I must say that the data I collected from this survey was all over the board. Some patterns that I suspected would arise did, while others did not appear at all. I must say that, having collected all of this information, I would have liked to sample a larger pool of people, perhaps with a greater balance amongst distinguishing factors. On that topic, I never realized how many small individuals may come into play when determining one's results. For instance, while no real patterns emerged across gender lines, I patterns did emerge between legally-educated genders. In addition, when factoring in one's psychological knowledge, a new pattern emerged. I would say that while patterns did appear in individual traits and how they may lean on a jury, the largest patterns emerged based on the type of case. I did suspect from the start that something like this would happen.
As I mentioned above, few patterns emerged around background information, something I was a bit surprised about. It seems that gender and age were not determining factors in one's inclinations. However, one pattern did emerge within this information. I found that amongst legally-educated individuals, males were disinclined to seek more information about the case before concluding whether a case was suited for the insanity defense. Women, on the other hand, were more inclined to seek more information, perhaps reflecting a true pattern amongst professional lawyers. While men may be impulsive and decisive, women are perhaps more likely to dig deeper into a case. For different cases, each might be better suited.
Aside from this pattern, nothing jumped out of the background information. However, a strong tendency was exhibited in the cases themselves and how they affected people. From the evidence collected, I can identify three themes. When a crime is particularly heinous, often involving mutilation, or involves behavior that is widely outside the realm of acceptable behavior (such as necrophilia), individuals are more likely to lean towards the insanity defense, likely believing that that the individual could not be in their right mind to commit such a terribly gruesome act. When ideology is a major factor in the crime, like if the criminal held radical beliefs or was a member of an extremist sect, individuals were not likely to resort to the insanity defense. Finally, when a crime is terribly horrendous and the ideology of the criminal can not be understood or, in some cases, fathomed, it seemed that individuals were quick to resort to the insanity defense, likely believing that the individual must have been in an "insane state" to have acted that way.
These patterns point to some interesting underlying social tendencies. It seems that when society is faced with a situation where the mind of the individual acting cannot be brought within the realm of comprehension, or where the act is so repulsively reprehensible, the individual is likely to be deemed insane. However, if the person holds a radical belief, they may be considered "weird" but not insane. I think a big issue surrounding the insanity defense is still its repercussions in society. For the extremes of the cases that I presented people with, the insanity defense was chosen a disproportionate number of times compared to what one might have expected. I feel this may reflect a tendency of our society to seek just punishment above considering the factors of culpability. In reality, every single case scenario given required more information, but only one individual indicated this choice for every case. This demonstrates people's' tendencies to make conclusions based on information given, perhaps assuming that all relevant information is provided, or, more disturbingly, perhaps hesitating before seeking information that may exonerate a person.
Overall, I was fascinated by the information collected. In some cases, it reflected what I suspected...but in others, I was very surprised. In any case, I do think that there is a general lack of knowledge regarding the insanity defense and what it truly means amongst those in society, something that I do see creates a stigma. Knowledge, of course, is the best solution!
Monday, April 28, 2014
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
#3 Revised Summary/Plan/Update
I have been working to compose a list of cases that I would like to use in my survey. I seek to cover a wide range of cases, some more violent or more recent than others. I would like to use cases involving culprits of different ethnicities and genders as well, as I fear this may be a factor in how sympathetic people are. As per our recent discussion in class, I feel there may be a discrepancy between gender responses as well. Consequently, I have revised my target information to include not only differences between age brackets, but also between genders.
I still feel that a survey is the best way to collect this data, but with this wider range of information, I do predict the need for more case questions. I will likely pose the survey for many people to take, but will also send it to individuals who I may need to even out the balance between ages and genders. I am in the process now of formulating the questions, having already worked on the base line and background information questions.
