Crime and Punishment Gangs Police Prison Prison Policy

You, Me and the Making of Evil

lucifer-3.jpg

Tuesday’s Fresh Air with Terry Gross featured Philip Zimbardo,
the psychologist who was responsible for the landmark Stanford prison experiment” in which student volunteers in a mock prison transformed with startling speed into sadistic guards or emotionally broken prisoners.” Things got so bad that Zimbardo had to call off the experiment after six days, instead of letting it play out for the scheduled two weeks.

Like many of you, I’ve heard about the 1971 experiment for years, and still I found Zimbardo’s recounting of the details on radio to be startling.

He was on the show hawking his new book called “The Lucifer Effect: How Good People Turn Evil” that talks about the psychological forces he has observed 36 years of research, from the Palo Alto-based experiment to a sociological analysis of the events at Abu Ghraib.

In the book and in Monday’s interview, Zimbardo makes one overriding and extremely important point: When people in positions of power are encouraged, either by the nature of the job, by their superiors, or by circumstances—to dehumanize those within their control, they too will become dehumanized and their behavior will reflect that dehumanization. It happens to prison guards, to police (most particularly those doing gang enforcement), to service men and woman—as demonstrated in circumstances like the Haditha massacre, and at Abu Ghraib (about which Zimbardo has much to say, on radio and in the book, as he got to some some of military police involved quite well).

It can happen to the best of us, says Zimbardo. It even happened to him in the course of the Stanford experiment. He confessed he might not have aborted the research had his girlfriend at the time not broken down sobbing, and pleaded with him to call the damned thing off, when he brought her to the research site. “It was the slap in the face I needed,” he said.

What Zimbardo’s work suggests is that, when we train guards and cops and soldiers, we need to build into the training an anti-dehumanization component—or there will always, always, always be hell to pay. (And hell is exactly what we’ve got in California prisons—where the cycle of dehumanization-–between guards and prisoners, and between prisoners themselves—has spiraled far out of control.)

This will require some sophisticated and nuanced thinking. Obviously, we can’t have combat soldiers getting all touchy-feely if they are to remain alive and effective. On the other hand, we can’t send our young men and women into harms way with no preparation for what may befall them psychologically, then be shocked when they murder houses full of civilians.

Ditto, cops. Ditto prison guards.

“Although it is often hard to read about evil up close and personal,” writes Zimbardo, “we must understand its causes in order to contain and transform it through wise decisions and innovative communal actions. Indeed, in my view, there is no more urgent task that faces us today.”

Well, yeah.

10 Comments

  • So, people in authority act just like humans, as do the people under them. What a surprise. It’s hard to ask more of them than what others can do. The problem is with human nature. Except for the success of churches turning around lives, I don’t see a lot of success by others and government programs to change the way people act naturally. If you can solve this rather than just complain about, then you’ll become very wealthy.

  • Zimbardo, who after a week of running the prison was described as EVIL by his fiancée (now wife), who by his own account was the ONLY person out of 20 psychologists and administrators who had toured the facility and witnessed the deprived treatment of the prisoners, felt it was wrong and should stop.

    She is the one who convinced him to stop, not the breakdown of 4 students.

    Hmmmmm, maybe Zimbardo is EVIL.

  • Hmmmm — maybe we are ALL flawed human beings (think this was covered in the Bible somewhere) – read Geneses.

  • Pokey, ….um….in terms of the girlfriend (now wife), I think you’ll find that’s what I said above.

    The point isn’t whether people are flawed or not. That’s hardly new news. The issue is what, in a functional sense, to do so that our flaws don’t wreak quite as much havoc.

    I think y’all are missing the point of the research.

  • “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”

    — the complete famous quotation by Lord Acton in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887

    The point about the girl-friend is she said to Zimbardo “YOU HAVE CHANGED (EVIL)”. —- This seems to me what made him realize the extent that he had turned to the dark side.

    STRUCTURAL CHANGES AND CHECKS
    Only structural changes and checks can prevent this type of thing from happening in our prisons.

    In a conversation with a prison guard, I was surprised to hear that when she transfered from LA County Jail to another prison in Oregon, she was admonished by the other staff to treat the prisoners with respect.

    She was used to treating the prisoners like garbage and was very surprised.

    However – Oregon will be spending more on prisons than on Higher Education

    Oregon taxpayers now spend roughly the same money to incarcerate 13,401 inmates as they do to educate 438,000 university and community college students. But spending on prisons is growing at a faster rate than education and other state services.

    The cost-benefit ratio of prison expansion has also diminished. In 1994, each additional $1 spent on incarceration yielded $3.31 in reduced crime costs, the study said. By 2005, the benefit per $1 spent was $1.03, barely above the break-even point.

  • The Oregon Accountability Model

    Perhaps one of the most successful and comprehensive strategies comes from Oregon. Oregon’s Accountability Model (OAM), a six part model of best correctional practices, takes into account all phases of a prisoner’s life as he moves through the corrections process.

    Accountability is a critical component of the OAM for both prisoners and Corrections staff. Offenders have their plan from the first day they enter prison thus letting them know what is expected of them. THE STAFF is held accountable as to how
    effective they are helping the inmate implement his plan.

