More handpicked essays just for you.
Biological, psychological, and environmental factors of crime
How biological and psychological relate to crime
Biological sociological and psychological crime theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Abu Ghraib: Sociological and Theological Interpretation Boys of Abu Ghraib is a movie about the war crimes committed by American soldiers on Baghdad soil. These war crimes shocked the nation because no one believed that Americans could be capable of such heinous acts, while others believed the prisoners had it coming of them and they deserved it. Abu Ghraib was a military prison in the west of Baghdad for Iraqi citizens who were thought to be suspected terrorists. This prison is known for being one of the most notorious prisons due to the immense amount of torture, violence, executions, and atrocious living conditions. The detainee’s were forced to pile on top of each other, forced to stay naked for days at a time, attaching wires to their …show more content…
hands and feet including their genitals to be electrocuted, sodomy, rape, and more, all while being photographed and videotaped. Although these events occurred after 9/11, the soldiers actions were far from acceptable. The Boys of Abu Ghraib has a structural approach, the boys were the criminals. First, the soldiers saw first-hand what happened in 9/11. So not only were troops already angry and determined to make up for their lost family members, friends, and fellow Americans, but enraged civilians also joined the military to defend their country. Abu Ghraib was only 20 miles outside of Bagdhad which the sergeant in the movie stated is “one of the most dangerous cities in the world… receiving constant mortar fire” (Ennis & Moran, 2014). The living condition for most citizens was poverty, low-income neighborhoods, with lack of jobs, healthcare and education which promotes higher rates of crime. So the soldiers there see these living conditions while living it themselves as well. No one knew who exactly was in charge of the military prison which led to a confusion of authority, the soldiers were pressured to get intel and information from the Iraqi prisoners who could not possibly even give them the information wanted, and lack of familiarity with the Geneva Conventions and Army Field Manual (Lorenzo et al, 2008). The Anomie Theory, developed by French sociologist Emile Durkheim, is the lack of “normal” ethical and social expectations from a person. Durkheim defines normlessness as “a state where the expectations of behavior are unclear, and the system has broken down” (Esposito, 2017). Due to the disorganization at the prison, things quickly got out of hand which (anomie) leads to “suffering and distress” (Lorenzo et al, 2008). Durkheim’s theory was also used in the Zimbardo prison experiment which correlates with the psychological and physical abuse that occurred at Abu Ghraib. Philip Zimbardo found that people will do anything if ordered. Jack, the protagonist of the movie, was told he should let the prisoners freeze, not let them sleep, shove their faces into their own waste buckets, etc. Eventually, Jack did all these things. Social roles, whether dominant vs subordinate influence human behavior and it also depends on the circumstances and situations people are placed in. After one of the soldiers showed him around the prison, Jack asked “We supposed to be doing this?” and the soldier responded “hell yeah were supposed to be doing this… you get used to it” (Ennis & Moran, 2014). Zimbardo also learned that one does not have to be “abnormal” to be cruel and insensitive.
According to Cesare Lombroso, criminals commit crime not because of free will and rationale but because of their biology. The soldiers at Abu Ghraib or soldiers stationed at any base within any branch, each person must pass a physical medical exam. All the soldiers at Abu Ghraib were in boots camp for about 3 months. These are all soldiers who have been checked out to be stable men who are fit for the military. Psychoanalytic explanations are negative childhood experiences, undeveloped cognitive approach and lacking of moral development. Although these men could have had either of these but these men were driven by the hatred towards arabs and learned the aggression from their trainers. Zimbardo challenges Lombroso’s biological approach and the psychoanalytic explanations because he found that human behavior often depends on circumstance and the situation people are put in. As the student “guards” in the Zimbardo experiment and Abu Ghraib, they were given so much power and authority, that they easily and quickly abused it. This too occurred in Boys of Abu Ghraib. Jacks trainer told him