am not able to respond. A big part of such visions comes from my cynical view of the world and our times wherein I feel that violence is closeby and one has to be careful to avoid it.

Q - Should the Manson Family have been given parole?

The five members of the Manson Family who were the main players in the Tate-LaBianca murders were given life imprisonment in 1972. Since then, some of the them have died in prison. All throughout the prison term, they have applied for parole multiple times, all of have been rejected. Reminds me of the parole hearings of Red in the movie Shawshank Redemption. When he finally got the parole, you feel happy, because in the movie, you have seen a version of the character far removed from the murderer that he was in his youth. And also because the character is played by Morgan Freeman, whom one finds difficult to hold grudge against. Back to the point, there has been lot of media follow-up on the Manson Family over the years, with documentaries, interviews, detailed news pieces. I was reading one such interview where over the years, the perpetrator has mellowed down. She has realised her mistake and knows that what she has done cannot be reversed. Should they have been given parole? I am not sure. My first impulse is no. They were sentenced to death, it was only a change in the law which led to life imprisonment. But this is a larger issue of revenge, forgiveness, and prisoner reform. Can there be some criminals on whom these should not apply at all or everyone should have a chance of forgiveness? That time is the biggest punisher and change agent, that nobody would be tomorrow what he is today. I am too passionate and unbalanced to say.   

Roman Polanski footnote

As I had said earlier, the Tate murder got the attention that it did partly because Sharon Tate was a Hollywood actress and wife of the famous director Roman Polanski, who was away when the incident happened. I kept thinking what he would have gone through to find his wife and about-to-be born baby being brutally killed. But his later life is a study in balancing of crimes/guilt. Excerpt from Wikipedia - In 1977, Polanski was arrested and charged with drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl. He subsequently pled guilty to the charge of statutory rape. He was released from prison after serving 42 days, and as part of an apparent plea bargain, was to be put on probation. When he learned that the judge had changed his mind and planned to reject the plea bargain, he fled to Paris before sentencing. Since then, Polanski has stayed away from United States. This apart many other accusations of sexual assault against Polanski have surfaced over the years, all of them pertaining to 1970 onwards, after the Tate murder. Interesting life study in itself.  

PS: over the last few months, three persons have made me very uneasy, rationally or irrationally, about the United States of America - Trump, Weinstein and Manson.