    Faith-based Programs and corrections work closely together through projects like Home for Good – a partnership aimed at providing antidotes to the anti-social associates and environments many offenders come from.

    THE PROGRAM
    1. Criminal Risk Factor Assessment and Case Planning. — Every inmate received by the Department of Corrections is assessed and a plan is developed for that individual to help him through prison and guide a successful reentry back into the community.

    2. Staff/Inmate Interactions. — This step in the process acknowledges that prison staff interaction with inmates can shape positive behavior. Prison staff are encouraged to offer POSITIVE FEEDBACK TO INMATES and provide INCENTIVES for good behavior.

    3. Work and Programs. — Part of the plan each prisoner receives upon prison entry includes prison programs that would best mitigate the risks that inmate may be subject to. Most prisoners also have jobs and responsibilities in the prison.

    4. Children and Families. — This program seeks to work with the children of inmates in an attempt to break the cycle of family incarceration (children of the incarcerated) are SEVIN TIMES more likely to end up in prison than the rest of the population.

    5. Reentry. — Oregon has 7 facilities physically located in areas most likely to receive the inmates upon exit from prison. This allows relatively easy access for the prisoner to partially reenter the community. These facilities also are specifically focused on reentry and assist the inmate with housing, jobs, and other things he/she may need to make the transition into society.

    6. Community Supervision and Programs. — The Department of Corrections works intimately with the community based programs including the faith based community, other government agencies, and nonprofits to offer technical assistance and resources in
    order to support their work. The goal of the Department of Corrections between steps 5 and 6 is to offer a seamless transition for offenders so that they have the best chance possible to become productive citizens.

    Oregon has managed to keep it’s “get tough policy” while simultaneously offering prisoners the skills needed to re-enter society.

    http://www.oregon.gov/DOC/PUBAFF/docs/oam/oam_flyer.pdf
    http://www.mosac.mo.gov/Documents/alternative-sentencing.pdf

    California’s Recidivism — Highest in the Nation?
    http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/pdf/bulletin_2005_vol-1_is-1.pdf

  • The Oregon Accountability Model

    Perhaps one of the most successful and comprehensive strategies comes from Oregon. Oregon’s Accountability Model (OAM), a six part model of best correctional practices, takes into account all phases of a prisoner’s life as he moves through the corrections process.

    ACCOUNTABILITY is a critical component of the OAM for both prisoners and Corrections staff. Offenders have their plan from the first day they enter prison thus letting them know what is expected of them. THE STAFF is held accountable as to how effective they are helping the inmate implement his plan.

    FAITH-BASED programs and corrections work closely together through projects like Home for Good – a partnership aimed at providing antidotes to the anti-social associates and environments many offenders come from.

    THE PROGRAM
    1. Criminal Risk Factor Assessment and Case Planning. — Every inmate received by the Department of Corrections is assessed and a plan is developed for that individual to help him through prison and guide a successful reentry back into the community.

    2. Staff/Inmate Interactions. — This step in the process acknowledges that prison staff interaction with inmates can shape positive behavior. Prison staffs are encouraged to offer POSITIVE FEEDBACK TO INMATES and provide INCENTIVES for good behavior.

    3. Work and Programs. — Part of the plan each prisoner receives upon prison entry includes prison programs that would best mitigate the risks that inmate may be subject to. Most prisoners also have jobs and responsibilities in the prison.

    4. Children and Families. — This program seeks to work with the children of inmates in an attempt to break the cycle of family incarceration (children of the incarcerated) are SEVIN TIMES more likely to end up in prison than the rest of the population.

    5. Reentry. — Oregon has 7 facilities physically located in areas most likely to receive the inmates upon exit from prison. This allows relatively easy access for the prisoner to partially reenter the community. These facilities also are specifically focused on reentry and assist the inmate with housing, jobs, and other things he/she may need to make the transition into society.

    6. Community Supervision and Programs. — The Department of Corrections works intimately with the community based programs including the faith based community, other government agencies, and nonprofits to offer technical assistance and resources in order to support their work. The goal of the Department of Corrections between steps 5 and 6 is to offer a seamless transition for offenders so that they have the best chance possible to become productive citizens.

  • Even more interesting than the Zimbardo experiment was the inquiry by Stanley Milgram of Yale into what we would call criminal behavior of the type displayed by Nazi prison guards. Milgram wanted to see what would make people engage in torture and set up the following. Subjects were told that they would participate in an experiment to see how pain affected learning. Test subjects were hooked up to wires leading to a genrator wihyich would give them electric shocks. The subjects would administer shocks as a “Stimulus” to push the “Learners”. A rheostate showed various levels from 1 to 10 with everything above 7 in red and listed as “Danger”

    (in reality there was no electric shock and the “learners” were acting students from the Drama School)

    Milgram expected most subjects would refuse to give “dangerous” shocks. He was the one shocked however. With a few exception all were willing to go all the way to ten. Some cried, some got agitated, but they did it when told by the staff that the experiment would be ruined in they didn’t.

    Milgram wrote a very disturbing book about this called “Obedience to Authority.” Read it and weep. Read it with Zimbardo and you’ll give up on any notion of our innate goodness.

Leave a Comment