The Chilling Torture at Abu Ghraib Prison Essay

Crime is often described as socially constructed, which influences our understanding of who commits a crime. Firstly, labelling theorists argue that crime is a social construction based on the powerful’s reaction to certain behaviour, those who are deviant are people that have been labelled as such. Marxists claim the bourgeoise construct crime in order to criminalise the proletariat, get away with their own deviance and maintain their own dominance. Neo-marxists look at how moral panics create a social construction of crime and can criminalise certain groups. Finally, feminists, argue crime is constructed in a patriarchal way and that the criminal justice system is harsher to female offenders. Whereas others criticise these theories for

In the movie, “A Few Good Men”, two types of reactions are shown in response to being part of a person’s wrongful death. Philip Zimbardo in his work, “The Stanford Prison Experiment”, provides the perspective of the guards who initiated a harsh prison environment and how they reflected upon the experience. Meanwhile a real-life scandal is analyzed by Marianne Szegedy-Maszak in “The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism”. This piece reviews the actions of soldiers in controversial situations shortly after the infamous 9-11 attacks. Repeating the military topic, Herbert C. Kelman and V. Lee Hamilton addressed Lt. Calley’s steadfast belief that he did no wrong in the Vietnam War scandal in “The My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of

This particular work will consist of a critical theoretical review and a comparative analysis on two criminological theories. For the comparison I have chosen Marx’s theory of crime and Merton’s strain theory of deviance. My critical comparison analysis will emphasise the central concepts and arguments within both theories and how each theory explains crime. The analysis will then explore modern day studies in which have stemmed from these theories as well as explore the many similarities and differences between these two theories. Exploring the strengths and weaknesses in both approaches and concluding that although both theories are

In “The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism,” Marianne Szegedy-Maszak informs the reader of the situation United States guards caused against Iraqi detainees. Under Bush’s presidency, United States soldiers brought physical abuse and humiliation upon the Abu Ghraib Prison. Szegedy-Maszak briefly analyzes the situation and compares the abuse to further scientific experiments in which test obedience. One of the experiments was the topic of another article titled, “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” written by Philip G. Zimbardo. In his work, Zimbardo discusses the experiment he held at Stanford University. A group of male students from the university were paid to participate in an experiment held in a mock prison. Half of the group

In opposition to all previous perspectives is Marxism. These theorists claim that humans are social beings and are products of their own history. As a result, it does not resolve conflicting approaches, but suggests crime is a justifiable adaptive behaviour for some groups that have been criminalised by more powerful societal members. This entails the problem of specificity, where it focuses on the whole society instead of on individuals or groups. Comparing the paradigm of human nature to Feeley and Simons’ (1992) New Penology, the notion

citizens, but it was the researchers afterwards that contributed the most startling idea. Zimbardo, the same man who ran the Stanford Prison Experiment, said in an interview with the New York Times, “Prisons tend to be brutal and abusive places unless great effort is made to control the guards’ base impulses. It’s not that we put bad apples in a good barrel. We put good apples in a bad barrel. The barrel corrupts anything that it touches” (Swhwartz, 2004 p. 2). A professor of Law at Loyola University, Marcy Strauss, studies criminal procedure and wrote a forty-two page manuscript on the lessons that should be discussed beyond news articles. Strauss said of Abu Ghraib, “Undoubtedly, these factors [poor training of guards, poor oversight and horrendous conditions] played a major role in facilitating the abuse. Correcting these conditions is imperative. But, to end the introspection there would be a mistake” (Strauss, 2005 p.9). The idea that people could be malignant under specific circumstances has been proven by Milgrams’ studies and this idea is now apparent in real life. Thus, the concern for prisons, as pointed out by both Zimbardo and Strauss, cannot simply be that the guards or correctional officers do not abuse people in the future. The issue is that the maltreatment and indignity in Abu Ghraib was a result of the poor foundation of the U.S. correctional system (Strauss,

Torture is known as the intentional infliction of either physical or psychological harm for the purpose of gaining something – typically information – from the subject for the benefit of the inflictor. Normal human morality would typically argue that this is a wrongful and horrendous act. On the contrary, to deal with the “war on terrorism” torture has begun to work its way towards being an accepted plan of action against terrorism targeting the United States. Terroristic acts perpetrate anger in individuals throughout the United States, so torture has migrated to being considered as a viable form of action through a blind eye. Suspect terrorists arguably have basic human rights and should not be put through such psychologically and physically damaging circumstances.

