Walter White, the central protagonist of the wildly popular TV series Breaking Bad has been described as a cross between “Mr. Chips and Scarface.” A mild-mannered high school chemistry teacher who is bowed from the strain of chronic medical and financial problems, Walter finally breaks with a crooked twist. During the first season, his trajectory transmogrifies from a family man with a suburban lifestyle to a veritable drug lord and murderer.
Employing his chemistry smarts, Walter partnered up with a former student to cook and sell crystal meth. In doing so, he dramatically transformed into an egregiously violent and impenitent drug kingpin. Still, his descent into malevolence highlights a human potential that could become realized during times of desperation and despair, when our nature’s darker and demonic side gears itself up.
In my forensic evaluations, I have assessed individuals whose psychological functioning seemed stunningly at odds with their criminal behavior. Jonathan, for instance, is a 38-year-old man who has served 16 years in prison for a murder he committed when he was 22 years old. His attorney requested the evaluation, as he was now eligible for parole. The attorney asked me to examine Jonathan, to provide a diagnosis, and to opine on his personality and his risk for future violence.
Jonathan came from an extremely fractured family, with a physically assaultive father and an alcoholic mother. Neglected and abused at home, he found solace on the streets. He admired the gang members and enjoyed the street life that was endemic in his neighborhood. Early on, before his teen years, he was befriended my gang members and helped with the distribution of drugs. By the age of 17, he was an active gang member and part of its culture of violence and gang rivalry.
On a warm August night, Jonathan participated in the drive-by shooting and the murder of a rival gang member.
During the evaluation, Jonathan talked about the evolution of his identity as a gang member. During his early youth he idealized the older gang members from the neighborhood. He hated being home, so he was always on the streets, listening and observing the young men who hung out, as they drank, smoked, played music, and “partied” with the local girls. He was especially drawn to the camaraderie that came with gang membership. They got to know Jonathan, and he yearned to be one of them.
Jonathan began going on “drug runs” for the gang, delivering “product” to local users. As he aged and reached his later teenage years, he completed the rituals required for membership. Having tolerated, for instance, a beating by four members and “jumped in” in street parlance. He was then officially an active gang member.
“I loved being with my crew.” Jonathan felt loyalty and affection for its members. “I was part of an organization…we had each other’s backs.” Without question or reflection, he accepted the violent nature of the gang’s activities, including the hate of rival gang members, the competition for territory among gangs, and the willingness to commit violence, even murder for such trivia conduct as a rival gang member entering his gang’s designated turf.
In retrospect, Jonathan said, “It was like being brainwashed… I was looking for love…” As an adult, he is aware that the gang functioned like an auxiliary family for him, offering emotional succor and support that fulfilled a void in his emotional life, and shored up a fragile sense of himself. Looking back, he was surprised at his capacity for violence and “my stupidity.” He added, “I was just running around….I didn’t know what I was doing.” Never giving a thought to the consequences of his behavior, he just behaved in concert with the expectations of the group.
Fictional Walter and real life Jonathan faced very different crossroads, but it’s their similarities that are most meaningful: both had a desperate need that demanded fulfillment. Jonathan, for instance, needed to belong somewhere, to truly feel emotionally moored.
Jonathan’s seductive assimilation into gang culture, and his ready acceptance of violence as normative, is not a unique phenomenon. Many of us are prone to the pull of our darker, demonic side. It could happen at any stage of development, given the wrong confluence of factors. And then, a mindless adherence to even the most truculent of group norms becomes acceptable. Those most vulnerable – the ones who feel socially invisible and left behind – are swayed and swept into the vortex by group pressure and groupthink.
Groupthink Essential Reads
My evaluation of Jonathan revealed that he was free of serious psychopathology or of a personality disorder such as psychopathy. An extensive risk assessment revealed that his core vulnerabilities were historical in nature, due to his juvenile delinquent conduct, but that his behavior for years indicated a low risk for future violence. For example, on the Historical Clinical Risk Management–20 instrument, his risk level was low. He showed no signs of unstable emotionality and he had been free of violent behavior for years. Staff and counselors alike described him as helpful to other prisoners during AA and other group meetings. He completed his GED and accrued college credits.
Jonathan committed his crime before he was 25 years old. In 2012, the Supreme Court reviewed the overwhelming neurocognitive evidence demonstrating that the brain and nervous system do not reach maturity until at least age 25. Before then, lapses in self-control and decision-making are developmentally “normal.” Given such a set of facts, the judges ruled that, for those in that age group, life without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional. California has since ruled that anyone who was under the age of 23 and sentence to 25 years to life is eligible for a parole hearing in 15 years.
Given that Jonathan committed his crime before the age of 25, and given his stellar behavioral history and his current psychological status, he appeared to be an individual who, with time and maturity, was able to “break good.” The parole board agreed.
