Introduction
Isolation is a form of punishment inflicted by various administrations on violators of various criminal justice systems or prisoners of war. It has proved to be the cause of harm in several forms. This harm takes account of a certain syndromes which has been articulated by many practitioners in a range of backgrounds, all of which have common attributes of scarce, deleterious and/or constrained environmental and societal stimulation.
In more rigorous events, these patterns are allied with disturbances, self-destructive activities and explicit psychotic ineffectiveness. Additionally, isolation often leads to severe aggravation of formerly subsisting mental states, or in the emergence of mental ailments which had not been detected before. Even amongst convicts who do not exhibit evident psychiatric disorders as a result of isolation, such detention almost inexorably inflicts major psychological harm at some stage in the period of isolated internment and often radically harms the prisoner’s ability to successfully get used to the broader prison atmosphere.
Discussion
In addition, even though many of the severe ailments experienced by these prisoners are expected to cave in upon end of isolated confinement, many — counting some who were not explicitly psychiatrically harmed during their detention in isolation — will possibly suffer long lasting harm on account of such imprisonment. This damage is most frequently evident by a sustained intolerance of social dealings, a disablement which often puts a stop to the inmate’s capability of effectively readjusting to the wider social surroundings of general populace in prison and, perhaps more notably, often rigorously spoils the inmate’s ability to reintegrate into the wider community upon his liberation from imprisonment.
In a lot of cases, inmates kept under such severe settings are particularly scared of admitting or in some cases recognizing the psychological damage or strain they are undergoing in consequence of such captivity. This unwillingness of prisoners in isolated confinement is in considerable measure a rejoinder to the insight that such imprisonment is an evident effort by the system to “break them down” (Zimbardo, 1) mentally, and in some cases, tends to be additionally rigorous when the prisoner undergoes the stringencies of his imprisonment as being the result of an subjective exploitation of power, instead of the fair upshot of an intrinsically rational process.
In addition, in isolated confinement situation, psychological health tests and inspections are frequently carried out at the cell front, instead of in a confidential surrounding, and prisoners are in general quite disinclined to reveal psychological suffering in the perspective of such an interaction, since such exchanges would without doubt be heeded by other prisoners in neighboring cells, divulging them to potential disgrace and mortification in front of their fellow convicts.
As a matter of fact, altered behavior can be observed not only amongst prison inmates, but also among those who are in charge of and run such facilities. Altered behavior among prison personnel is evident from attitudes they display with intentions visibly to control the captive inmates by means of spiritual, mental and/or physical breakdown.
This is achieved through capricious placement of inmates in isolation; exceptionally limited access to learning prospects, worship, or occupational training; corporal torture, such as enforced cell extractions, strap-downs, hog-tying, thrashing after restraint, and aggravation of hostility amongst captives; mental anguish such as sensory withdrawal, enforced idleness, oral stalking, mail rigging, revelation of classified information, assertions forced under suffering and intimidation against family members; sexual threats and brutality, by means of strip searches, spoken sexual persecution, sexual touching, and rape as a method of control.
Bearing in mind, such facts we examine the Stanford Prison Experiment which was a “simulation study of the psychology of imprisonment” (Zimbardo, 1) performed at the Stanford University. It was a classic psychology research trial, which included parallels with the maltreatment of captives at Abu Ghraib. Phil Zimbardo, a professor at the Department of Psychology at Stanford University, asserts that the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment was one of his most notable research activities.
According to him, the research experiment “was a classic demonstration of the power of social situations to distort personal identities and long cherished values and morality as students internalized situated identities in their roles as prisoners and guards.” (Zimbardo, 1) The research questions included significant concerns like “What happens when you put good people in an evil place? Does humanity win over evil, or does evil triumph?” (Zimbardo, 1)
However, the research could not be completed. The two-week long examination into the psychology of life in a prison was cut short in advance after just six days in view of what the setting was doing to the college undergraduates who were part of the research team. In just those six days, the students who were assigned the role of prison guards exhibited sadistic behavior and the students who were prisoners displayed depressed conduct and showed symptoms of extreme anxiety.
The examination of psychological aspects prison life commenced with an average grouping of 24 fit, bright, middle-class males. These individuals were randomly separated into two groups. Half were arbitrarily allocated in the role of prison guards, and the other group was assigned to be prisoners. At the commencement of the research experiment there were no intellectual differentiation amongst individuals assigned in the role of a prisoner and that of a prison guard.
