Human Experimentation

However, there may also be risks in the research which would require careful planning so that no inmate would be offended resulting in officer retaliation from this research. This planning mandates that the steps that are identified as a probable risk (known observation) would be mitigated to reduce that risk. Observing correctional officers use force as it happens could create potential risks that include: the researchers could be put in harm’s way by the onset or during the confrontation of either the correctional officer or the inmate ("Hudson v. McMillian,"

This Stanford Experiment violated a few of the Five General Principles of Ethics. The young men were offered $15 a day to participate in a study that lasted for one to two weeks that “wanted to see what they psychological effects were of becoming a prisoner or prison guard” (Zimbardo, 1999). One being “Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence” which

The Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment has to be one of the cruelest and disturbing experiments I have witnessed since the Milgram experiment. This experiment was pushed far beyond its means and went extremely too far. I know experiments in 1971 weren’t as thorough and strategic as today's but I know today's rules and regulations never allow cruel and unusual punish just to test out one’s theory’s. I don’t believe criminologists should be permitted to conduct replications of Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment. I also know that the ACJS and other organizations who set the rules and guidelines for experiments would not promote or condone an experiment that is dangerous and is unethical such as Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment. There were no boundaries or a level

Although prisoners give consent, I don’t believe many are voluntarily giving consent, but are being forced to or being persuaded into giving consent since they have free time and require little compensation (Nelson Merz, 69). I do not believe it is right to make a prisoner do something he does not want to do just because there is a subject needed for research. Also, prisoners may give consent to have a little freedom from their everyday environment. “Special concerns arose in the aftermath of Nazi medical experiments during World War II, which resulted in the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki” (Raab). The Nuremburg Code was brought upon to protect the prisoner subjects from harm and to give them protection from being forced to consent in research. It also protects prisoners from being a population that is turned to for experimental subjects in research. The poor population will easily give consent to a research experiment because they will easily get money due to their voluntary role in the experiment. Although the money compensation sounds great to the unfortunate populations, there is no concern, other than money, or thought put into the overall experiment outcomes. They participate in the research, but do not take into consideration the down side effect it may cause. During a research, there are many people who did not know that giving consent to a research also meant that

I agree in the fact that we should have experiments in prisons but they should be voluntary experiments. Prisoners are human beings and should be treated as such. I do not side with Cohen’s opinion that the custodial institution should be able to force an inmate into an experiment. If the experiment is ethical and follows all of the guidelines A and B that Cohen has provided in his article I do not find a problem with inmates taking advantage to help themselves as well as the greater good by participating in a medical experiment. Every human being has the capability to make their own choices in life as long as they are mentally competent. Prison is seen as a controlled environment where many inmates are willing to participate in anything that is going to benefit them financially or get them one step closer to freedom. Prison life is strenuous and endless, having the opportunity to be apart of something that has benefits attached is big for an inmate. The factors of prison encourage the inmates to want to participate in something beneficial but in the end it is their sole decision to make in order to be included in proper

Some basic prisoner’s rights are: freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, the right to communicate, and the right to medical treatment. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment falls under the eight amendment. This right is tricky because there are different definitions of what falls under the category of “cruel and unusual”. For an act to be considered cruel and unusual it is usually thought to be inhuman with no doubt about it.

The experimental study that I chose to write about is the Stanford Prison Experiment, which was run by Phillip Zimbardo. More than seventy applicants answered an ad looking for volunteers to participate in a study that tested the physiological effects of prison life. The volunteers were all given interviews and personality tests. The study was left with twenty-four male college students. For the experiment, eighteen volunteers took part, with the other volunteers being on call. The volunteers were then divided into two groups, guards and prisoners, randomly assigned by coin flips. The experiment began on August 14th, 1971 in the basement of Stanford’s psychology building. To create the prison cells for the prisoners, the doors were taken

