prison violence

Read the article, and write a two-page summary of the article explaining violence, punishment, and evil behaviors in relation to the theories covered in this unit.
Note: Discuss the article using the scientific theories covered in this unit. Please integrate your personal opinion on this topic as well.
Your response should include an introduction, supporting paragraphs, and a conclusion. You are required to use your textbook and the article as source materials for your response. You may use additional sources as well. All sources used, including the textbook and article, must be referenced. Paraphrased and quoted material must have citations as well.
Gross, B. (2008). Prison violence: Does brutality come with the badge? Forensic Examiner, 17(4), 21-27. Retrieved from ProQuest Criminal Justice database. (Document ID: 1603605261).

Despite the ratification of the Eighth Amendment in 1791, which bans the use of “cruel and unusual” punishment, reports of excessive violence perpetrated by correctional officers against inmates have been documented since the inception of the United States penal system. These complaints come not only from inmates, but also from federal authorities who acknowledge the problem is widespread. (Gibbons & Katzenbach, 2006)
According to the Commission on Safety and Abuse in Prisons, in 2005 there were 16,000 allegations of prison staff misconduct (including sexual and physical assault as well as the introduction of contraband) brought to the Office of the Inspector General alone (Fine, 2005). To date, there is no system for collecting data on a national level regarding excessive, non-lethal violence used by prison staff against inmates. Despite this, a simple Internet search regularly returns numerous links to articles regarding violence in state and federal prisons across the nation.
Excessive violence by guards exists and persists not only in state prisons, but in county jails as well. For over 25 years the Cook County jail in Illinois (one of the largest jails in the U.S.) has been under judicial review as a result of extreme and unresolved overcrowding (Becker, 2008). In 2004, a special grand jury was convened to address the mass beating of inmates that took place in 1999. Despite this, the use of excessive violence by correctional officers against inmates has continued to the present. Inmates have been choked, kicked, punched, and hit with objects, by single or multiple guards, for offenses that range from an act of violence against staff, to verbal insults towards staff, to failure to comply with instructions.
These “punishments” have resulted in inmates suffering everything from black eyes, contusions, lacerations, lost teeth, fractured noses and ribs, broken arms and jaws, as well as head trauma. For example, in 2007, an inmate was handcuffed and beaten by a group of guards in a doming room for having exposed himself to a female officer. The inmate, who was left with severe head injuries, had a history of mental illness. In July 2008, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Chicago and the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice issued a 98-page report to the Cook County Sheriff and Cook County Board President outlining the atrocities.
The Study of Violence
History is replete with incidents of seemingly decent people committing horrendous acts of violence in what they believe to be the pursuit or defense of justice and right. After World War II and the horrors of the Nazi Concentration Camps, several attempts to study such extreme and “evil” behavior were undertaken. While moral and ethical constraints make empirical research on the etiology of such violence scarce, a few notable studies do exist.
In 1961, Yale University psychology professor Stanley Milgram conducted what his subjects believed was a study on memory (Milgram, 1974). The participants were divided into two, seemingly random groups: the “teachers,” who were the actual subjects; and the “learners,” who were, in fact, confederates of the study. The “teachers” were instructed to read a list of words to the “learners” (whom they could not see) and to administer a “shock” (none was actually given) whenever the “learner” made a mistake. Each mistake was to be followed by a shock of increasing intensity.
Surprisingly, every “teacher” was willing to shock their “learner” up to 300 volts, and two-thirds gave the maximum shock requested: 450 volts. This was done despite the confederates’ claims of having a “heart condition” and while hearing the “learner” cry out in pain. In Milgram’s study, the subjects were very “normal,” “everyman” people, who performed rather horrific acts. The results of the study were taken as scientific “proof that “evil” or violent behavior might be more “ordinary” than we would like to believe.