that each block wass supposed to be stationed with two men, but they did not have enough men so Jack would have to stay in the block alone full of suspected terrorists. Jack was solely in charge of the whole entire block; no one was watching over him or giving him limits. He was actually encouraged by the other soldiers to torture the arabs. The theory of deviant places states that crime rates are influenced by kinds of places rather than kinds of people (Esposito, 2017) So, the environment which Jack was in which was dirty, dilapidated, and surrounded by “hajis” is a big factor on why Jack and the other soldiers committed these crimes. The soldiers learned this behavior and aggression at the prison because they were surrounded by
this. The victimized group were middle eastern, mostly lower class Iraqis. The victims were women, men and children. This relates to the plot because news media tends to racialize crime (Esposito, 2017). The news media mostly covers crime committed by minorities and always emphasize on the race of the perpetrator. After 9/11, there grew a fear of middle easterners because Al-Qaeda originated in Afghanistan. The news media opens a door for labelling. The labelling theory explains the actions of people depends on how people view them. First, there is primary deviation which is when a person or group is publicly labeled to be deviant which creates prejudice against that person. Just as white Americans see black males as criminals, white Americans also view middle easterners as terrorists. This leads to prejudice and discrimination among this group of people. Many soldiers felt they were just and that these Iraqi’s “deserved” the abuse and torture. The majority of the soldiers stationed at Abu Ghraib were white and middle class males, either young adults or middle aged men. Criminals tend to have lower IQ’s (Esposito, 2017). There is an overwhelming amount of soldiers who enlist in the military after high school. The second part of the labelling process, secondary deviation, is that once a person or group is labelled, they do things to live up to the label given. For example, in the movie, Jack was one of the more pleasant guards but eventually he learned and developed the aggression and violence against the prisoners because they are “stone cold fucking murderers… planting IEDs and lobbing mortars over the wall” and was taught to show “no fucking compassion” (Ennis & Moran, 2014) Jack had to fulfill the label of being a “good soldier” and treat the prisoners the way every other soldier did - torture and abuse. In the labelling process, theres always a dominant and subordinate relationship. In this case it is Americans othering muslims because of their label as terrorists. The criminal justice system is often geared more towards deterrence rather than reconciliation. Rational choice theory’s emphasis on deterrence in that the punishment must be harsh enough that it outweighs the reward of committing the crime (Esposito, 2017). The problem with this is that deterrence does not always work, especially in this case when the people being thrown into this prison for either being suspected criminals or just pick up random civilians who usually did not have any intel. The justice system puts away men, especially, usually based on their race. Instead of using restorative justice: giving the prisoner rehabilitation, counseling, more opportunities to turn the person away from crime, uses retributive justice: punishing the offender. One could argue that the American soldiers at Abu Ghraib justified their actions or feelings towards the detainees because they were “protecting their families and fellow Americans” from the “enemies” of our countries. References Ennis, C., Moran, L. (Producers) & Moran, L. (Director). (2014) Boys of Abu Ghraib. United States: Vertical Entertainment. Esposito, L. (2007). Lecture on Sociological Theories that focus on Social Structure. Personal Collection of L. Esposito, Barry University, Miami Shores, FL. Lorenzo, R., Mestrovic, S. G. (2008). Durkheim's Concept of Anomie and the Abuse at Abu Ghraib. Journal of Classical Sociology, 8, 179-207. doi: 10.1177/1468795X08088871
In the pursuit of safety, acceptance, and the public good, many atrocities have been committed in places such as Abu Ghraib and My Lai, where simple, generally harmless people became the wiling torturers and murderers of innocent people. Many claim to have just been following orders, which illustrates a disturbing trend in both the modern military and modern societies as a whole; when forced into an obedient mindset, many normal and everyday people can become tools of destruction and sorrow, uncaringly inflicting pain and death upon the innocent.
