To whet your appetite, this is an excerpt from my book in progress, Yesterday's Monsters, under contract with the University of California Press.
On November 19, 2017, Charles Manson died in prison. His
death sparked renewed interest in the killings, as well as in the peculiar
legal circumstances that led to the commutation of his sentence, from the death
penalty to life with parole. Little attention, however, was paid to the
implication of his commuted sentence: since 1978, Manson attended 11 parole
hearings, and was denied parole in each and every one of them.
My book in progress, Yesterday’s
Monsters (under contract with UC Press) analyzes close to 50 years’ worth
of parole hearing transcripts for Manson and his disciples. To-date, only one
of them, Steve Grogan, was released. The remaining members of the Manson
“family” have been repeatedly denied parole. Most remarkably, Susan Atkins, who
was already seriously and terminally ill at her last hearing to the point of
being nonresponsive, was not released on account of posting a risk to the
community.
Yesterday’s Monsters analyzes the parole hearing and shows
it to be an intricately choreographed spectacle, with a given structure,
specific terms and buzzwords, and expectations as to the inmate’s performance.
Time after time, most defendants in the case show up for the hearings and are
denied parole. The one exception was Manson himself, who to his death played
his own game with the parole board, speaking off the record, providing strange
statements, and refusing to go along with the plan.
It would be easy to dismiss Manson’s behavior as a symptom
of mental illness. While possible, this is only one facet of his behavior. It
is especially revealing to see how the parole board attempted to deal with his
last three parole hearings, to which Manson did not show up, and in which he
did not cooperate with his representing attorneys.
***
1997 was the last year in which Manson attended his parole
hearings. His 2002 hearing was held in the presence of his state-appointed
attorney, Patrick Sparks. The Commissioner addressed Sparks as follows:
Mr. Patrick Sparks has been
appointed by the State to represent Mr. Manson. Mr. Manson refused to meet with
Mr. Sparks. Therefore, Mr. Sparks is at a substantial disadvantage and has
indicated that he would like to be removed or dismissed from this case. Mr.
Sparks, would you like to?
ATTORNEY SPARKS: That’s an accurate
statement, and I’ll confirm that. That, in fact, Mr. Manson did not interview
and I don’t believe that my participation at this hearing would facilitate his
parole at this time.[1]
As a consequence, the Board officially removed Mr. Sparks
from the case and declared a recess,[2]
after which the Commissioner made a statement about the way in which the
committee would have respected Manson’s rights—had he been present:
Were Mr. Manson to appear today, he
would not have been required to discuss the commitment offense with the Panel.
He would not have been required to speak to the Panel. Nor would he be required
to actually discuss any aspects at all with the Panel. Again, he has chosen not
to appear at all. And had he -- Because he’s refused to attend, and had he
decided not to speak to us, we would not and will not hold that against him.[3]
The panel then proceeded to read the verbatim description of
Manson’s crime, as they had done at the hearings at which he was prensent. They
then quoted Manson as refusing to express remorse at his 1997 appearance, which
was in 1997—in contrast to his verbatim statement, in which he actually
challenged the court’s findings by claiming he had not given an order to kill
the victims.[4]
The board tried to make sense of Manson’s file in his
absence, without much success:
In a previous report, Mr. Manson
stated that in terms of parole plans, he had none. He’s had a variety of
responses to that question or that issue. At one point in 1992, he stated he
wasn’t interested in paroling. He would be lost in our society, and his main
concern was to be released to a general population setting in order to program.
There are a number of letters in the file. There are a total of 80 signatures
on a petition. The signatures all appear to come from people in England. There
are 15 different form letters or individual letters in the file, all of these supporting
release for Mr. Manson. And the letters are signed by people who seem to be scattered
all over the United States, the 15 letters.[5]
By counterbalance, the police department had provided a
letter as well, which cited the original crime and the “risk to the community”
posed by Manson, but did not elucidate whether said risk was current, or
stemmed from anything beyond the crimes themselves:
[The Commander Officer of the
Robbery/Homicide division] writes that Mr. Manson was an active participant in
the mutilation and murders of several persons in the Los Angeles area. Crimes
committed by Mr. Manson were of such brutality and complete lack of humanity
that it is clear Mr. Manson has no concern for human life. It is the opinion of
the Los Angeles Police Department that the release of Mr. Manson will create
considerable risk to the community and that his release is unequivocally
contrary to the interests of society.
