In Defense of Charles Manson

by the Editors of National Review

Cf.

No one has been stronger in condemnation of Charles Manson than National Review. We have condemned his drug use, his advocacy of “free love,” and his use of rock music and half-baked philosophy (strongly influenced, we must mention, by Marx and Dr. Benjamin Spock) to lure middle-class children away from the authority of society and their parents.

But Vincent Bugliosi’s reckless prosecution of Manson for the Tate-La Bianca murders — in which Manson was not, we must remind you, directly involved — strikes at the very heart of the rule of law.

It should be clear to everyone that this is a purely political prosecution engineered by Governor Jerry Brown to counter his low approval ratings, caused by the rise in crime under his leadership in the Golden State — which has come so quickly, and unnecessarily, after the tenure of Ronald Reagan, who reversed a surge in Black Panther violence by signing the Mulford Act.

Bugliosi argues that Manson created a “conspiracy” to commit these murders — or some murders, anyway; never, you will note, does he show Manson directed his followers to attack these specific victims by name. His language may have been extreme and intemperate, but it in no wise rose to the level of criminal conspiracy.

Also: While, as we have said, we have serious differences with Manson, we must acknowledge that he has a right to express himself — a right, that is, to be wrong.

We certainly do not believe in the “Helter Skelter… revolution” that Manson advocates. But hyperbole and even worse are still protected political speech. Bugliosi is prosecuting Manson simply for attempting to advance his cause through rhetoric — the very definition of political speech. Mendacious rhetoric in seeking to retain leadership in a cult is damnable — and, to be clear, punishable by public opprobrium and stern newspaper editorials — but it’s not criminal.

That a few of Manson’s weak-minded followers interpreted his protected political speech to mean they should kill people is regrettable — but can the prosecution prove that, were it not for Manson’s imprecations, they would not have done it anyway? We think not.

And it should go without saying that all the evidence in this case is circumstantial and should be thrown out. We know the California Court of Appeals, Second District, has asserted in People v. Kobey that “virtually the only method by which a conspiracy can be proved is by circumstantial evidence” — but we feel that Court argued wrongly, and if we can get conservative majorities in that Court (and in as many high Courts as we can), that is one of the very many decisions we expect to see reversed.

We cannot stress too strongly that we do not agree with Charles Manson — though we understand that most of our readers support Manson and indeed would “kill” “pigs” for him if he told them to; we regret their decision, and will continue to argue and reason with them that Reagan is a more practical and certainly a more electable choice; but we agree that, so long as Manson remains cult leader, his decisions deserve our respect and a fair hearing in these pages. And in that spirit we pledge our support for him against this corrupt liberal prosecutor, activist judges, and mainstream media. Free Manson!