Comparative Analysis The power of blind obedience taints individuals’ ability to clearly distinguish between right and wrong in terms of obedience, or disobedience, to an unjust superior. In the article “The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism,” Marianne Szegedy-Maszak discusses the unwarranted murder of innocent individuals due to vague orders that did not survive with certainty. Szegedy-Maszak utilizes the tactics of authorization, routinization, and dehumanization, respectively, to attempt to justify the soldiers’ heinous actions (Szegedy-Maszak 76-77). In addition, “Just Do What the Pilot Tells You” by Theodore Dalrymple distinguishes between blind disobedience and blind obedience to authority and stating that neither is superior;
The motion picture A Few Good Men challenges the question of why Marines obey their superiors’ orders without hesitation. The film illustrates a story about two Marines, Lance Corporal Harold W. Dawson and Private First Class Louden Downey charged for the murder of Private First Class William T. Santiago. Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, who is known to be lackadaisical and originally considers offering a plea bargain in order to curtail Dawson’s and Downey’s sentence, finds himself fighting for the freedom of the Marines; their argument: they simply followed the orders given for a “Code Red”. The question of why people follow any order given has attracted much speculation from the world of psychology. Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, conducted an experiment in which randomly selected students were asked to deliver “shocks” to an unknown subject when he or she answered a question wrong. In his article, “The Perils of Obedience”, Milgram concludes anyone will follow an order with the proviso that it is given by an authoritative figure. Two more psychologists that have been attracted to the question of obedience are Herbert C. Kelman, a professor at Harvard University, and V. Lee Hamilton, a professor at the University of Maryland. In their piece, Kelman and Hamilton discuss the possibilities of why the soldiers of Charlie Company slaughtered innocent old men, women, and children. The Marines from the film obeyed the ordered “Code Red” because of how they were trained, the circumstances that were presented in Guantanamo Bay, and they were simply performing their job.
Many people believe they could never commit the crime of torture; yet, Milgram, along with many others, have discovered that the converse is true. At the beginning of his piloted experiment, Milgram predicted virtually all the participants would refuse to continue. He was proven wrong when twenty-five out of forty participants continued past the point of 150 volts (80). He surmised, as the experiment progressed from the piloted study to the regular series, the total out come of average persons response was the same as they had observed in the prior study--solidifying the thought even your "average Joe" is capable of torture (81). While Milgram supports this legitimate thought with facts, stories, and examples, news and world reporter Szegedy-Maszak simply states "...Everyman is a potential torturer"(76). In correspondence with both Milgram and
Marianne Szegedy-Maszak, a senior writer at U.S. News and World, published her article, "The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism," in 2004. She uses the article to briefly overview the scandal as a whole before diving into what can trigger sadistic behavior. The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal took place in 2004, wherein American troops humiliated and tortured Iraqi detainees (Szegedy-Maszak 75). The main objective of Szegedy-Maszak’s article is to investigate the causation behind sadistic behavior, exclusively in the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal. She effectively does so by gathering information and research from professional psychologists and professors of psychology, specifically Herbert Kelman and Robert Okin (Szegedy-Maszak 76). She finds
Twenty-four average men were entered into a fake prison setting, twelve of which who had been given the role of prisoner and twelve with the role of guard. Throughout the course of the experiment we see the environment effect negatively on the actions of the group of guards, clearly demonstrating that situational forces can force a person to cross the line between good and evil. We see this heavily embodied in the guard Dave Eshelman AKA ‘John Wayne’ – nicknamed by the prisoners in the study – the most brutal guard of them all, the one who demonstrated all the findings on the influence of power and authority and human behaviour. “I was kind of running my own experiment in there, by saying, “How far can I push these things and how much abuse will these people take before they say, ‘knock it off?'” But the other guards didn’t stop me.
“Our young research participants were not the proverbial “Bad Apples” in an otherwise good barrel. Rather, out experimental design ensured that they were initially good apples and were corrupted by the insidious power of the bad barrel, this prison (229).” Philip Zimbardo, author of The Lucifer Effect, created an experiment of twenty-four college age men. He randomly assigned these ordinary, educated, young men with a role as either Guard or Prisoner. He questions whether or not good people will do bad things if they are given the opportunity. After the experiment is complete, he begins to compare the situations that occurred in the Stanford Prison Experiment with real life situations in Abu Giraib and Guantanamo Bay Prison. He points out many similarities that parallel the Stanford Prison Experiment. In every situation depicted, there is a good person in a seemingly “bad barrel” – or a bad situation that brings bad actions out of a good person.
