“Wolves hunt for survival. Humans, for fun.” These are the words of Olga Serrano’s closing argument.prosecutor in the Samuel Luiz case. On Monday, the popular jury will meet to decide on the role of each defendant. In the face of group aggressions it is difficult to to determine responsibility specific responsibility of each participant. Collective disinhibition amplifies violent behavior. This is why legislation relies on psychology.
Samuel Luiz was killed on the night of July 3, 2021 after being shot in the head by a brutal beating. Five defendants face sentences ranging from 22 to 27 years on Monday. Diego Montaña, the “alpha male”.was the one who started the fight. His defense seeks to have him convicted only for injuries. Alejandro Freire, alias Yumba, alleged that he only struggled. Katy, accused of preventing others from helping Samuel, claimed that she was trying to separate Diego, then her boyfriend. Kaio, who also stole the cell phone of the victim, he assured that he had not even touched it. Alejandro Mínguez insisted that he did not actively participate. All are accused of murder.
If there is cooperation and common purpose, the responsibility is joint, it is co-perpetration, irrespective of who did what
According to the testimonies, no one was to blame for killing him. In situations like this, what does justice propose?How to delimit individual guilt? There is an approach, often applied in this type of case, that considers criminal liability on an equal footing, beyond the specific role. This is because it is understood that the group acts as a unit. If there is cooperation and common purpose, the responsibility is joint, it is co-responsibility, regardless of who did what.
Is the one who gives the first blowDo they all deserve the same sentence? This was emphasized, for example, by the defense of Katy, the girl who did not hit, but prevented help, who is being asked to serve 25 years in prison. In these situations, the theory of the dominion of the factwhich seeks to identify who has the effective control over the execution of the crime.
The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court equates penalties if all have control over the execution of the crime and contribute significantly to the outcome. The aim is to prevent those involved from evade their guilt by alleging minor participation, as is happening in the Samuel Luiz case. The crime would be a consequence of each of these acts.
This is precisely what the prosecutor emphasized: “A pack of wolves goes out to hunt. And when it goes out to hunt it has as common goal a prey. While some attack, others avoid defense. But the objective is common: to terrorize, exhaust and cause the absolute defenselessness of that prey until it finally dies. This has been a group attack and everyone has participated in the same way: some by striking, and others by avoiding defense and flight.”
The theory of deindividuation
Legal considerations often have their foundations in the psychology. Individuals tend to act more aggressively and uninhibitedly in groups. The phenomenon of diffusion of responsibility and the theory of deindividuation is generated.
Anonymity reduces fear of punishment, diffusion of responsibility reduces individual control.
Psychologist Leon Festinger proposed in the 1950s the “Theory of Deindividuation”, later extended by Philip Zimbardo and Gustave Le Bon. They explain that individuals lose their identity personal when there is a crowd, they adopt more impulsive behaviors, antisocialIn the group’s reinforcement, there is a loss of ethics.
Le Bon laid the foundations in The Psychology of Crowds by arguing that people en masse act in a manner emotional and irrationallosing self-consciousness. Anonymity reduces the fear of punishment, diffusion of responsibility decreases individual control, and emotional arousal intensifies the impulsive reactions. In contexts such as riots or lynchings, this theory helps to understand how group dynamics transform individual behaviors that in other contexts would be different.
In fact, the mere presence of other members of the group is understood as environmental intimidationThis aggravates the conduct and can lead to liability even for those who have not physically participated in the criminal act. Images of the fight and the testimonies seem to indicate that, in some way, everyone participated, but the consideration of the group as a unit is not exempt from criticism.
Certain branches of thought consider people to be individuals independent of the action of the crowd.Should Katy be sentenced to 25 years if she did not directly hit the victim? This Monday the jury will decide.
The defendants have asked for forgiveness, but excuse their actions by pointing the finger at the whole. The party fights, alcohol abuse, drug use, the use of drugs, the normalization of violence nighttime violence… the moral fragility should not hide behind the turmoil. Evil is contagious. This was reaffirmed by the prosecutor in the case: “Evil exists, it is disguised as fun… it is contagious among people”.