Tex Watson: Cutting Corners

Before the 1970's, which saw the advent of the more scientifically-oriented psychological theory of Cognitive-Behavior therapy, psychology was considered even more of a soft science than it is today. Neuroscience was also a very new, relatively unexplored field. In the trial of Charles "Tex" Watson, an accomplice in the grisly Charles Manson murders, these factors made psychiatric testimony a muddled and somewhat subjective affair. The main question--it being the 1960's--was whether Charles' followers were operating under the influence of drugs when they massacred and mutilated seven people in Los Angeles. Much of this particular chapter is a description of the trial, rather than the events leading up to the murder, and a whole lot of hostility toward psychology from the author. The thing I would like to focus on is, first of all, the effect of drugs on the brain. Would the murderers, and Tex Watson in particular, have been in a right state of mind considering the amount of drugs that they experimented with? The jury found Tex guilty, without any trace of insanity present, after a long trial muddled with difficult psychiatric evaluation. Second of all, the ethical issue at hand concerns consumption, a topic we will discuss later in class. The book asserts that "the murders appeared to be the dark side of...sensory abundance." As much as I like the hard and fast diagnosis of drug addiction for the Charles Manson murderers (it's a little more comforting to know that people can't be sane when committed such nightmarish murders), I can't help but look at the terrifying effects of consumption on these followers. Their only sickness, in my view, came from an attraction to the lifestyle Manson offered and an obsessive need to disregard traditional--and sane--values to get it.

Nine psychiatrists and one psychologist were called to testify for Tex Watson's case, which was tried separately from the other Manson murderers. There simply was no agreement on drugs' effect on the brain and whether or not Tex was psychotic. When asked if Watson was psychotic during the murders, some said yes and some said no. When asked whether drugs affect the physical brain in the long term, not just a person's psychology, again some said yes and some said no. When asked whether Tex was psychotic, the psychiatrists gave a few possible diagnoses but again these could not be agreed upon. The district attorney even said to one of the witnesses, "Doctor, in all deference to you and your profession, isn't it true that your testimony about these things is pure unadulterated guesswork?" In a lot of ways, at this point in the history psychology, it was. This clouded information, according to the author, served only to mislead the jury into thinking that the information was internally consistent scientific knowledge. I admit the hostility toward psychologists made it difficult to get through this chapter without getting frustrated, but it does raise good points about how things should go in the courtroom. The expert witnesses should serve to give the jury as accurate a picture as possible of a crime, not to present differing opinions on things they are not sure about. Sometimes it is best to simply admit to not knowing something.

So, to my first question: knowing what we know now, is it reasonable to believe that the drugs had an effect on Tex Watson's brain when he and the rest of Manson's cohorts committed the murders in Lost Angeles? Most of the drug use in this group was in the hallucinogen family--LSD and the like. These drugs exert their effect mostly on perception, causing distortions that we typically call "trips." Trips can last anywhere from a few minutes to a few days, depending on the drug and the environment. They can also vary based on a person's mood; if a person is less than relaxed and calm the trip can be a negative, dangerous experience. LSD is also considered a not-very-dangerous drug, although it is a Schedule I drug in the US (meaning that is illegal to make, take, or distribute). This is probably due to cases like the Manson case, where use of hallucinogens obviously had serious consequences, more than the fact that the drug itself is dangerous. Hallucinogens are not known to be addictive or to have long-term effects, which means that Tex Watson--if he was not actually high when he committed the murders--had full conscious awareness of his crimes.

One thing that all the psychologists agreed on was that Watson had a "weak, passive personality."Whether or not he was psychotic, his mind was the kind that Manson attracted. He had basic human desires to be accepted and to experience pleasure, but he found it hard to assert himself and pursue those goals independently. It was easier to follow someone else, let him do the work and reap the rewards of a high-class California lifestyle. In doing so, however, Watson compromised his value system. To me this is the most terrifying part of the story. We as a society like to do things the easy way--to get the reward, not to earn it. What ethics and values do we compromise to cut corners in the pursuit of getting stuff? This story for me was a reminder of where my focus should lie. I really like Hays' idea in his chapter on Revelation that we shoud "look defiantly to the future, when all things will be subjected to the authority of God." As Christians we are called to reject the seduction of the world, keeping our focus on the ultimate goal. A goal that does not leave room for cutting corners.

Sorry this one was a little all over the place, but the implications about consumerism stood out to me more than the ethical questions about NGRI this time around. See you all next week!

Kelsey