In this study Zimbardo chose 21 participants from a pool of 75, all male college students, screened prior for mental illness, and paid $15 per day. He then gave roles. One being a prisoner and the other being a prison guard, there were 3 guards per 8 hour shift, and 9 total prisoners. Shortly after the prisoners were arrested from their homes they were taken to the local police station, booked, processed, given proper prison attire and issued numbers for identification. Before the study, Zimbardo concocted a prison setting in the basement of a Stanford building. It was as authentic as possible to the barred doors and plain white walls. The guards were also given proper guard attire minus guns. Shortly after starting the experiment the guards and prisoners starting naturally assuming their roles, Zimbardo had intended on the experiment lasting a fortnight. Within 36 hours one prisoner had to be released due to erratic behavior. This may have stemmed from the sadistic nature the guards had adopted rather quickly, dehumanizing the prisoners through verbal, physical, and mental abuse. The prisoners also assumed their own roles rather efficiently as well. They started to rat on the other prisoners, told stories to each other about the guards, and placated the orders from the guards. After deindividuaiton occurred from the prisoners it was not long the experiment completely broke down ethically. Zimbardo, who watched through cameras in an observation type room (warden), had to put an end to the experiment long before then he intended
Now sure, the Stanford prison guards didn’t go that far as the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib but the torture and abuse towards the prisoners became worse by the day indicating they could have gone as far as Abu Ghraib. However, in both cases there are unusual punishments and cruelty. This was due to the authority allowing it, ordering it, just didn’t care or didn’t know. Like the Stanford Prison Experiment, Zimbardo didn’t do anything to stop the abuses at the mock prison but allowed it.
Stanley Milgram conducted the experiment to put participants into immoral situations to obey an authority figure of some measure, and he tested their performance and willingness, to participate in acts that strayed away from their belief of right and wrong. Zimbardo conducted an experiment in some ways similar. He conducted an experiment to see if people would assume the expected normal roles of what a prisoner is expected to do and what an authority figure like a prisoner guard is supposed to do. So both Zimbardo and Milgram at this point are trying to prove that authority and the social norm of how authorities should act generates psychological effects on their performance, as well as people who are expected to be below and obey an upper hand.
Gresham M. Sykes describes the society of captives from the inmates’ point of view. Sykes acknowledges the fact that his observations are generalizations but he feels that most inmates can agree on feelings of deprivation and frustration. As he sketches the development of physical punishment towards psychological punishment, Sykes follows that both have an enormous effect on the inmate and do not differ greatly in their cruelty.
In “The Case For Torture” an article written by Michael Levin, he attempts to justify the use of torture as a means of saving lives. Throughout the article, Levin gives the reader many hypothetical examples in which he believes torture is the only method of resolution. Though I agree with Levin, to some degree, his essay relies heavily on the fears of people and exploits them to convince people into thinking pain is the only way. In certain aspects, I could agree entirely with Levin, but when one reads deeper into the article, many fallacies become apparent. These fallacies detract from the articles academic standing and arguably renders the entire case futile. Levin’s strategy of playing with the fears of people is genius, but, with more creditable details of the issue the article would have sustained the scrutiny of more educated individuals. The addition of more concrete information, would have given people something to cling to, inherently improving the articles creditability.
Life in prison can be a difficult experience to properly comprehend as an individual who has never been behind bars or somebody who has not been subjected under criminal law and incarcerated. Researcher Muzammil Quraishi, a British Muslim has undergone a year of research from July 2001 to July 2002 investigating Muslim prisoners in the United Kingdom. Muzammil goes through numerous challenged in his year worth of research investigating a sum of three anonymous prisons. Doing such Muzammil had gone through numerous obstacles, generic research validity, to the side effects of the field research. This paper will separate three columns of obstacles Muzammil had to go through, Technical issues, which would outline the challenges, he as a researched had to adapt to due to the setting he was investigating. The second is Political issues, which mostly stem from outside interferences; most notable would be the incident on September 11, 2001. Finally, the third is administration issues, which has the spotlight on regulations Muzammil had to abide by to get on with his research in a legitimate manner.
“I would like to give you a message, please do your best to tell the world what is happening to us, the children. So that other children do not have to pass through this violence.”
The Guantanamo Bay detention camp was established as a response to the terrorist attacks on September 11th and to this day houses suspected terrorists awaiting their trials for committing acts of terrorism. Shortly after opening its doors in 2002, the camp began to be criticized for its violation of detainee’s rights, more specifically for failing to provide detainees with their charges as well as with legal counsel to challenge their imprisonment. Author Alex Gilvarry addressed these attacks in his novel, From the Memoirs of a Non-Enemy Combatant, in which the protagonist Boyet (Boy) Hernandez was unexpectedly taken into custody one night. After hours of traveling blindfolded, Boy found himself in Guantanamo Bay, and without a clue as