In discussions of the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Philip G. Zimbardo in 1970, one controversial issue has been whether or not the experiment should have ever been attempted. On the one hand, Dr. Zimbardo and his colleagues argued that the experiment gave them a deeper understanding of human suffering and a greater empathy for their fellow man (Ratnesar 2011). On the other hand, one of the former guards contended that the experiment made him more hostile and less sympathetic during his time as a guard and that the circumstances significantly altered his perception of what was appropriate behavior. Others even maintain that the prison experiment degraded the prisoners so greatly, empowered the guards to such a great extent, and even affected Dr. Zimbardo’s behavior and mannerisms so dramatically that it thoroughly altered their sense of…
Zimbardo’s mock prison experiment yielded the conclusion that individual behavior is largely under the control of social forces and environmental contingencies rather than personality traits, character, and will power. His findings were shown through the change in the pretend prison guards’ behavior over a matter of days. Their total demeanor was transformed and they became the role they were playing, with tyrannical and abusive actions towards the prisoners. The prison guards’ power went to their heads and corrupted them, much like what happened in the case of ordinary soldiers torturing prisoners. Like the prison guards, the soldiers were ordinary until they were put into a role of power. The environment of the prison with no structure or set rules changed the soldiers’ demeanors and caused them to throw their morals aside for limitless power over other human…
The Stanford Prison Experiment began just like any other, with a general question: “Would a negative environment would be able to control…
Phillip K. Zimbardo, who is a professor of psychology at Stanford University, directed the Stanford Prison Experiment, also known as the Zimbardo Experiment. The goal of the Zimbardo experiment was to research how willing human beings would imitate to the characters of correctional officers and inmates in an acting role that replicated life behind bars. But what really happens when you remove the freedoms of human beings and place them in subservient positions and place them in jail cell type settings? The answer is that the mind and physical well-being is drastically and forever changed for the worse, which Mr. Zimbardo’s tests proved.…
There are so many different theories out there that try to explain why we act the way we act. How do we explain evil or hateful behavior? I just finished reading the article ‘’Prison Violence: Does brutality come with a badge?’’, written by: Bruce Gross. This article talks about being a prison guard, and how some people act when they enter this career. Would you act differently if you went from the role of the prisoner to the role of the prison guard?…
In all humans, evil exists. At some point we have to release it, and want to release it. For example, on the island Jack and Robert showed their evil while beating Wilfred, or even Robert who was hurt while the boys received pleasure out of his beating. Roger states, "He's going to beat Wilfred, I don't know why, he didn't say," (pg.159) as he giggles. Another example is when Robert is beaten by the boys for no reason in frenzy where he is the pig. They chant in chapter seven, "Kill the pig! Cut his throat! Kill the pig! Bash him in!" (pg. 114). These examples clearly show that the…
The students involved in the Zimbardo Prison Experiment were not cruel people, nor were they truly sadistic. When given the roles as prison guards and prisoners, their behaviors changed dramatically. As prison guards, normally friendly students acted as prison guards under the warden. Under the authority of the guards, the students with the roles of prisoners acted unnaturally and did as the guards told them. Similarly, the soldiers in Germany under Hitler's command did as they were told and acted as they did, not because they were bad people, but because of their positions in German society. They were soldiers and did as a German soldier under Hitler would do. Neither prison guard nor soldier acted aggressively because of their own personalities,…
Good vs. evil is a classic theme often found in literature. In “A Good Man is Hard to Find” by O’Connor and “Young Goodman Brown” by Hawthorne, the authors focus on this theme to unravel their plots. O’Connor uses the grandmother and a thief, The Misfit, to compare and contrast the good and evil in people. On the other hand, Hawthorne’s, “Young Goodman Brown,” uses the main character, Young Goodman Brown, and his journey from being a respected man to being summoned by the devil. Both authors use their main characters as a comparison of what being good means, however the evil of the story is presented differently.…
In Beowulf, the conflict between good and evil is the poem 's main and most important aspect. The poet makes it clear that good and evil doesn’t exist as only opposites, but that both qualities are present in everyone. Beowulf represents the ability to do good or to perform acts selflessly and in help of others. Goodness is also showed throughout this epic as having the ability to cleanse evil. Even though evil is presented by Grendel, Grendel 's mother, and the dragon, who are filled with a desire to act against people and ultimately destroy them, even pride, a human quality, is presented in Beowulf as a sign that evil exists. This story might even be considered a classic because it mainly talks about the old fashion good vs. evil, hero vs. villain. Beowulf and the three monsters show the significant difference between good and evil, and why god will always prevail.…
Even "good" people can be beaten down by conditions, such as those simulated in the experiment, to a point where they are no longer sure of their own identity. If anything, this experiment should have taught players in the criminal justice system just how desperately prison reform is needed. Sadly, conditions such as these continue to persist and have even been the cause of recent controversy as seen in the instances of Abu Ghrab and Guantanamo Bay prisons.…
I feel that not wanting to feel alienated or be blamed for creating a sense of derision between the “bad guards” was what kept the good guards from objecting to their actions. Because of their desire to want to feel unified with the other guards they never spoke out about their actions for fear of possibly being treated like the prisoners.…
It wasn’t only the superior’s fault, but also the weak’s fault. Convicts should not have rebelled, but should have obeyed the authoritative guards. The SPE demonstrates the way humans abuse the power they are given, whether that power is real or perceived, and social profiling of an individual affects their…
With good being terms of excellent, high quality, right, well-behaved, or even righteous. And Evil being in terms of morally wrong or bad, misbehaved, characterized by misfortune, and even bad conduct, we ask ourselves what constitutes good and evil.…
Three inmates could be released from prison today. Two of them will end up right back in the system within three years. This statistic should be enough to conclude that America's prison systems are failing miserably with the rehabilitation of inmates. How is it plausible for every correctional facility to think isolation, segregation, and overcrowding could possibly benefit the crime rate? Instead of converting these inmates into proper citizens, the system has found ways to hold them down. To suppress their inspiration to change. For many inmates, those bars do not only imprison their bodies, but their motivation and determination as well. US prisons are breeding grounds for violence. These places are supposed to reform inmates into law abiding people. Instead, they turn even the harmless criminals into the most violent ones. One man is sentenced to one year due to drug trafficking. Another man is sentenced to life without parole for several brutal murders. Despite the different levels of their crimes, they could possibly be bunked together in the same cell. This right here is a prime example of what the DOC will do to hold an inmate down. By involving non-violent criminals with heinous ones, they are creating a situation of fear and defense. The man who is in for excruciating violent behavior could easily try to hurt his cell mate. He has nothing to lose. Is the man with minor charges expected to not defend himself? No. That's where the violence sets in. When you mix completely different criminals together on purpose, there is going to be an outbreak of violence. Everybody has those weeks where you just feel like you need to get out of the house. As if staying home doing nothing one more day would just make you rip your hair out. Imagine having to do that for anywhere up to six months or longer. Not just in a wide open house, but in a small, confined cell. No human contact, nothing to keep you busy, sometimes even going hours without food. This happens daily in…
The “penitentiary is a zoo and the inmates are caged animals” (Hirliman, pg.24). Lessons from our tour support many complaints from inmates in the book. An inmate not receiving his glasses or specific medicine until weeks later, is torture in not being able to see but still expected to perform all actions of other inmates. When controlling shower times, spraying pepper spray, being strapped to a chair for hours at a time, are put in the hands of the wrong people, is immoral no matter how hard, they try to justify it. When “I dont know” or “just cause”, are the reasons for performing an action to inmate it’s not right.…