I still feel that a survey is the best way to collect this data, but with this wider range of information, I do predict the need for more case questions. I will likely pose the survey for many people to take, but will also send it to individuals who I may need to even out the balance between ages and genders. I am in the process now of formulating the questions, having already worked on the base line and background information questions.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
#2 Strategy/Plan For research
I have decided that a survey is indeed the best method of researching the potential stigma of society against the Insanity defense. I have given thought to the format of the survey and my target audience. I believe I would like to ask a group of individuals from my generation, and a group of individuals from an older generation. Based on evidence of the use of the insanity defense over the past 30 to 40 years, I suspect that there will be a significant change in the opinions of the two different generations. I plan to develope my survey in a manner that will monitor the responses of individuals to certain case scenarios. I would start with a series of baseline questions, recording whether the individual has had any experience with mental illness with a close family member or friend, whether the individual has had any experience with the law (studied it, worked as an attorney, etc), and a question regarding age bracket. I would also include optional questions about ethnicity and religion as this may play a role in one's inclinations towards sympathy and such. Then, my main series of questions will be of the same general format. I will include a brief summary of a case including a description of the crime, the evidence against the individual, a brief background of the individual, and other basic information. I will then ask the individual whether they think the insanity defense would be applicable, whether it would not be, or whether more information would be required. I would like to include around 20 brief case summaries of various types, some including very horrific crimes, others including morally repulsive actions; some that actually involved the insanity defense in real life and were or were not successful, others that did not. After these I intend to ask one final question as to whether the individual has ever heard of the M'Naghten Test. I will not give any information about this, only a name. This will tell me whether the individual has any professional knowledge about the insanity defense. From these questions, I will be able to examine the general opinions of two generations and their reactions to certain types of cases. From this, I will be able to trace their inclinations regarding the insanity defense.
#1 Suggested Research Method/Why
For my fourth-quarter project, I would like to delve deeper into the Insanity Defense. Many believe that it is often considered as a defense in violent crimes and it seems that there is a stigma against its use as a "way out" for violent criminals. I would like to get an accurate perspective on society's view on the insanity defense.
I believe the most effective way to do this would be by survey. I would like to gauge people's responses to the use of the insanity defense and try to determine what the layperson's understanding of the insanity defense is. I would like to have individuals look at a number of case summaries and record whether they believe the insanity defense would be appropriate in each case.
I am interested in researching this topic because I am fascinated by the role that social pressure plays on the defense tactics of accused criminals. I wonder if individuals, fearful of a stigma, refuse to use the insanity defense when it might be appropriate. I would like to uncover this stigma and try to understand the basis for it.
I believe the most effective way to do this would be by survey. I would like to gauge people's responses to the use of the insanity defense and try to determine what the layperson's understanding of the insanity defense is. I would like to have individuals look at a number of case summaries and record whether they believe the insanity defense would be appropriate in each case.
I am interested in researching this topic because I am fascinated by the role that social pressure plays on the defense tactics of accused criminals. I wonder if individuals, fearful of a stigma, refuse to use the insanity defense when it might be appropriate. I would like to uncover this stigma and try to understand the basis for it.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
#8 Project Summary
I found this to be a very interesting and educational project. It seems that crime as we perceive it as a society is very rarely what it appears to be on the surface level. I learned a lot about the different factors going into the criminal justice system and how they may be affected by outside influences. I think the most interesting thing I came to realize was that a criminal is the farthest thing from an isolated individual. He is most often the result of the society he was raised in and the different factors that make up that society, from its values and norms to its sanctions. This was made clearest by the 9/11 events and the motivations and thought processes behind them, but also by the Ted Kaczynski case. Ted did what he did as a result of his views on society and the way society treated him. This idea is stressed in the Patty Hearst case where Hearst was literally brainwashed with the ideas of a new society to the point of committing an act viewed as criminal by the main society. It is often seen that the values and norms of a subculture or counterculture lead an individual to commit acts that the main culture deems criminal. The question must then be asked whether that is truly the fault of the individual, or perhaps the society from which he came. This then brings up the issue of re-socialization. If a criminal is deemed a criminal, what actions should be taken to change their ideology and beliefs to better fit with the main society? Along these lines, I also came across the issue of insanity. One who is found not guilty due to insanity is often given treatment to help them. Should the same treatment be made available to those found guilty? Another issue that came up was whether society's effect on the process. In the case of the Central Park Five, societal pressure caused police and prosecutors to ignore blatant lapses in evidence and convict 5 men who could not possibly have committed the crime. I found this to be one of the most shocking cases of all. That society and its fears and values could have such a strong effect was startling. I had always wanted to believe that the justice system stood independent, but it is clear that societal norms, in many cases, taboos, cause advocates to turn a blind eye.