Commissioner Mackenberg recited Manson’s unhappy and
unproductive prison experience and his disciplinary violations, concluding
that—
[B]y and large he has not had a
very happy time of it in the last five years. If it sounds like a woeful tale,
it’s not because I’m trying to simply disrespect Mr. Manson, it appears that he
has serious mental health issues. That they’re causing him some very real problems.[6]
Mackenberg’s summary is as much a failure of the California
prison system as it is Manson’s:
The long and short of it is, is
that it’s difficult to say a whole lot about the last five years other than
that he seems to go back and forth between the Protective Housing Unit,
Administrative Segregation, Security Housing, back to Protective Housing Unit.
So that’s kind of like a sad circle of rounds in this institution. He doesn’t
seem to benefit a whole lot from treatment inasmuch as he resists it so that he
often refuses apparently to see the psychologist and doesn’t want to see psychiatrists
and that it’s difficult to get him to do the things that they think he should
do in order to forward his programs to be able to come to the Board at some
point and say really, I ought to be able to go home.
Kay, the original prosecutor, again discusses Manson’s
manipulations. He also provides, again, an inaccurate characterization of
Manson’s legal position:
He has never understood why he was
convicted for these murders because he always thought that if he got other
people to commit the murders, then they could be convicted of the murders. But
if he didn’t physically do it, then he couldn’t be convicted.[7]
As mentioned before, Manson claim was not that he could not
be convicted without physical participation in the crime. His factual
contention was that he had not ordered the others to kill the victims. But Kay
hits the nail on the head with the following observation:
He knows that he’s never going to
get paroled, and he’s just not going to go along with the program.[8]
Last to speak before Manson’s expected denial of parole was
Debra Tate, who evinced enough familiarity with the parole board to say:
I’m a little disappointed that Mr.
Manson chose not to show up today. However, in order not to waste any time, I
also believe that Mr. Manson, for obvious reasons, should be denied parole for
five years. I implore you to please give him the five years so that I don’t have
to come and see you folks again so soon, although I love you dearly. He is
totally unsuitable for release into society in my opinion, and I implore you to
please keep him in so that society can have peace for at least five more 13
years.[9]
At his subsequent parole hearing in 2007, not only did
Manson not show up, but he was unrepresented before the committee, and the Comissioner
stated to the record the board’s intention to “do everything we can to ensure
that his rights have not been violated.” She then stated Manson’s rights for
the record, but this time, she did it more theatrically, as if narrating a hypothetical
play in which Manson had showed up for his hearing, which makes his absence
even more glaring:
[A]t this point I would have asked
him did he review his Central File, did he get a timely notice of the hearing.
It appeared that he did. He declined and refused to sign whether or not he was
going to review his C-File, and that was done on January the 23rd 15 , 2007.
And also there were no relevant documents that he had to produce. We would
always ask that at this time as well. I would also ask him if he had - let him
know that he had an additional right to be heard by an impartial Panel, and
again, since he’s not here, I would assume he does not object to the Panel. I
would also -- the nextitem that I would ask him is -- and let him know that he would
not be required to either discuss his offense if he desires not to do so and we
cannot hold that against him, but however, we do accept the finding of the
court to be true.[10]
The absurdity of this play in absentia—not only of Manson,
but of a representing attorney as well—is an illustration of Kay’s insight from
the 2002 hearing: The board had come prepared to play under certain rules and
Manson, by virtue of his absence, forced them into a role they did not intend.
To compound matters, his lack of willingness to cooperate with his psychiatrist
led to a diagnosis based on partial information—antisocial personality disorder
and psychopathy.[11]
The panel then mentioned a support letter:
We do have a support letter and
it’s dated – it was received in the institution on January 24th 26 , 2007, but it’s
undated and it’s from a Carol Gallego. . . She indicated she was only 13 years old when the inmate came
to prison and she’s never met the man, but all she’s ever heard about and
learned from is by books and news media, and then she wrote some things that
she said that bothers her about the – his incarceration, and she indicated that
she thinks it’s time to set this innocent man free. “Please consider initiating
a further investigation” and I won’t go into all of the details of what was
said about and the five items that she brought up in this support letter for
the inmate.[12]
The prosecutor, Sequeira, provided a standard narrative
closely following the demonic Bugliosi story, very similarly to Kay before him.
