Mob Mentality, the Wave, and Personal Responsibility

Mob Mentality, The Wave, And Personal Responsibility

Dennis Gansel's 2008 film The Wave is a dramatization of actual events that took place at Cubberley High School in Polo Alto, California, in the spring of 1967 (Johnston). The film explores the question of how the events surrounding the Holocaust, the mass extermination of 10 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and the mentally and physically infirm, was allowed to take place by the German people during the Second World War. The center of the inquiry is a high school history class where the teacher establishes a culture based on discipline, community and action. He calls the movement "the wave" and sets in motion a series of events highly reminiscent of Nazi Germany during the 1930s and early 1940s. While the film offers a reason for the Holocaust, an explanation of how this tragedy was allowed to happen, it is my belief this is not an excuse.

Mob mentality or herd mentality refers to the influence of an individual's peers to adopt certain behaviors they would not normally adapt because of prevailing conditions or beliefs. A 1995 article in the Harvard Law Review examines aspects of mob mentality defenses in light of the Reginald Denny verdict ("Feasiblity and Admissibility of Mob Mentality Defenses"). Denny was a truck driver who was pulled from his vehicle and savagely beaten by four black men during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. The incident was broadcast around the nation live, as it occurred. The defendants' attorneys argued a case for unpremeditated assault. In the subsequent trial the jury was hung on all charges except a felony mayhem count against one defendant (Clark).

Discussion

The article in the Harvard Law Review notes that traditionally criminal law has treated crimes committed by groups as more blameworthy than those committed by persons acting alone. In fact, the criminal who acts in concert with others has in many jurisdictions committed two crimes, the crime itself plus conspiracy to commit said crime. However, in the Denny trial the argument for the defense was that their participation in group criminal behavior should render their actions less blame worthy. The argument is that persons who act as part of a group get caught up in the excitement of the mob and so do not make real meaningful choices about how to behave. They therefore should not be held fully accountable, or accountable at all for their criminal actions. This argument raises the possibility of undesirable social norms if group criminality is viewed as a defense instead of an offense. A successful mob mentality defense would further weaken the principle of personal responsibility ("Feasiblity and Admissibility of Mob Mentality Defenses").

The problem of this defense lies in the concept of free will. Let's look at it this way, free will is a prerequisite to criminal liability. Defendants who unquestionably have committed what would otherwise be a criminal offense may still be acquitted if there volition was impaired so much that they can be said to have no choice. For this excuse defense to hold, it must be established that there was some disability that undercuts the possibility that the criminal act was the product of free choice.

The problem with this defense is the lack of a verifiable underlying disability. The defendant could argue that he/she is particularly susceptible to being swept up in a kind of mob frenzy. However, this argument would necessitate expert psychological testimony that demonstrated that the said individual something like Mob Violence Proclivity Syndrome. However, the medical foundation for such testimony is non-existent, as is supporting research ("Feasiblity and Admissibility of Mob Mentality Defenses").

On the other hand, an individual might argue that he/she suffers from no ongoing disability that the group criminality that enveloped him/her at the time of the offense was of a temporary nature. In other words any normal person would have reacted in the same manner in a similar situation. The problem with this argument is that not everyone in a mob situation loses control and commits criminal acts. From a legal stand point such a thing as Mob Violence Proclivity Syndrome tells potential criminals that they may break the law with impunity as long as they do it as part of a mob. A mob mentality excuse is a clear attack on the concept of free will.

Conclusion

It is important to understand that the behaviors that manifested themselves at the high school where the experiment with "the wave" took place, as well as those that emerged in Nazi Germany in the first half of the twentieth century can be explained; however I believe they cannot be excused. The mob mentality defense creates dangerous incentives and contributes to the destruction of the principle of personal responsibility.