I think the greatest lesson to be learned from these case studies is that a criminal is never an independent entity. He is always a result of the society, whether it is as a member or as an outcast. Although there may not be a way to use this knowledge to prevent crime, as there will always be in-groups and out-groups, there may be a way to apply it after the fact. With this in mind, one can adjust the system of punishment we have in our society to better help criminals re-socialize to better fit into the norms that we as a society have established. Of course, there is the greater question of whether our norms and values are really the best, but for now, this will have to be made an assumption as the majority, in this case, does rule for the safety and well-being of all.
Monday, March 10, 2014
#7 September 11th, 2001
As I begin to wrap up this blog, I feel there is one major violent crime that I have failed to address. It is one that everybody is familiar with, and I feel it is due its respect. Considered the worst attack on American Soil since the bombing of Perl Harbor, the series of attacks that took place on September 11th, 2001 will forever go down in infamy. I would first like to go through exactly what occurred on that fateful day in our nation's history.
The primary attack that occurred on the morning of September 11th was directed at the Twin Towers which stood in the financial district of Manhattan. At 8:46, the first plane hit the North Tower, crashing in and starting a massive fire. At that instant, Americans were not sure that this was a terrorist attack. Their fear was confirmed when. at 9:03, another plane crashed into the South Tower, exploding upon impact. At 9:40, a third plane crashed into the Pentagon. At 9:59, the South Tower, the second struck, collapsed. At 10:03, heroic passengers on the fourth plane overpowered the hijackers targeting the capital and the fourth plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. At 10:28, the North Tower fell.
2,753 people died in the New York attack. 40 people died in Pennsylvania. 184 people died in Washington D.C.
Heroic men and women continued searching for survivors in the rubble until October 9th. The last fire from the New York City attack was not fully extinguished until December 20th.
Following these attacks, Current President George W. Bush declared a "War on Terror" to hunt down the Al Qaeda terrorists responsible, particularly their leader Osama bin-Laden who was killed after ten years of searching.
Photo History of 9/11
After such a horrific event, the natural response is to ask why someone would do such a thing. The answer to this is complicated, and we will begin by looking at Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a militant Islamist extremist group founded by Osama bin-Laden in Peshawar, Pakistan. It began as a movement against non-Muslims, with members taking radical action against those they considered Kafir (disloyal). The organization formed as a major response to the writings of one Sayyid Qutb, an Islamic thinker and philosopher who preached that the Islam of today was impure, with follower having resorted to pre-Islamic ignorance. He believed that, in this Muslim World, it was the duty of the pure to eradicate any who did not agree with their teachings. He opposed socialism, nationalism, Judaism, Orientalism, and a number of other groups who he saw as "wicked opposition" to the development of a pure and righteous world. Today, the many decedents of Qutb are fighting for the complete eradication of any foreign influence in Muslim countries. Some common beliefs include the idea that the killing of civilians is justified, the suspicion that there is a Judio-Christian alliance forming that has set out to attack Muslims, and the theory that man-made laws are sinful. These ideas are indoctrinated into the minds of all jihadists, almost as a form of brain-washing. Today, the organization has been deemed a terrorist organization by NATO, the UN Security Council, the European Union, and multiple countries around the world because of its violent actions. Characteristic of the organization is mass-terror attacks and suicide bombings.
The next question is how this group came to target the United States. In a 2002 "Letter to the United States," bin-Laden enumerate the reasons for his attack against the country, but many of the hypothesized reasons were not explicitly stated. He gave three main reasons:
1) Sanctions imposed against Iraq
-After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the UNSC declared an embargo on Iraq, excluding all essential humanitarian imports.
2) Presence of US Military in Saudi Arabia.
-After the Gulf War in 1991, the United States maintains troops in Saudi Arabia, with one goal being to enforce the no-fly zone over Iraq. Saudi Arabia contains the two holiest sites of Islam-Mecca and Medina.
3) American Support of Israel
-bin-Laden saw the growth and expansion of Israel to be a crime against humanity. He believed that the very creation of Israel as a country was a grave sin and all associated, particularly the United States, must pay dearly.
In addition to these stated reasons, many suspect that Al-Qaeda also targeted the United States because of its promotion of globalization and for the purpose of starting a war with us.