Ethical dilemmas are one of the many sensitive issues that come with doing psychological research with human participants. As seen in several famous psychology studies such as the Stanford prison experiment, Milgram experiment, and Tuskegee experiment, ethics in psychological studies are important to protect both the individuals being subjected to research and the researcher. While these specific experiments did not include children, it does bring up an important conversation regarding ethics in research. There are several guidelines put in place by the American Psychological Association to protect humans during research. However, special considerations and guidelines are put into place when working with

Philip (2009) to try and see what was being said about prison treatment was true, this was called the Stanford prison experiment. This experiment only lasted 6 days due to the circumstances versus 6 weeks. Zimbardo had to find out whether the prisons were brutal due to the guards or due to the environment. It was clear that the role of the guards was the issue and not the environment. This was discovered when a sample was chosen from the population. Each induvial was set up to be a guard or a prisoner at random. In this study researchers got see the unfortunate power of social situations. Once prisoner and guard roles were assigned each group were told that they were being watched by the researcher and his colleagues, the guards were to not hit the prisoners, and debriefed about the experiment. Although all this was told the guards took situations into their own hands and the power took over. The guards began simply viewing them as prisoners and the prisoners began to fear the guards. It is important to note the researcher did not intervene but continued to observe when the hitting was taking place. This is particularly important because not only are the guards fitting the rod but the researcher is at fault for the fundamental attribution error but viewing the situation for what it

In the article “Wanted, Dead or Alive? Kidney Transplants in Inmates Awaiting Execution”, Jacob M. Appel argues that, despite the criminal justice system’s view that death-row inmates deserve to die, they should be given the same opportunity to extend their life as anyone else. “The United States Supreme Court has held since 1976 that prison inmates are entitled to the same medical treatment as the free public” (645).

The experimentors proposed that these reactions were caused by a loss of personal identity, dependency, emasculation and acceptance sadistic treatment from the guards and the unpredictable and arbitrary control of the prison system.

The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted by a research group led by Dr. Philip Zimbardo using Stanford students during August 14 through the 20th of 1971. Dr. Zimbardo wanted to see how people reacted when they are either put in captivity or in charge of others. The study was funded by the US Office of Naval Research and grew interest to both the US Navy and the Marine Corps for an investigation to the purpose of conflict among military guards and prisoners. In the study, 24 male students were selected out of 75 applicants to take on randomly assigned roles. One of the surprises of the study was how participants quickly adapted to roles well beyond expectations. After the first eight hours, the experiment turned to be a joke and nobody was taking it seriously but then prisoners

For the debate, my side was the Opposition, which means that I am against human experimentation. I think it is wrong because there are people who have died and suffered through torture. My evidence consists of electroshock therapy on kids, the CIA drugging citizens, and Japanese research.

Throughout the ages, many experiments have been performed on willing and unwilling participants. Some experiments happened to be non-harming, while others caused much distress, pain, and sometimes death to the subjects. Human experimentation today has greatly transitioned due to past experiences for the better of the participants. Some of the past experiments that brought upon the changes in laws and standards were the Little Albert Experiment, Stanford Prison Experiment, human vivisection, and the Tuskegee Experiments. Safety has become the major concept in the laws for human experimentation due because of many experiments in the fields of medical and psychological studies. With the standards in experimentation

In 1971 Philip Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) in the basement of Stanford University as a mock prison. Zimbardo’s aim was to examine the effect of roles, to see what happens when you put good people in an evil place and to see how this effects tyranny. He needed participants to be either ‘prisoners’ or ‘guards’ and recruited them through an advertisement, 75 male college students responded and 24 healthy males were chosen and were randomly allocated roles. Zimbardo wanted to encourage deindividuation by giving participants different uniforms and different living conditions (the guards had luxuries and the prisoners were living as real prisoners). The guards quickly began acting authoritarian, being aggressive towards the prisoners and giving them punishments causing physical and emotional breakdowns. Zimbardo’s intention was for his study to last for 2 weeks, however, it