Charles Manson Theory

Convicted murderer and cult leader Charles Manson were once quoted as saying “You expected to break me? Impossible! You broke me years ago. You killed me years ago”. On the surface, this statement may sound like brass bravado. A quick look into Manson’s childhood however and one might be inclined to question that notion. In this report, I will explain and utilize Michael R. Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi’s “A General Theory of Crime” and Edwin Sutherland’s “Differential Association” to analyze his involvement in the 1969 killing spree. Although Manson had a very lengthy criminal history, his infamy came from his involvement in series of killings dub the Tate-LaBianca murders by the media. On August 09, 1969, Manson ordered members of his

Gottfredson and Heischi feel that people who lack self-control will tend to be impulsive, insensitive, physical, risk-taking, short-sighted, and convertible and they will tend therefore to engage in criminal and analogous acts (Cullen, 2014, p. 243). Manson exhibited low self-control in both his adolescent and adult years. For example, during his childhood year, Manson was a constant truant and run away. As an adult, he continued to be nomadic. He also continued to engage in criminal acts even while on parole. These are clear indications of poor self-control. Another aspect of this theory is the effect child rearing can have on self-control. Gottfredson and Hirschi believed that there was a strong correlation between parental control and self-control. They also identified a link between the self-control of the parent and the subsequent self-control of the child (Cullen, 2014). Gottfredson and Hirschi believed that it would be hard for a parent to recognize criminal behavior if they are engaged in this type of behavior as well. Manson’s mother Kathleen Manson-Bower-Cavender spent several years behind bars for robbery. This is a clear indication that she had the propensity to disobey the law. While this theory can explain how Manson’s behavior first started to develop, it does not explain how he began to refine his criminal mind. To answer this question we will use Edwin Sutherland’s

This process has nine components (Cullen, 2014). The first is criminal behavior is learned not inherited. Second, the Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication. Third, the principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups. Fourth, When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime, which is sometimes very complicated, sometimes simple; (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes. Fifth, the specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable. Sixth, a person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of the law. Seventh, Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. Eighth, the process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning. Lastly, while criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those needs and values, since non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values. If we look back into Manson’s history, we see that he