Creating Evil
In August of 1971, 10 years after the Milgram experiment, psychology professor Philip Zimbardo (who was friends with Milgram in high school) led a team of researchers at Stanford University in a study of the dynamics that develop within and between groups in a simulated prison setting (Musen & Zini bardo, 1991; Haney, Banks & Zimbardo, 1973; Zimbardo, 1971). Zimbardo placed an ad in a newspaper, offering recruits $ 1 5 per day for their participation in a two-week “prison simulation” study. Of the 70 respondents, the 24 who were the most mentally stable and physically healthy were randomly assigned to “prisoner” or “guard” groups. The 24 male college-student guards were predominantly white and middle-class. Rather than objectively observing the study, one of /imbardo s research assistants assumed the role of “warden” and Zimbardo, himself, took the role of prison “superintendent.”
Those subjects assigned to be guards were dressed in matching khaki “uniforms” and mirrored sunglasses (to block full eye contact). The day before the experiment began, the guards were given an “orientation” by Zimbardo in which they were told they could not physically harm or injure the prisoners. However Zimbardo also told them, “You can create in the prisoners feelings of boredom, a sense of fear to some degree, you can create a notion of arbitrariness that their life is totally controlled by us, by the system, you, me – and they’ll have no privacy. They’ll have no freedom of action, they can do nothing, say nothing that we don’t permit. Were going to take away their individuality in various ways. In general what all this leads to is a sense of powerlessness. That is, in this situation we’ll have all the power and they’ll have none.”(Zimbardo, 1989)
Those subjects who were assigned to the prisoner group were “arrested” at their homes and “charged” with armed robbery. With the assistance of the Palo Alto Police Department, the prisoners had their “mug-shots” taken at the station and were fingerprinted, strip-searched, sprayed for lice, and given their uniform (ill-fitting hospital gowns, knit-type caps, and no underwear) that were marked with their “prisoner number.” With a chain around their ankles, the prisoners were blindfolded and taken to the simulated “prison” in the basement of the psychology building on the Stanford campus.
Evil Interactions
In order to erase the prisoners’ sense of individual identity, the guards were to refer to the prisoners by number rather than by name. Repeatedly, the guards had the prisoners “count-off” and they were forced into extended exercising for any errors. As mattresses were valued in the prison, guards would remove them as punishment, forcing the prisoners to sleep on the cold concrete floor. Other forms of depersonalizing and degrading punishments were also employed by the guards. For example, they made some prisoners wear paper bags over their heads; took uniform/gowns away from the prisoners; and some guards forced prisoners into simulating homosexual acts, and some prevented prisoners from using the bathroom.
By only the second day the prisoners were planning a riot. In response, the guards agreed to work “overtime” without compensation and ultimately used fire extinguishers to “calm” them. By the fourth day some of the prisoners were planning to “escape,” in response to which some of the guards (especially one) became increasingly malevolent. At this point, the “superintendent” and “warden” offered the prisoners the option of parole, which they could only obtain by forfeiting their full stipend.
Although some of the prisoners had accepted the terms of parole and signed away their pay, the option of parole was revoked. Despite this, none of the prisoners asked to leave the experiment. Around this time a new prisoner was introduced to the prison. He immediately began objecting to how the guards were treating the prisoners, which only served to increase the guards’ mistreatment. The new inmate went on a “hunger strike” for which the guards placed him in “solitary confinement” (that is, a closet). In an effort to create division between the prisoners, they were told the only way the new prisoner would be able to get out of solitary would be for all of them to give up their blankets; all but one refused to do so.
Numerous people (not associated with the study) had observed the “prison” but not one commented on the conditions under which the prisoners were living or how the guards were behaving. Only one person questioned the ethics or morality of the experiment, a female graduate student Zimbardo was dating at the time (and later married) and had brought in to the study to conduct interviews. Because of her concerns, after only 6 days Zimbardo ended the study. At their exit, many of the prisoners were showing signs of traumatization, while most of the guards were upset that the study had been shut down.
Putting Evil in Context
During the 6 days of the study (known as the Stanford Prison Experiment [SPE]), approximately one-third of the guards exhibited “sadistic” behaviors. Zimbardo felt this was the result of the guards’ inability to resist the pressure of their role. Believing that people lose their ability to exercise moral judgment once in a group, he asserted that groups are inheiendy dangerous. Zimbardo concluded that when groups of people have unequal power, cruel and vile behavior would be the “natural,” inevitable expression of those in the role or group with power. In other words, Zimbardo believed his study demonstrated that violence or extreme behaviors were the direct result of situational factors, rather than a reflection of the dispositions or personalities of the group members.
