I was thinking about the Iraqi prison abuse thing...Follow

Really? Suspected Iraqi militants are suddenly members of Al'Quaeda? I suppose you think Saddam had something to do with 9/11 as well.

I encourage you to keep posting. It's making my side look better and better.

And this is fact because you say so?

Back on the original post, I think the point of the experiment really shows that those who are put in positions of authority with no prior preparation or training will naturally become abusive. Of course, in the experiment Dr. Zimbardo ran, those who were made "guards" were pretty much encouraged to become abusive, so I've always felt that experiment was tainted really. It does show however, that an average person who's basically told that they are in charge of someone else in a prison type situation, will tend to fall towards abuse unless someone with autority over them sets boundaries ahead of time.

I think that's ultimately the problem here. You've got a bunch of military types who are not necessarily trained for prison detainment duty. All it takes is a few with some bizaare ideas about how prisoners should/could be treated to start this kind of abuse rolling. Others will just "go along" with the abuse because they weren't specifically told not to. It seems strange, but this type of behavior is not uncommon at all historically.

This also wreaks havoc with my "Lord of the Flies" theory.

Back to the drawing board...

Hmmm... Most prison systems throughout all history. **** concentration camps. Iraqi prisons. Um... I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single example of any sort of prison environment that did not devolve into abuse by those in authority (guards) unless someone with authority over them specifically forbade them from commiting said abuses.


Interestingly enough, the liberalism points the other way in this case. It's usually the liberals trying to promote the idea that people are somehow inherently "good" unless something comes along and makes them into bad people ("It's not his fault! It's the environment he was raised in..."). Those self same liberals are generally the ones who seem the most shocked when they are confronted by seemingly "normal" people who act in despicable ways for no apparent reason.

At what point will people realize that the "norm" for most humans is to be mean, nasty, and selfish? Environment does not make people that way. They are born that way. Environment (how they are raised) will teach them *not* to be mean. Not the other way around.

Heh. A comedian I watched once had the best line ever: "I just hate all those people who sit there and ooh and ahh over how cute and angelic a little baby is, as though it's naturally sweet and nice and innocent. Aren't they aware that that baby would strangle them to death for a cookie if only it could?...". It's a great concept. Imagine if somehow you could implant the mind of a newborn into a fully developed adult body. What would it do? Do we learn the rules of behavior because for the first several years of our lives we are utterly dependant on "authority figures" for our survival so we are forced to follow their rules? I have a suspicion that is absolutely true.

I could certainly be wrong, and I'm hardly a professional on the matter. However, it seems to me that people learn rules to counter their natural impulses, not the other way around. The world just makes a heck of a lot more sense if you think of behavior that way...

This is an age old philsophical argument. I don't think that after 3000+ years of philsophical debate people are just going to 'wake up' and accept your declaration that people are inherently evil.

"Natural" and "Abnormal" are really a matter of perspective. We're getting into societal norms here, which are inherently subjective.

My point originally is that in any given population of "guards", there will be a sufficient number of members who will utilize abuse (call it "abnormal actions" if you want), and a sufficient desire by many "guards" to just go along with whatever others are doing, that in the absense of some form of active authority to prevent such abuses, they will *always* occur. I believe there is overwhelming historical evidence to support that statement.


The fact that we just saw an example of this further supports the statement. You had a situation where probably a very small number of guards decided to abuse some prisoners. Some other guards involved used excuses that amounted to: "No one told me we weren't supposed to do this". What more evidence do you need?


We then have a post from someone who works in prison enforcement who says that that sort of thing just doesn't happen in US prisons. Do the math. What's the difference? Training and a structure of rules imposed upon the guards before they are ever given care over a prisoner.


Heh. At least that's what I believe. Seems to fit the circumstances quite well IMO.

I think all of you who have posted an opinion here should go and assault a police officer and put your theories to a test. How often do you see a police officer get assaulted? Why is there a low number of assaults against police officers?

I think this could be the same as what has happened in Iraq, I could be wrong. I don't have the patience to find out the particular facts. So, I am just going to spout off a totally unsubstantiated opinion. However, I doubt any of you can prove that this is not a plausible scenario.

You're no more right when you make this statement than a person is who argues that human beings are inherently good.

At what point will people realize that everyone is an individual, shaped by a combination of genetic factors and their environment to become the good or bad people that they are today? There is no base template that every new persons adheres to, whether good or bad.

Edited because I was feeling frisky

Edited, Wed May 5 05:17:12 2004 by danreynolds

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess it's got sumthin' to do with that shiny sidearm strapped to his hip and the radio which links him to more folks with shiny sidearms strapped to thier hips, heh. /shrug No offense, but if anyone wants to test this theory I might recommend assaulting, say... ummm... school principals or some other form of unarmed authority, heh. Yep, yep... noob. So flame away. Just don't expect me to lose any sleep over it. /grin

You all have raised some interesting points. I am new to the Forrum so will keep it simple.

Should anything like that ever happen to a prisoner? NO

Do I feel badly for them. A little.

Will I lose sleep over it? After hearring about the way they dragged the dead bodies of U.S. SOLDIERS through the town and cheer when a U.S. helicopter gets shot down or after they kidnap a Humanitarian Aid worker(s) or after they execute a contractor on camera??? HELL NO

Orrn

Have you ever seen a riot, do the cops pull out their guns and start shooting people as a deterrent? No, that is what billy-clubs are for. You have seen the clips, have you noticed that the cops don't f[b][/b]uck around? This is meant to deter people from continuing.

Can you grasp that concept? The police certainly can, deterrents are law-enforcements number one weapon in controlling the public. What happens if the public gets out of control with the present level of deterrents? How about we increase the deterrents? This is my point!

If you want me to dumb it down further just let me know.

The only question remaining is how many scapegoats they'll find.