The Wrongful Conviction of Charles Milles Manson
How it works
The first: Charles Manson as the ringleader, the main man, the cult king. He ordered his followers to do everything. The other, a group of middle aged “hippies” caught up in heavy drug use committed all the murders. They later accused a mentally ill man who was a delusional schizophrenic that they took in as a mascot, of orchestrating all the murders. Carrie Leonetti provides a wonderful argument and presents many facts and statistics as to how Charles Manson could have been wrongfully accused.
The article effectively develops many different facts and legal notations (over 600) from the many court cases involved. Some of the main points are a missing motive for the murders and other evidence being inconsistent with the portrayal of Manson as a cult leader. One of the key points that stood out to me was rather than being a brilliantly powerful, and persuasive cult leader, the evidence suggests that Manson suffered from a delusional psychotic disorder, most likely paranoid schizophrenia. Throughout his time in prison his treatment notes are full of references to his “speaking in magical, mystical phrases,” he refused to believe he was actually even in prison. Carrie Leonetti developed such a strong argument by including official notes from the prison treatment centers. I believe her tone and vocabulary also enhanced the article by essentially showing a lack of emotion. This lack of emotion gives the reader no other option but to read the article and walk away more educated. With this type of argument any emotion included would just lead the reader to think some sort of bias exists.
I believe all of the facts and information backing the authors point really make the article effective. Without any facts or notes from actual cases the article would fall flat. The whole basis of this article is to argumentatively prove a point. I believe it to be impossible to prove any sort of point without proof, be it facts, statistics, or even experiences. The author, without a doubt, made sure her point was strongly portrayed. I also believe her tone and targeted audience throughout the full article make it exponentially more effective. While reading the article I could feel her sense of professionalism. The lack of emotion, more specifically persuasion, really helped develop the professionalism. Often times argumentative articles tend to have a lot of persuasion in regards to the authors own opinion. While I do believe this article was convincing, there was a specific level of intelligence that really caught my attention. I did not find myself feeling like the author was filling my head with her opinion, it was all factual. Honestly, this article was so effective I caught myself doing even more research on Charles Manson, I wanted to know as much as possible.