Now that the ideology of the terrorists has been explained, the biggest question one should be asking himself is how could someone believe and follow these ideas to the point of mass terrorism against another people, especially in the name of religion. In fact, this concept is not that foreign. The socialization that has occurred from a very young age amongst these individuals has left them engrained with the belief that their way of life is best for humanity and that all other ways must be harmful for the innocent members. They consider themselves enlightened, thriving on this given sense of superiority rooted in the inherent human desire to feel superior. While acting a suicide bomber in our society is seen as deviant behavior, in their culture, it is seen as a noble and honorable way to die, bearing with it a guaranteed entrance to paradise. The incredible pressure of the group on any individual to conform leads to immense group think, where any individual who questions what they are doing is seen as a traitor. Religion serves as the largest agent of socialization amongst these people, instilling in them a unique sense of morality. As a whole, the process of socialization that they undergo is very common and, in fact, when considered objectively, it is rather easy to see how they might succumb to such pressure. It is scary to think that, with such an intense socialization, any one of us could have fallen in line behind those 19 terrorists.
The primary attack that occurred on the morning of September 11th was directed at the Twin Towers which stood in the financial district of Manhattan. At 8:46, the first plane hit the North Tower, crashing in and starting a massive fire. At that instant, Americans were not sure that this was a terrorist attack. Their fear was confirmed when. at 9:03, another plane crashed into the South Tower, exploding upon impact. At 9:40, a third plane crashed into the Pentagon. At 9:59, the South Tower, the second struck, collapsed. At 10:03, heroic passengers on the fourth plane overpowered the hijackers targeting the capital and the fourth plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. At 10:28, the North Tower fell.
2,753 people died in the New York attack. 40 people died in Pennsylvania. 184 people died in Washington D.C.
Heroic men and women continued searching for survivors in the rubble until October 9th. The last fire from the New York City attack was not fully extinguished until December 20th.
Following these attacks, Current President George W. Bush declared a "War on Terror" to hunt down the Al Qaeda terrorists responsible, particularly their leader Osama bin-Laden who was killed after ten years of searching.
Photo History of 9/11
After such a horrific event, the natural response is to ask why someone would do such a thing. The answer to this is complicated, and we will begin by looking at Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a militant Islamist extremist group founded by Osama bin-Laden in Peshawar, Pakistan. It began as a movement against non-Muslims, with members taking radical action against those they considered Kafir (disloyal). The organization formed as a major response to the writings of one Sayyid Qutb, an Islamic thinker and philosopher who preached that the Islam of today was impure, with follower having resorted to pre-Islamic ignorance. He believed that, in this Muslim World, it was the duty of the pure to eradicate any who did not agree with their teachings. He opposed socialism, nationalism, Judaism, Orientalism, and a number of other groups who he saw as "wicked opposition" to the development of a pure and righteous world. Today, the many decedents of Qutb are fighting for the complete eradication of any foreign influence in Muslim countries. Some common beliefs include the idea that the killing of civilians is justified, the suspicion that there is a Judio-Christian alliance forming that has set out to attack Muslims, and the theory that man-made laws are sinful. These ideas are indoctrinated into the minds of all jihadists, almost as a form of brain-washing. Today, the organization has been deemed a terrorist organization by NATO, the UN Security Council, the European Union, and multiple countries around the world because of its violent actions. Characteristic of the organization is mass-terror attacks and suicide bombings.
The next question is how this group came to target the United States. In a 2002 "Letter to the United States," bin-Laden enumerate the reasons for his attack against the country, but many of the hypothesized reasons were not explicitly stated. He gave three main reasons:
1) Sanctions imposed against Iraq
-After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the UNSC declared an embargo on Iraq, excluding all essential humanitarian imports.
2) Presence of US Military in Saudi Arabia.
-After the Gulf War in 1991, the United States maintains troops in Saudi Arabia, with one goal being to enforce the no-fly zone over Iraq. Saudi Arabia contains the two holiest sites of Islam-Mecca and Medina.
3) American Support of Israel
-bin-Laden saw the growth and expansion of Israel to be a crime against humanity. He believed that the very creation of Israel as a country was a grave sin and all associated, particularly the United States, must pay dearly.