Although the guards’ tyrannical behavior may have been a “natura I” reaction to the dynamics of the inherent power differential, it is also possible that it was due to any number or combination of other causes not accounted for by Zimbardo. The most obvious possibility is related to the fact that Zimbardo did not truly allow the dynamics of differential power to evolve independently. Instead, he literally set the stage for abuse in his “orientation” for the guards. As such, the guards may merely have been responding to Zimbardo’s instructions and doing their best to comply and conform to what they believed was expected of them. If so, and at least in terms of the guards, the study was of how readily people would realize Zimbardo’s vision of a prison.
Another possible explanation for the brutality seen in the SPE is that the participants had more vulnerability to, or propensity for, cruelty than the screening methods were able to detect. This is especially so given the ad Zimbardo used to recruit subjects specifically indicated that the volunteers would be participating in a prison study. The issue of possible selection bias is borne out by a study conducted at Western Kentucky University. Having recruited subjects using two ads, one with and one without the words “prison life,” the researchers found that the students who volunteered for the “prison life” study possessed underlying propensities for violent or abusive behavior (such as social dominance, narcissism, aggressiveness, and the absence of empathy) (Carnahan & McFarland, 2007).
As “superintendent” of the prison, Zimbardo was a participant in his own study but was not part of the “guard” group. That is, he was not directly involved in the mistreatment of the prisoners. Despite this seeming detachment, Zimbardo did not independently perceive the immediate need to terminate the experiment, nor did any of his research assistants. The researchers were essentially vicarious participants in the mistreatment, suggesting they may have created a climate or culture of abuse prior to the onset of the project.
Of note, Zimbardo did not account for the twothirds of the guards that did not behave inhumanely towards the prisoners. Many of those guards asserted their authority, but with fairness. Others were quite kind to the prisoners and actually did them favors. Rather than indicating that a group with power over another group is dangerous, the results of the SPE might have been interpreted as supporting the premise that groups can foster prosocial behavior, reinforcing moral judgment.
The ‘ReafityOf Evil
In May of 2002 the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) aired “The Experiment,” a reality show that chronicled the research of Alex Haslam and Steve Reicher, both psychology professors at universities in England (Reicher & Haslam, 2006a, 2006b; Haslam & Reicher, 2005). Funded by the BBC, the study was an effort to gain a fuller understanding of the results of the SPE. Where Zimbardo focused his findings on the “evil” side of internalized group membership, Haslam and Reicher believed that pro-social empowerment or resistance to tyranny can also be motivated by group membership.
Unlike the SPE, the researchers did not take an active role in the study, and (among other safeguards) they had an independent ethics committee that was fully empowered to end the experiment at any time should they deem it necessary. In addition, the participants underwent daily physiological and psychological screenings to assess for any changes in their status. Another significant difference between the SPE and the BBC Prison Study (as it became known) was that, initially, the prisoners had an opportunity to be “promoted” to the position of guard.
The hypothesis being tested was that as long as the prisoners had the possibility of promotion, they would not fully accept the prisoner-group identity. At the beginning of the study the prisoners were very compliant and focused on earning a promotion. As soon as the option for promotion was removed, the prisoners became increasingly uncooperative and resistant towards the guards. At the same time, in addition to becoming more positive and empowered, the prisoners became increasingly organized and effective as a group.
On the other side, the guards were unable to reach a consensus regarding how to exercise their authority; that is, they never developed or established a shared identity. As a result, as a group the guards were disorganized and unable to maintain order among the prisoners. Psychologically, they showed signs of increasing despondency and “burn-out.” As might be expected, by the sixth day, the prisoners had organized an “escape” and after its attempt, the groups spontaneously began creating a more egalitarian system.
Although there was some self-governing or self-disciplining among the prisoners, there were some guards who remained unable or unwilling to use their authority or power. Among the guards a sub-group developed that included some of the prisoners that had been promoted. This emerging guard-group wanted to take a more rigid and harsh approach to running the prison. Surprisingly, those guards who had supported the egalitarian structure not only did not fight to maintain the status quo, but actually adapted to the “new order” sub-group. Seeing the direction in which the prison environment was inevitably moving, the study was terminated before its scheduled end date.
