Why Do Good People Do Bad Things

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

Uniforms are argued to positively affect student safety by: lowering student victimization, decreasing gang activity and fights and differentiating strangers from students in school building. Dress codes in public schools would be good, in order to cut down the violence, which would eliminate the problems of

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

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

8. In 2003 U.S. soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners held at Abu Ghraib, 20 miles west of Baghdad. The prisoners were stripped, made to wear bags over their heads, and sexually humiliated while the guards laughed and took photographs. How is this abuse similar to or different from what took place in the Stanford Prison Experiment?

The organization of the essay is impressive. The introduction is effective in grasping the audiences’ attention. Mae begins the essay by giving information about the topic. She states that “[i]n 2004, when the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib became known, many Americans became concerned that the government was using torture as part of its interrogation of war-on-terror detainees.” This quote makes readers want to read further into the essay, and it also shows how the topic of essay is

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,

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.

She begins recounting the notorious details, how innocent college students labeled prisoners and guards displayed psychological abuse after only six days of confinement, and makes reference to Stanley Milgram’s obedience study and Abu Ghraib, where similar maltreatment, perceived or real, was conducted on civilians by civilians. She addresses and refutes the accepted belief that the Stanford Prison Experiment proved that anyone could become a tyrant when given or instructed by a source of authority. Instead, she suggests that Zimbardo’s inquiry points toward but does not land on one exact conclusion. She explains the influence of the setting, the presentation of the roles, Zimbardo’s participation, and perhaps a sense of expectation felt, all of which can be reflected in the shocking behavior of a few guards. She argues that it should not have been so shocking. Konnikova discredits the neutrality of Zimbardo’s experiment by insisting that people who would respond to an ad for a psychological study of prison life were not “normal” people. However, with her diction and choice of evidence she displaces the study's culpability in a way that ultimately blurs and undermines her claim.

Good people do bad things. Doing a bad thing does not make someone a monster. For example, if a young boy was raised in the ghetto where he and his family never had enough to eat he might have to steal to get for his family. Even though he has done something illegal and immoral that does not make him a bad person. He was just doing what he had to do to get his family food to eat. Even if he kills someone in the process of sealing the food it does not make him a monster. This kid just made a bad choice in an awful situation but he made the choice for the right reason, to feed his family. Victor Frankenstein’s creation, the “monster”, was not all bad. The made some bad choices because of how he was created and how he was treated by Victor after he was created.

There are different types of people in the world, as they all have different behavior, personality, and culture. Everyone has a different view of what makes good people do bad things. It is amazing how such calm and nice people turn into such a bad people. There must be a psychology reason in order for them to turn like this. There are some factors I would like to know and also discuss of why people behave this way. Therefore, a person with different behavior makes them act different and hence, that impacts on a person’s personality which makes them turn from good person to bad person.

The events that took place in Abu Ghraib and the disastrous results of the Stanford prison experiment are related because of their determining factors. The drastic actions that took place can be tied into the routine activities theory. As stated previously, these events are based on not having anyone suitable in control, which can also tie into the mistreatment of children or the elderly by their in-home care person(s).

The “Torture at Abu Ghraib” was a horrible event that took place around 2004 where prisoners were taken and dehumanized. A total of 3,800 of detainees were in the prison when the dehumanizing was taken place by making men of Islamic culture preform homosexual acts on each other. In addition to this, the guards of the prison would have these people completely nude and chain them to the doors of the cells with others around. When the military guards were prosecuted and brought to trial because of these horrendous acts bestowed on these prisoners most of them said that they were “just following orders”. Which, as bad as it sounds, could pose an explanation for what happened at the Abu Ghraib prison. More into this, a researcher by the name of

The Abu Ghraib prisoners were getting beaten and getting humiliated. The guards were taking nude pictures of them, beating them until they bleed, making fun of them until they feel no self-worth and much more. I feel that the Stanford prison experiment was less sever, even

Supporters of uniforms would argue that without consistency and equality there can be interruption in the learning process. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution gives all people the right to express themselves freely. We are told to be ourselves and to not conform to the ways of society, by expressing ourselves. Then we are told that we cannot be ourselves and have to listen to how others tell us we are supposed to be. How are we supposed to know what to do and how “to be ourselves” when the tables are being constantly turned