Notably, and by contrast to the police and the prosecution. Debra Tate actually
provided an argument for current risk posed by the inmate:
I would like it to go on the record
that I disagree with some of the things read in the Central File. I believe
that Mr. Manson has one very prolific talent and that talent is to pick sociopaths.
That is the same reason in which he should never be granted any kind of a
release. There are still people that are influenced by him. They grow in
numbers every day via the Internet, and in regards to that, anyone of these
people being released poses a great public safety issue.[13]
The board’s frustration with having had to play Manson’s
game was evident in their decision as well:
We’d like to also go on record to
state that we feel that Mr. Manson should be attending these hearings, these
suitability hearings, in order for the Panel to be able to discuss and clarify
any discrepancies that may be in his record, that he constantly said that this
or that is not here, and we could also question him on some of the various
conflicting versions that he’s given as relationship to the crimes.[14]
Manson’s last parole hearing, which he also did not attend,
was held in 2012. However, this time Manson was represented by a new attorney, Dejon
Lewis, who by contrast to Sparks tried to provide representation for the client
who did not cooperate with him[15],
by making both legal and factual points. Notably, Commissioner Peck, perhaps
frustrated with Manson’s absence, chose to address him in the second person
throughout the hearing, as if to force engagement on him:
And Mr. Manson, I'm speaking to you
through the record now. We have reviewed your Central File. We've reviewed your
prior transcripts, and nothing that happens here today is going to change the court
findings. We're not here to retry your case. We're going to accept as true the
findings of the court. We're here for the sole purpose of determining your suitability
for parole.[16]
As the hearing began, Lewis presented a legal objection to
the timing of the parole hearings. As mentioned above, Marsy’s Law, an
ostensibly pro-victim legislative initiative, increased the time between parole
hearings to an initial 15 years, and it was applied to cases of people serving
current prison terms, even if they had originally been incarcerated long before
its enactment. Lewis made the argument that the law should not apply
retroactively, and Peck summarily dismissed his argument.[17]
Peck proceeded to quote Manson’s interview with the prison
psychiatrist:
"I am special. I am not like
the average inmate. I have put five people in the grave. I have been in prison
most of my life. I am a very dangerous man." Further in the psychological
assessment, he stated, "I don't care about the Board's opinion. I don't care
about your opinion."[18]
As Peck reviewed the psyhicatrist’s diagnosis, he read this
observation:
Clinically, while limited, this
indicates some degree of improved insight into his violent and anti-social
behavior considering his previous pattern of denial of wrongdoing.[19]
Once more, a solitary support letter was presented on
Manson’s behalf, which Peck leaned toward dismissing as vague:
There is a letter by an individual
named John E. Ashcraft that says he's Mr. Manson's best friend and there's -- I
really don't know if this is even a legitimate letter or not a legitimate
letter. But it basically says that he says that Mr. Manson told him that he,
that once he did not want to get out on parole, but now he wants to. And if he
can, then he wants to live -- then Mr. Ashcraft is offering residence in
Fullerton. But so that, frankly, is the only support letter that I have, unless
you have, do you have any other support letters?[20]
But Lewis refused to go along with this dismissal and
actually argued to the point:
I will say, though, Mr. Manson is
77 years old. He doesn't need to have a job at this time. He can draw Social
Security at this point if he was to get a parole date, and him living with Mr.
Ashcraft would cover those parole plans, I think. I'm not going to say they're
viable, because we haven't or the Board hasn't backed that letter up by, you
know, investigating Mr. Ashcraft and what not, but it seems to me if he is
genuine in offering him a place to live that that would be an adequate parole
plan for a gentleman who is 77 years old.[21]
As in previous hearings, the police department sent a letter
opposing the release, and the prosecutor, Sequeira, expressed similar
sentiments, echoing, as before, Bugliosi’s demonic narrative. Quoting Manson’s
words to his psychiatrist, Sequeira essentially asked the board to give Manson
what he asked for:
In his own words, Manson is telling
this Board and essentially the public as well, that he is dangerous and he is completely
unsuitable for parole.[22]
It is here that Lewis embarks on the thankless job of doing
the most with what he has, which was nearly nothing. He recounted Manson’s
absolute lack of collaboration with prison authorities and failure to achieve
any educational or vocational milestones.