In addition to these stated reasons, many suspect that Al-Qaeda also targeted the United States because of its promotion of globalization and for the purpose of starting a war with us.
Now that the ideology of the terrorists has been explained, the biggest question one should be asking himself is how could someone believe and follow these ideas to the point of mass terrorism against another people, especially in the name of religion. In fact, this concept is not that foreign. The socialization that has occurred from a very young age amongst these individuals has left them engrained with the belief that their way of life is best for humanity and that all other ways must be harmful for the innocent members. They consider themselves enlightened, thriving on this given sense of superiority rooted in the inherent human desire to feel superior. While acting a suicide bomber in our society is seen as deviant behavior, in their culture, it is seen as a noble and honorable way to die, bearing with it a guaranteed entrance to paradise. The incredible pressure of the group on any individual to conform leads to immense group think, where any individual who questions what they are doing is seen as a traitor. Religion serves as the largest agent of socialization amongst these people, instilling in them a unique sense of morality. As a whole, the process of socialization that they undergo is very common and, in fact, when considered objectively, it is rather easy to see how they might succumb to such pressure. It is scary to think that, with such an intense socialization, any one of us could have fallen in line behind those 19 terrorists.
Monday, March 3, 2014
#6 The Stanford Prison Experiment
The Stanford Prison Experiment is one of my favorite cases of socialization ever. It perfectly exemplifies the power of one's placement in society to influence his behavior and values. Although the experiment itself is not a violent crime, it incorporated studies of previous bloody prison riots and their potential psychological sociological sources and so it examines the potential cause behind violent crime as a whole. Here is the story.
It all began when an advertisement when out in a local newspaper in Palo Alto, California for college students looking for a pat time job earning $15 dollars a day by participating in a psychology experiment. After preliminary evaluations and tests to eliminate any mentally ill individuals or those with a history of violence or drug abuse, 24 were left. The experiment was to see how normal civilians would react to being put in a stimulated prison scenario. Half were made guards and the other half were made prisoners. Recall that at the beginning, there was no difference between then and the allocations were made arbitrarily. The "prison" was set up in the basement of the Psychology building at Stanford University. Classrooms and laboratories were made into cells and the main hallway was the "yard." An intercom system was set up to listen to what the prisoners said and to communicate with them. Cameras were also set up to observe them. At one end of the hall, a solitary confinement room was constructed with just enough for a prisoner to stand up alone.
On a quiet Sunday morning in Palo Alto, the "prisoners" were taken from their homes, arrested publically, brought to the station, processed and read their rights. They were then blindfolded and put in "cells." They were told of the seriousness of their crimes and then stripped and sprayed with a louse spray as if they had bugs. This degradation process was intended to humiliate prisoners and help re-socialize them as prisoners. The prisoners were then issued a chain to be worn around the ankle, no underwear, and a uniform bearing their prisoner number. The uniform worn was of a dress-like fashion and the men also had nylon stockings to be placed on the head. This contributed to the emasculated state of the individuals. The chain served the function of a reminder of the continued oppressive nature of the surroundings...that each individual is still in prison and unable to leave. The ID number was the only way prisoners were called and the only way they could refer to each other. This resulted in a rapid loss of individuality.
The guards, under undergraduate David Jaffe, were given no rules and told to do what they felt was necessary to maintain order and command respect. They too were issued uniforms which included a whistle and a club, as well as mirrored sunglasses. These served to hide the emotions of the guards and gave the guards a sense of empowerment.
The experiment truly began at the first of many "counts" when the prisoners would be summoned into the hall and called in order by their numbers. Initially, the prisoners were not immersed in their roles and the guards were unsure how to manage their positions in power. Then confrontations began. One of the methods of punishment enforced by the guards was pushups. Although seemingly juvenile, observers noticed that it quickly turned into a very serious punishment, often with a guard putting weight on a prisoner's back in the process.