Although both the SPE and the BBC Prison Study ended early, Haslam and Reicher believed the results of their study were not the natural outcome of group assignment and mindless participation. Instead, they concluded their outcome reflected the result of the guards’ inability to form a shared vision and the egalitarian group’s (which included some guards) inability to turn their vision into reality. Consistent withTajfel and Turner’s (1979) social identity theory, Haslam and Reicher assert that groups represent collective self-realization, and when a unified value or belief system is not manifested, individual members become increasingly willing to adopt those of another, seemingly more functional group. Although Haslam and Reicher acknowledge that context has an effect on individual and group behavior, they are not of the opinion that it is always and only in the direction of misconduct and brutality.
Good Born of Evil
Both prison studies demonstrated that under some circumstances, some individuals resist going-with-theflow of group-associated brutality. Both studies focus on the group itself as a causative factor, that is, via mere membership or via assimilation of group identity. Both studies also point to the importance of leadership of, and within, groups.
In the BBC Prison Experiment, the participants knew their behavior would be seen by a public audience that would indude family and friends. This knowledge undoubtedly affected both guards and prisoners, perhaps inhibiting violence from the guards and keeping the prisoners from complete loss of self. In the SPE, the participants also knew they were being observed, but in this case, by “superiors” who directly and tacitly condoned psychological and physical mistreatment.
How an individual behaves often varies based on who the individual knows or believes will be witness (at the time or after-thefact) to their behavior. As such, if a person with authority over a group of individuals varies in their zero-tolerance stance towards brutality, then brutality may emerge. This is especially so if pro-social values have not been instilled in the group.
Zimbardo felt tyranny evolved “naturally” in groups with unequal power. While it might not be “inevitable” as Zimbardo asserts, in light of World War II, brutality may result when unequal power is combined with the perception of unequal humanity. That is, when a group with power perceives a group with lesser power as “sub-human” in some way. In terms of inmates, guards and inmates are not equal in terms of socially conferred status, but are equally human. However, as the statistics show, they are not always treated as such.
In being sentenced to prison, inmates lose their liberty and, for the duration of their incarceration, guards control inmates’ freedoms. From birth to death, people seem to have an inherent need to exert control over their self and the world in which the self exists. Even infants seemingly rebd in an attempt to influence their environment. Individuals in a dosed environment where the option of obedience is all that is left of free will may soon come to fed and act like “caged animals.” If dehumanization of prisoners has been sanctioned in any way by prison hierarchy, the result may well be violence by guards and prisoners alike.
Ending Evil
In 1979, Australian researchers conducted a prison study in which they created three different types of prisons (Lovibond, Mit h iran & Adams, 1979). The first type was a simulation of a “standard custodial” medium security prison in Australia. The second, or “individualized custodial,” added training for the guards that focused on teaching them how to encourage and reinforce the self-respect of prisoners, while maintaining security. The third type, or “participatory” prison, removed the focus on security and trained the guards to encourage and reinforce pro-social and responsible prisoner behavior. In this prison, the guards were taught to respect the inmates, see their individuality, and to indude them in decision-making. As might be expected, the violence exhibited by both guards and prisoners varied across prison types. The greatest brutality was seen in the “standard custodial” prison, and the least was seen in the “participatory” prison.
Certainly the incidence of excessive violence against inmates can be reduced, creating a more stable and safe prison environment. Perhaps the first step might be to ensure that guards, as a group, have a shared vision of the purpose of prison, the role of authority, and the “value” of prisoners as individual humanbeings. This vision must be overdy and tacitly upheld by superiors within the prison system, who actively monitor that the guards retain their own sense of humanity.
Violence and extreme behaviors by guards against inmates have many sources. These indude individual pathology, lack of accountability, Machiavellian leadership that condones tyranny, and a combination of other factors. In the prison studies mentioned here, it was not surprising that seemingly good people committed evil acts as individuals or a group. The most surprising finding was that in the face of such behavior, so few people acted proactively and humanely in response. Perhaps the adage is true, that real evil exists and flourishes when good people do nothing.