My client has not accomplished any
of these milestones. Why is the question? Why? Yesterday, while watching CNN, I
listened to Mark Geragos, Henry Byers and Alan Dershowitz just destroy the two
former attorneys for George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case for commenting
on Mr. Zimmerman's mental state. They were of the opinion that this was
unprofessional behavior for attorneys to do so. Well, my client has been tried
and convicted and has served over 30 years in prison, and I think that's the
difference between the two cases from what I'm about to say. Mr. Manson has not
even remotely accomplished any minimal milestones that the Board would like to
see an inmate who they are considering parole to do. I cannot purport to you
that Mr. Manson has a mental disorder causing his utter failure in the rehabilitation
process. I'm not a mental health professional, and I have never met him, and
several psychologists say that he has no Axis I severe mental disorder. But one
thing is clear to me is that corrections or rehabilitation has not taken place
here for Mr. Manson. It is my belief that Mr. Manson could benefit from
hospitalization, given his age and his need for more geriatric care as he
increases in age. He would also receive excellent psycho-social support in that
type of environment. Mr. Manson needs hospitalization, not further
incarceration in a state prison of this type.[23]
This was a remarkably generous and therapeutic observation
on Lewis’ part, but it received little attention or sympathy from the
board. Peck read the decision to
deny parole, again by addressing Manson in the second person through the record.
He mentioned that “you chose not to be with us today”, and continued:
We have not yet, in any of our
documents, seen any indication of remorse. We have no indication that you have
any kind of insight into the causative factors of the life crime. You have
absolutely no parole plans. You had a significant drug problem while you were
in society, and this drug problem is still unresolved. You've been involved in
absolutely no rehabilitative programs or self-help to address your substance
abuse history. I think the statement that you made to the psychologist or the
psychiatrist in the Comprehensive Risk Assessment told us a lot of what we
needed to know, and I want to make sure I get this right so I'm just going to
read what it, what you told Dr. Reed, and you said, "I am special. I am
not like the average inmate. I have put five people in the grave. I've been in prison
most of my life. I am a very dangerous man." And this Panel agrees with
that statement.[24]
What can we learn from these last three hearings? They
reveal some of the embarrassment and absurdity of an institutional engagement
with someone who flat-out rejects the rules of engagement. We see different approaches:
a withdrawal of one of the attorneys versus a noble effort on the part of
another attorney to make legal and factual arguments on behalf of his noncooperative
client. We see pro-forma, shortened discussions, versus theatrical efforts to
involve, as it were, the absent inmate in his own parole proceeding. For the
most part, these hearings stand in stark contrast to the vast majority of
inmates—not only the remaining inmates in this case—who make a valiant effort
to play the game. It would be easy (and perhaps correct) to conclude that the
board made the right call, that Manson was unsuitable for parole, and that the
system “won.” But in denying him parole, the board merely came to the
predetermined conclusion that Manson set up for it—remaining in control of
others till the end of his life.
[1] Manson 2002,
1.
[2] Manson 2002,
2.
[3] Manson 2002,
7.
[4] Manson 2002,
14-15.
[5] Manson 2002,
19.
[6] Manson 2002,
20.
[7] Manson 2002,
30.
[8] Manson 2002,
30.
[9] Manson 2002,
36.
[10] Manson
2007, 6.
[11] Manson
2007, 17-18.
[12] Manson
2007, 20-21.
[13] Manson
2007, 29.
[14] Manson
2007, 34-35.
[15] Lewis
explains that Manson had refused to come out of the cell and discuss the case
with him at his visit, 30 days prior to the hearing. Manson 2012, 8-9.
[16] Manson
2012, 7.
[17] Manson
2012, 11.
[18] Manson
2012, 17.
[19] Manson
2012, 18,
[20] Manson
2012, 21.
[21] Manson
2012, 21-22.
[22] Manson
2012, 34.
[23] Manson
2012, 35-36.
[24] Manson
2012, 42.