The first day was relatively uneventful, but on the morning of the second day, the prisoners rebelled by removing their stocking caps and numbers and barricading themselves in the cells. The morning shift of guards came on and, frustrated by the leniency of the night shift, took matters into their own hands. They called in back up, consisting of the other guards from other shifts, and together they got fire extinguishers and shot at the prisoners, forcing them away from the doors and breaking into the cells. All were stripped and the leaders were put in solitary confinement. The guards then needed a method of controlling the prisoners without so many guards, so they turned to psychology. They put some of the leaders in what they called "good cells," causing others to believe they were informants and resulting in mass distrust amongst the prisoners. At the same time that the prisoners were divided, the guards were united. Now, it was an "us verses them" situation where the guards needed to maintain power as a group. They began to control every aspect of the prisoner's lives, including when they could sleep and then they could use the restroom. At one point, one prisoner began exhibiting signs of emotional disturbance. The experimenters believed for a while that he was just trying to fake his way out, but when he began screaming to the others that they couldn't quit, inciting mass hysteria, he was released. An a later interview, he explained that he felt totally helpless...like it wasn't just an experiment anymore...like he really was a prisoner in this.
At one point, parents were brought in to visit their sons. Afraid of what they might see and react to, the experimenters did everything to make the prison appear arbitrary. They then went on to enforce rules for visitation. Parents complained, but ultimately complied. Everything was fitting together to give the complete impression that the prisoners really were prisoners.
When rumors of an escape plot orchestrated by the released prisoner got to the guards and experimenters, the experimenters responded as wardens, not as psychologists. They developed strategies and ways tor protect their prison. What was amazing was that even the psychologists who were running the experiment fell completely into the roles of wardens. The head of the experiment, Phil Zimbardo, recalled later how when asked during the experiment what the independent variable (something required in any form of experiment) he became angered at the implied threat to his authority as a warden. After the threat turned out to be fake, the guards responded with more violence, and one prisoner cracked. When he was removed to be released, the other prisoners gathered and chanted that he was a bad prisoner. He broke down hysterically crying and it wasn't until Zimbardo reminded him that he was a person and Zimbardo was a psychologist that he returned to reality and calmed down. This reaction demonstrates his complete immersion into the role as a prisoner. As time passed, more and more evidence was presented to demonstrate that the prisoners and guards had completely lost sight of this as an experiment and genuinely believed in their roles. By the end of the experiment, the re-socialization was complete. The guards were a unified mass who needed to maintain their power and authority in any way possible, and the prisoners were helpless individuals with no individual identity anymore.
The Stanford Prison Experiment
You can probably see why I find this to be the most perfect example of socialization. I am still amazed by the way the prisoners and guards fell so totally into their roles. I should add here that the experiment lasted a total of 6 days! That was all it took for them to lose their sense of individuality and identity and become the roles they were told to fill. One has to wonder what this means if such socialization can be done so easily. What are the ramifications for society and the culpability of individuals that are part of larger groups. If it is so easy to strip away identity, how do we really define ourselves. Could any one of us resisted the roles that they guards and prisoners were forced into? Probably not. It's scary to think that these were just normal boys. Any one of us would most likely have behaved in the exact same way. This experiment shows the power that one's attributed role or status has on controlling his behavior and emotions.
It all began when an advertisement when out in a local newspaper in Palo Alto, California for college students looking for a pat time job earning $15 dollars a day by participating in a psychology experiment. After preliminary evaluations and tests to eliminate any mentally ill individuals or those with a history of violence or drug abuse, 24 were left. The experiment was to see how normal civilians would react to being put in a stimulated prison scenario. Half were made guards and the other half were made prisoners. Recall that at the beginning, there was no difference between then and the allocations were made arbitrarily. The "prison" was set up in the basement of the Psychology building at Stanford University. Classrooms and laboratories were made into cells and the main hallway was the "yard." An intercom system was set up to listen to what the prisoners said and to communicate with them. Cameras were also set up to observe them. At one end of the hall, a solitary confinement room was constructed with just enough for a prisoner to stand up alone.
On a quiet Sunday morning in Palo Alto, the "prisoners" were taken from their homes, arrested publically, brought to the station, processed and read their rights. They were then blindfolded and put in "cells." They were told of the seriousness of their crimes and then stripped and sprayed with a louse spray as if they had bugs. This degradation process was intended to humiliate prisoners and help re-socialize them as prisoners. The prisoners were then issued a chain to be worn around the ankle, no underwear, and a uniform bearing their prisoner number. The uniform worn was of a dress-like fashion and the men also had nylon stockings to be placed on the head. This contributed to the emasculated state of the individuals. The chain served the function of a reminder of the continued oppressive nature of the surroundings...that each individual is still in prison and unable to leave. The ID number was the only way prisoners were called and the only way they could refer to each other. This resulted in a rapid loss of individuality.
