Prison Violence: Does Brutality Come with the Badge - Article Example

Prison Violence: Article Summary Bruce Gross delves into the concept and possible causes of prison violence in his article “Prison Violence: Does Brutality Come with the Badge?” Gross cites various studies that involved participants taking on the role of either a guard or a prisoner in controlled and experimental prison environments. These studies were conducted for the sole purpose of researchers attempting to understand why prison guards may act violently toward their prisoners, especially since the prisoners are in protected environments.

The individuals were investigated to determine what, if anything, in their environment, instruction, or in their groupthink prompted them to behave as they did during the course of the studies. Since the implementation of the 8th Amendment to our Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, there seems to only be a rise in the maltreatment of prisoners around the world (Gross, 2008). Prisoners would be choked, punched, kicked, and bludgeoned with objects for any behavior that guards would deem out of line, and the guards would often attack with such ease.

This fact is what prompted psychologists to conduct studies to see why violence prevails in prison on behalf of the guards. The first study was undergone in 1961 by Yale University psychology professor Stanley Milgram, who divided his subjects into two groups: teachers and learners. The teachers were allowed to administer shocks to the learners when they made a mistake, a task that they were more than happy to oblige, even knowing that some of the learners alleged to have heart troubles. The conclusion of this study was that evil might be more typical than we are willing to believe.

The most famous of these studies took place in 1971 by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo, and become known as the Stanford Prison Experiment. Using the basement of the psychology building at Stanford, Zimbardo created a prison environment and enlisted twenty-four volunteers to take on the roles of prisoners and guards. The guards were given the sole instruction to not physically harm the prisoners. In only a matter of days, the guards had successfully mistreated their prisoners, taking on their roles so perfectly and without little transition from mere study participant to violent guard, that the experiment was shut down after only six days.

Zimbardo drew many conclusions based on the behaviors of his guard, but most seemed to return to the same concept: people tend to adapt to situations, taking on the behavior that the moment requires, behaviors that are increased in groups. Another study took place in May of 2002 that was undergone by Alex Haslam and Steve Reicher, psychology professors at England universities. This study was similar to the previous ones except that the prisoners were given the opportunity to be prompted to guard.

The prisoners complied with the orders of the guard, eager to receive the promotion. When opportunity for promotion was revoked, the prisoners began to act like prisoners, becoming resistant toward the guards. The guards did not have a shared vision on how to control their prisoners, and did not adapt as willingly to their roles as the prisoners did, who did have a shared vision of gaining their promotions into the guard. Each study revealed a new facet of the face of evil and each summed up the belief that evil is fairly normal given the situation.

In all cited studies, guards took on their expected roles and so did the prisoners; it can be assumed that those who had been guards would act differently, and accordingly, if they were given the role of a prisoner. It all comes down to the situation, the expected behavior of the individual or group, and the influence of the group (Wade & Tavris, 2011) . As such, the guards in these studies adopted brutal behaviors to maintain order and balance because such behavior allowed them to assert their authority, just as guards might do in a real prison setting.

Though these studies did not arrive at one conclusion as to what prompts evil in a prison guard, they did offer plenty of insight to determine what may cause evil behavior in individuals, which can help provide prevention opportunities to ensure that evil can become limited.ReferencesGross, B. (2008). Prison violence: Does brutality come with the badge? Forensic Examiner, 17(4), 21-27.Wade, C., & Tavris, C. (2011). Psychology (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.