I was discussing this issue recently with a friend of mine and neither of us could come to a reasonable conclusion about the moral, ethical, or philosophical aspects of life in a prison. Most of our analysis centered on the Stanford Experiment (for info check http://www.prisonexp.org/ ). In it psychologically healthy college students played the role of Guards and Prisoners, and the experiment was conducted to answer what happens when "good people" are thrust into "evil" circumstances. Amazingly after only 6 days the guards behavior became so sadistic that the experiment had to be cancelled.

Contemporary analogies to Abu Gharib are extremely pertinent, so my question is "do a few bad apples spoil the barrel, or is it the barrel?"

I think it is just some sort of base instinct in all animals. That footage of the powderpuff football high school girls from a couple of years ago comes to mind. The one where they just started beating the shit out of those poor freshmen girls. I saw it a couple of times in my fraternity where nice guys would suddenly just all seemingly flip out at the same time. You see it in peaceful protests when one ass hole throws a bottle or one cop hits someone without reason and everybody goes ape shit. Whole cities can go nuts after a big sporting event, or because of a court case. Our neighbours dogs who were the friendliest dogs in the world befriended some stray dog, and the three of them got loose and mauled a couple of other dogs. Weird shit happens when one ass hole gets out of control. If any of you guys pick up that tape on the Stanford experiment, it is a very interesting watch.

I've always been a bit concerned that those in a state of authority will, through human nature, inherently abuse that power to some level. What that level is, of course, depends on the person.

I have nothing to back it up--it's just a feeling I've had.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
this experiement is one I brought up right after the torture at Abu Gharib became public and the info was posted here.

Were these college students trained to be guards?? If not, then fear would play a significant role in their actions. Sounds like a not so realistic study to me.

No, they were instructed in how they could act, but it was very limited. But this argument still applies to Abu Gharib because these were soldiers who were never trained properly, simply selected for gaurd duty. Whats interesting however is that we uniformly characterize soldiers as sadists or violent, and the Iraqi Prison Scandal reinforces this idea, but it isn't very accurate. All of the college students involved in the Stanford Experiment were highly educated, exceptionally intelligent individuals with no history of violence or drug abuse. In fact, these students had never even been arrested.

I guess the real question is, if prison itself only hardens criminals through unjustified antisocial behavior, what alternative do we have?

kill them all, unless they're pregnant women, in which case, wait until they deliver the baby and then kill them, because, you know, like, the sanctity of human life etc.

I saw the film about this recently.
There were some major flaws in the experiment. While it did replicate SOME things that occur in prisons, it didn't do a good job with many others. The "guards" were given basic guidelines, which isn't enough. Real prison guards are highly trained and aren't picked at random. The odds for "bad" guard behavior were much higher in the experiment than in the real world. The "inmates" were also chosen at random and had committed no crime. You can't incarcerate someone who's just a willing participant in an experiment and honestly compare it to a hardened criminal.
Actually, the more I think about it, the less realistic this experiment was.

Because of my thoughts on how faulty Stanford's attempt was, I can't really compare it real criminals, real prisons, and trained guards.

Without having read the study, but thinking immediately back upon the Woodstock fires, I'd say a few bad apples do spoil the barrel, and if the barrel they were in was crap to begin with, that certainly doesn't make the disintegration any slower.


Also Reminds Me Of:

-) Rats (-

Uh they don't eat. Don't sleep.
They don't feed they don't seethe.
Bare their gums when they moan and squeak.
Lick the dirt off a larger one's feet.
They don't push. Don't crowd.
Congregate until they're much too loud.
Fuck to procreate till they are dead.
Drink the blood of their so called best friend.

They don't scurry when something bigger comes their way.
Don't pack themselves together and run as one.
Don't shit where they're not supposed to.
Don't take what's not theirs. They don't compare.

They don't scam. Don't fight.
Don't oppress an equals given rights.
Starve the poor so they can be well fed.
Line their holes with the dead ones bread.

They don't scurry when something bigger comes their way.
Don't pack themselves together and run as one.
Don't shit where they're not supposed to.
Don't take what's not theirs. They don't compare.

They don't scurry when something bigger comes their way.
Don't pack themselves together and run as one.
Don't shit where they're not supposed to.
Don't take what's not theirs. They don't compare.
Rats. They don't compare. (x2)
Ooh.

Ben the two of us need look no more. Yeah. (x3)
Ben the two of us need look no more, more, more. Yeah.
Ben the two of us need look no more. Yeah. (x2)


It also reminds me of the phrase "Absolute power corrupts, absolutely." Officials who turn into or start out as megalomaniacs don't help the situation either.

Classic Man's Inhumanity To Man, organized, structured, and socially accepted.


Ever see Brubaker with Robert Reford? Good Film.

c-

There have been numerous other studies that show how human beings tend to function. There's also the famous obedience experiment, the Milgram Obedience experiment. If you haven't heard about it, details can be accessed here:

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psycholo ... iment.html

The experiement showed two things. One, that people are highly influenced by authority, and two, that if you are personally "absolved" of responsibility for your actions, you tend to act in a way that is consistent with how you perceive authority would like you to act.

It's worth reiterating that before the experiement was done, researchers figured only about 4% of "teachers" would administer shocks at 300 volts and above--and that these people would be the "pathological fringe." In fact, 65% of "teachers" went all the way to the 450 volt mark. Keep in mind that these were given for incorrect learning responses, not something major like suspected terrorist activity.

I always equated the experiment more to human mob behavior and power, then that of how it relates to imprisonment. I think under that context it may be more important. You could relate it to Abu possibly, but not really the US prison system.

I was watching a video on the Milgram experiment, the part I found most odd (and also entertaining strangely enough...) was that many of these people resorted to nervous laughter as they inflicted "pain" on ther subjects.

i do think that there is a bad apple spoiling the barrel issue, but i also think that the way that humans act in certain situations can be downright horrible and scary. the milgram experiment proved this and the stanford experiment too, even with its flaws. in any prison situation, you're going to have guards like Percy from the Green Mile, people who get off on belittling people and who are probably sociopaths deep down but just happen to be on the right side of the law. i do not think for the most part that people in those situations are bad people nor do they go out of their way against the prisoners.

just look at spiderman

with great power comes great responsibility

yep

Despair.com rocks absolutely as well.