During the Iraq war that between 2003 and 2006, the united states army committed a series of human rights violations against prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison near Bagdad. The violations included murder, sexual and physical abuse, rape, torturer, sodomy, humiliating and dehumanizing prisoners. In 2004 the abuse that was carried out was exposed by the publication of images that were taken by the soldiers that carried out the violations. This paper will be looking at what social psychology can teach us about what happened at Abu Ghraib.

Marxist and neo-Marxist approaches and explanations of crime are arguably some of the most controversial, for the reason that they state that it is the ruling class that is responsible for criminalising the working classes, which goes directly against what official statistics and Functionalists believe. However, Marxism and Functionalism do share a similarity in that both believe structures and institutions of society play a very important role in determining how people behave, criminally or otherwise.

The Marxist viewpoint on crime is from of class and the intensification of social control of society. This viewpoint perceives capitalist societies as being breeding grounds for criminal activities. Theorists believe that only socialist societies can have any expectation of being without crime. Sheptycki (2006) states that “the roots of

Crime in the light of critical criminology is an obvious outcome of disparities established in a system. Capitalist economic policies result in economic misery among powerless class in society and certain conditions are created in which adapting the criminal behaviors become the only possible survival strategy. Critical criminology follows the Marxist approach in stating that criminal laws are based on the interests of

“Torture is ineffective as a means of extracting reliable information, and likely leads to faulty intelligence. Torture has long-term negative consequences for the mental health of both survivors and perpetrators of torture. The use of torture has far-reaching consequences for American citizens: it damages the reputation of the United States, creates hostility towards our troops, provides a pretext for cruelty against U.S. soldiers and citizens, places the U.S. in the company of some of the most oppressive regimes in the world, and undermines the credibility of the United States when it argues for international human rights.” (SPSSI) Consequently, President Obama influenced The War on Terror when he banned all use of torture as soon as he came to power in 2009.

Throughout the years, the association between a criminal offense and a criminal have become more relevant. Although there are many theories that try to illustrate the concept of why crimes happen, no theory has a profound influence of understanding an individual’s nature, relationship, development, and a society itself (Coleman & Ganong, 2014). To further explain, “theories of crime are defined in relation to modernity, spanning their development from the enlightenment to the present, with the advent of postmodernism” (Miller, 2012, p. 1798). In other words, theories of crime are an approach to understanding an individuals behaviour and actions in their environment, society, and themselves that may lead to crime. Nevertheless, within this paper, it will be comparing the case of

Social class and crime and punishment has always been an issue in the UK if not globally. For the elite, the criminal justice system serves a purpose to deter and prevent crime, but the reality is that the poor are punished for crimes they commit more so than those of a upper class who commit the same crime. The question is who is to blame for this image of the poor being criminals and the working class crime phenomenon, is it the moral Panic created by the media to distract from the reality of the white collar corporate crime being carried out by the most powerful of society or is it down to Poverty, Labelling, economic and social positioning which all contribute to deviant behaviour. The aim of this essay is to provide a critical criminological view of the punishment of the poor with a wide range of theories and ideas to contribute to the understanding of the poor being punished from the 18th century to today 's contemporary society. It will aim to develop an understanding how criminals and deviant behaviour were defined and perceived from historical periods to now.

In 1949, the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was created to prohibit immoral, cruel and degrading punishment toward prisoners during wartime. The United States ratified this covenant and became a member of the Geneva Conventions. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, a series of human abuses occurred from October through December of 2003 where American military personnel have conducted acts of brutality and immoral behavior toward Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison. The inhumane “interrogation method” of the American military have clearly violated Article 2 and 4 of the Geneva Conventions. Article 2.2 states “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state