In the construction of the experiment the services of experienced specialists were called upon. Leading them was an ex-prisoner who had served a term of roughly seventeen years incarcerated. This advisor made the research team conscious of aspects relating to conditions experienced by an inmate. In addition, he also introduced them to several other ex-prisoners and correctional staff. By means of several measures the group assigned to be prisoners was subjected to various forms of humiliations that real prisoners undergo. This was being done to recreate an actual prison atmosphere which is encountered by real prisoner upon their arrival at the captivation facility.
These measures included strip searches, detoxification, uniform issuing, tying a chain to the foot of the prisoner and using ID numbers to refer to a prisoner. The prison guard group was given no detailed training on how to act in that role. Rather, they were free, within confines, to act in whichever way they considered was required to uphold law and order within the facility and to command the reverence of the inmates. The group was seen to structure their own set of regulations which they subsequently put into application.
However, they were made aware of the prospective gravity of their undertaking and of the probable hazards in the condition they were about to venture into, as are real personnel who willingly take up such risky work. Initially, several events took place where the guards tried to assert their authority over prisoners. Such events presented a circumstance for the guards to implement control. In the beginning, the inmates were not entirely into their character and did not take such occasions too critically. It was observed that they were making attempts to emphasize on their individuality.
Push-ups were a frequent form of corporeal penalty forced by the prison guards to penalize violations of the regulations or displays of inappropriate approaches towards the guards. A the study progressed, these punishments became more intense as one of the guards “stepped on the prisoners’ backs while they did push-ups, or made other prisoners sit or step on the backs of fellow prisoners doing their push-ups”. (Zimbardo, 1)
Rebellious activities were noticed on the second day which was crushed with brutal force by the prison guard group. They called in reinforcements and took measures like using a fire extinguisher which blasted a flow of skin-chilling carbon dioxide that forced the prisoners clear of the prison doors. In order to handle further rebellions, guards came up with a new solution as one of them suggested, “Let’s use psychological tactics instead of physical ones.” (Zimbardo, 1) Thus various humiliating and torturous measures were taken.
During the course of the experiments various events took place which were quite revealing as well as confounding. The research tem observed through videotapes that the prison guard group was increasing their abuse of inmate at night when they deliberated that no researchers were monitoring. Possibly, their tediousness had pushed them towards increasingly pornographic and demeaning maltreatment of the inmates. In addition, given the gravity of the situation even the morality of the experiment was under the scanner. Thus the experiment ended prematurely.
Even though the experiment had an early stoppage, it offered key insights to the situation in Abu Gharib. As per CBS news reports “17 soldiers in Iraq, including a brigadier general, had been removed from duty after charges of mistreating Iraqi prisoners as some American soldiers had been abusing and humiliating Iraqis being held at a prison near Baghdad.” (Leung, 1) In an interview given to CBS, CIA Bureau Chief Bob Baer remarked, “I visited Abu Ghraib a couple of days after it was liberated. It was the most awful sight I’ve ever seen. There were bodies that were eaten by dogs, torture. You know, electrodes coming out of the walls. It was an awful place.” (Leung, 1) This statement in effect sums up the horrific settings in the prison.
One of the officers facing charges of prisoner humiliation was Army Reserve Staff Sgt. Chip Frederick. According to him the mode the Army used to run the prison causes the abuse of prisoners. He asserts that, “We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my chain of command for certain things…like rules and regulations, and it just wasn’t happening.” (Leung, 1)This statement to some extent relates to the setting of the Stanford Prison Experiment where the prison guard used various humiliating and torturous methods to control the inmates. Lawyers of those charged officers argue that, by using such measures the offenders perceived they were helping a greater cause and that is what allured them into such actions.
Conclusion
It is clear from the cases in point, the Stanford Prison Experiment as well as the Abu Gharib situation, that prison life is challenging and involves a lot of psychological happenings. These events lead to some serious offensive altered behavior on part of the people who administer and run such facilities. This in turn has a profound impact on the inmates who undergo tough conditions in separation from the society and additionally the tortures of those who are in charge.
Works cited
Leung, Rebecca. “Abuse Of Iraqi POWs By GIs Probed: 60 Minutes II Has Exclusive Report On Alleged Mistreatment”. 60 Minutes II. 2004. CBS Interactive Inc. 2009. Web.
Zimbardo, Philip. “Stanford Prison Experiment: A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment”. prisonexp. 2009. Stanford University. Web.