The guards, under undergraduate David Jaffe, were given no rules and told to do what they felt was necessary to maintain order and command respect. They too were issued uniforms which included a whistle and a club, as well as mirrored sunglasses. These served to hide the emotions of the guards and gave the guards a sense of empowerment.
The experiment truly began at the first of many "counts" when the prisoners would be summoned into the hall and called in order by their numbers. Initially, the prisoners were not immersed in their roles and the guards were unsure how to manage their positions in power. Then confrontations began. One of the methods of punishment enforced by the guards was pushups. Although seemingly juvenile, observers noticed that it quickly turned into a very serious punishment, often with a guard putting weight on a prisoner's back in the process.
The first day was relatively uneventful, but on the morning of the second day, the prisoners rebelled by removing their stocking caps and numbers and barricading themselves in the cells. The morning shift of guards came on and, frustrated by the leniency of the night shift, took matters into their own hands. They called in back up, consisting of the other guards from other shifts, and together they got fire extinguishers and shot at the prisoners, forcing them away from the doors and breaking into the cells. All were stripped and the leaders were put in solitary confinement. The guards then needed a method of controlling the prisoners without so many guards, so they turned to psychology. They put some of the leaders in what they called "good cells," causing others to believe they were informants and resulting in mass distrust amongst the prisoners. At the same time that the prisoners were divided, the guards were united. Now, it was an "us verses them" situation where the guards needed to maintain power as a group. They began to control every aspect of the prisoner's lives, including when they could sleep and then they could use the restroom. At one point, one prisoner began exhibiting signs of emotional disturbance. The experimenters believed for a while that he was just trying to fake his way out, but when he began screaming to the others that they couldn't quit, inciting mass hysteria, he was released. An a later interview, he explained that he felt totally helpless...like it wasn't just an experiment anymore...like he really was a prisoner in this.
At one point, parents were brought in to visit their sons. Afraid of what they might see and react to, the experimenters did everything to make the prison appear arbitrary. They then went on to enforce rules for visitation. Parents complained, but ultimately complied. Everything was fitting together to give the complete impression that the prisoners really were prisoners.
When rumors of an escape plot orchestrated by the released prisoner got to the guards and experimenters, the experimenters responded as wardens, not as psychologists. They developed strategies and ways tor protect their prison. What was amazing was that even the psychologists who were running the experiment fell completely into the roles of wardens. The head of the experiment, Phil Zimbardo, recalled later how when asked during the experiment what the independent variable (something required in any form of experiment) he became angered at the implied threat to his authority as a warden. After the threat turned out to be fake, the guards responded with more violence, and one prisoner cracked. When he was removed to be released, the other prisoners gathered and chanted that he was a bad prisoner. He broke down hysterically crying and it wasn't until Zimbardo reminded him that he was a person and Zimbardo was a psychologist that he returned to reality and calmed down. This reaction demonstrates his complete immersion into the role as a prisoner. As time passed, more and more evidence was presented to demonstrate that the prisoners and guards had completely lost sight of this as an experiment and genuinely believed in their roles. By the end of the experiment, the re-socialization was complete. The guards were a unified mass who needed to maintain their power and authority in any way possible, and the prisoners were helpless individuals with no individual identity anymore.
The Stanford Prison Experiment
You can probably see why I find this to be the most perfect example of socialization. I am still amazed by the way the prisoners and guards fell so totally into their roles. I should add here that the experiment lasted a total of 6 days! That was all it took for them to lose their sense of individuality and identity and become the roles they were told to fill. One has to wonder what this means if such socialization can be done so easily. What are the ramifications for society and the culpability of individuals that are part of larger groups. If it is so easy to strip away identity, how do we really define ourselves. Could any one of us resisted the roles that they guards and prisoners were forced into? Probably not. It's scary to think that these were just normal boys. Any one of us would most likely have behaved in the exact same way. This experiment shows the power that one's attributed role or status has on controlling his behavior and emotions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)