The Stanford Prison Experiment and its implications for criminal justice

¶ … Stanford Prison Experiment: a Lesson in the Power of Situation, (Zimbardo, 2007), recounts his development of the Stanford Prison Experiment. Zimbardo recounts how at the time the direct confrontation of good vs. evil, of good people pitted against the forces inherent in bad situations, was missing from the body of social-science research. It was at this point that he decided that what he wanted to do was to create a situation in a controlled experimental setting in which we could array on one side a multitude of variables, such as role-playing, coercive rules, power differentials, anonymity, group dynamics, and dehumanization. And thus the Stanford Prison Experiment was born.

Analysis of Data

The outcome of this experiment was that the situational forces that were in play overwhelmed the goodness of most of those infected by their viral power. In the end the situation won; humanity lost. Out the window went the moral upbringings of the young men involved, as well as their middle-class civility. Power ruled, and uncontrolled power became out of control. Power without observation by higher authorities was a disillusioned prize that transformed character in random directions (Zimbardo, 2007).

The implications of this research for law are substantial, as legal scholars are beginning to distinguish. The criminal-justice system, for example, focuses mainly on individual defendants and their state of mind and mostly ignores situational forces. The Model Penal Code says that people are not guilty of an offense unless their liability is founded on conduct that comprises a voluntary act or the oversight to perform an act of which there are capable of. Humans tend to overstate the extent to which their actions are voluntary and reasonably chosen (Zimbardo, 2007).

Discussion

The Stanford prison experiment is but one of a host of studies in psychology that reveal the extent to which peoples behavior can be transformed from its usual set point to deviate in unimaginable ways. If the goals of the criminal system are simply to blame and punish individual perpetrators then focusing almost exclusively on the individual defendant makes sense. if, however, the goal is actually to reduce the behavior that is now called criminal and to assign punishments that correspond with culpability, then the criminal-justice system is obligated to confront the circumstances and the role in creating and perpetuating it.

Conclusion

The significant message then is to be sensitive about our susceptibility to subtle but influential situational forces and, by such consciousness, be more able to conquer those forces. Group pressures, power symbols, dehumanization of others, forced anonymity, leading ideologies that facilitate unauthentic ends to validate immoral means, lack of observation, and other situational forces can work to alter even some of the best of us into something that we are not.