Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: death penalty

Because doing so would have violated the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution. Under that clause, no one can be prosecuted for an act which was only made a crime after the fact, and no one can have his or her sentence increased because of a subsequent change in the law. This is true even if the subsequent change merely involves undoing changes that have occurred in the interim.

It is also possible that the standards a prosecutor had to meet in order to get the death penalty are different now and that the showing made at Manson's original trial would not have been legally sufficient today. This is not to say such a showing couldn't have been made, but prosecutors can only be expected to meet the standards required at the time and can't be faulted if they don't anticipate a change which will occur later.

Even if the ex post facto clause were not an issue today, re-sentencing Manson to death might well require a new trial in order to prove that his actions satisfied the current standards. Such a trial would probably amount to double jeopardy and would be unconstitutional on that basis.

For what it's worth, Manson acknowledges that he is still a danger to society, and says so every time he comes up for parole. He has always told the parole board that they should not release him because he is not rehabilitated and would harm others if given the opportunity.