Real-Life vs. Simulated Prison: Stanford Experiment

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Crime and punishment has always been a debated issue in our society. One of the issues is how should prisons treat people who had committed crime. Social standards concerning the nature of punishment and justice have been intensely discussed and studied as to which is more appropriate and which is more just. In 1968, Herbert Packer characterized correctional policy and legal sanctions in civilized societies as a continuous compromise between societys need for social order and the value of social justice.

Packer called these two competing philosophies crime control and due process. Haney (1997) maintained that the get-tough movement and our evolving standards of punishment over the years has virtually suspended the debate on alternatives to incarceration. The public not only has been kept ignorant of the harm that prisons can do, but they have been convinced that cruel treatment is a carefully considered, effective, and perhaps even the only viable strategy to be followed in achieving meaningful crime control (Haney, 1997, p. 505).

However, in 1971, Philip Zimbardo, a professor at Stanford University, conducted a prison experiment controversially represented prison life to the extreme. Zimbardo (1972) solicited and paid student volunteers to act as either prison guards or prisoners. A prison was constructed in several rooms in the basement of a building on the Stanford University campus. Some students were designated as guards, while others were designated as prisoners. The experiment was designed to last 2 weeks. Prisoners were issued inmate jump suits, while guards were issued guard uniforms, nightsticks, and other guard-related equipment. Prisoners were fed regularly, and they had bathroom facilities and cots. Zimbardo wanted to study the interaction patterns of prison guards and inmates through this simulation.

After the student volunteers were chosen, either as prisoners or guards, they began to play out their roles. Guards became increasingly abusive, both physically and verbally. Prisoners were dehumanized and began to act both passive and hostile toward their keepers. Peace-loving young men were behaving sadistically in their role as guards, inflicting humiliation and pain and suffering on other young men who had the inferior status of prisoner. Some guards even reported enjoying doing so.

Many of the intelligent, healthy college students who were occupying the role of prisoner showed signs of emotional breakdown (i. e., stress disorders) so extreme that five of them had to be removed from the experiment within that first week. The prisoners who adapted better to the situation were those who mindlessly followed orders and who allowed the guards to dehumanize and degrade them ever more with each passing day and night (Miller 2004, p. 40).

Because of the unexpected outcome, the experiment was short-lived when the emotional strain became too much for some of the prisoners. After only 6 days, Zimbardo terminated the experiment because of certain adverse effects observed among the various student participants.

Zimbardo was also criticized for this research, since the emotional states of experimental subjects were altered in different ways. Zimbardo defended his research, observing that the students had knowingly volunteered for the experiment and were, in fact, being paid well for their participation. He contended that it was never his intention that anyone would be physically injured or psychologically abused as the result of the experiment. However, evidence to the contrary suggested that several students emerged from the experiment with serious emotional scars.

For me, Zimbardos experiment was not realistic right from the very start. It did not represent the real score of how prison officers treat inmates in real-life. Abuse and maltreatment were tolerated in the experiment. In my job as a jail worker, real-life prison officers could not take abusive on inmates because they follow a code of ethics. Barrier, et al. (1999) described the elements important in the code of ethics of prison officers:

Acting professionally.
Showing respect for inmates and workers.
Maintaining honesty and integrity.
Being consistent.
Acting impartially.
Being assertive but not aggressive.
Confronting bad behavior but reinforcing good behavior.
Standardizing rule enforcement.
Respecting others.
Practicing the golden rule.
Encouraging teamwork.
Using professional language.
Telling inmates the truth.
Admitting mistakes.

It is said that a good correctional officer is described as one who treats all inmates fairly with no favoritism, but who does not always follow rules to the letter. Discretion is used judicially; when a good officer makes a decision to bypass rules, all involved tend to agree that it is the right decision. A good officer is not quick to use force, nor afraid of force if it becomes necessary. A good officer treats inmates in a professional manner and gives them the respect they deserve as human beings.

A good officer will treat the inmate in the way anyone would like to be treated; if the inmate abuses the officer, then that inmate earns different treatment, but it is through formal channels, not informal. In some cases such an officer will go far outside regular duties to aid an inmate who is sincerely in need; however, he or she can detect game playing and cannot be manipulated. These traitsconsistency, fairness, and flexibilityare confirmed as valuable by research (Johnson 1996, p. 139).Although many officers in prisons reach this ideal, the trend today seems to be a less honorable approach to the position because of the pressures of the job (Conover, 2000).

So in real-life prison, correctional officers have strived to become role models for inmates. Officers, of course, are only humans and they can respond differently to the demands and job pressures of corrections. Officers fall into various adaptational types: some are violence-prone, using the role of correctional officer to act out an authoritarian role; another type serves time in prison much the same way as the inmates do, avoiding trouble and hoping that nothing goes wrong on their shift; and other officers seek to enlarge their job description and perceive their role as including counseling and helping the inmate rather than merely locking doors and signing passes.

This type of officer has been called the human service officer and incorporates the tasks of providing goods and services, acting as a referral agent or advocate, and helping with institutional adjustment problems (Johnson, 1996).

Also, in real life jail where I work, inmates have been accosted their rights which are protected by Constitution. They have privileges like being able to watch TV, video games and reading material. Inmate population is the only population in USA to receive guaranteed healthcare, free of cost. This is contrary to what Zimbardo represented in his experiment because the prisoners were tortured. It is clear that Zimbardos experiment did not only misrepresented prisons in real-life, but his research certainly generated harmful effects upon human subjects who had undergone it. We cannot possibly know all of the potential adverse consequences of conducting experiments involving human subjects, regardless of how innocent our research objectives and procedures may appear.

Prison officers can take abuse of their power but not to the extent of what Zimbardo achieved in his experiment. Correctional officers follow a code of ethics that they needed to follow, unless they wanted to be kicked out of their jobs. Prisoners have human rights and they needed to be treated with respect like regular human beings. In real life, the criminal justice system will never tolerate abuse and maltreatment of inmates.

Works Cited

Barrier, G., Stohr, M., Hemmons, C. and Marsh, R. A Practical Users Guide: Idahos Method for Implementing Ethical Behavior in a Correctional Setting. Corrections Compendium 24.4 (April 1999):1-3.

Conover, Ted. New Jack: Guarding Sing Sing, NYC: Random House, 2000.

Haney, Craig. Psychology and the Limits to Prison Pain: Confronting the Coming Crisis in Eighth Amendment Law. Psychology, Public Policy and Law 3.4(1997): 499588.

Johnson, Robert. Hard Time: Understanding and Reforming the Prison. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co, 1996.

Miller, Arthur G. (Ed). Social Psychology of Good and Evil. NYC: Guilford Publications, Incorporated, 2004.

Click Here To Order Now!

Real-Life vs. Simulated Prison: Stanford Experiment

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)