The Stanford Prison Experiment: Movie Analysis

He started to behave in a way that was cruel and far harsher than the rest of the guards and at the end of the experiment claimed it was because he was conducting his own experiment to see how far they would let him go until they retaliated. The way he behaved portrayed that, even though he might not have come into the experiment with the intention to release that behavior from within, but his actions became a roll that he took too far. A sociocultural component shown in the film were the ways that the volunteer guards interpreted the stigmas around being a prison guard. That they should be cold, strict, and unnervingly verbally abusive. Time upon time in the film, the volunteer guards were verbally abusive of their power with the prisoners.

He would: try to avoid other inmates, escape prison, and even put himself in harm’s hands just so that he would be given a shot to harm the guards. Although, just like how Earle described it, “somewhere along the line,

When this happens there are many ways that you can look at it, one way is to freak out and stomp off another way is to just blow it off your shoulder and not worry about what happened. You can just think that it happened for a reason. In An Episode of War, Cane stated, “Oh well,” he said tanding shamefaced amid these tears”(page 513) The outlook that the lieutenant had on losing his arm was just to be okay with it, because there was no way to change that. We may not be able to choose our own destiny but we can choose what kind of attitude we will have on the circumstance.

‘Prisoners’ were ridiculed and abused, causing them psychological and physical harm, demonstrated by the prisoner who had to leave the experiment after 36 hours. Another ethical question the experiment raises is the lack of prior knowledge of the outcome of the experiment, as Zimbardo could not accurately predict the experiment, making it unstable. At one point of the experiment, Zimbardo tried to convince the prisoner to continue to participate in the experiment, violating the participant’s withdrawal

(Atwood 231). She agreed because she knew it was risky and she did not care because it seemed odd. This leads to her having fun breaking rules because she does not know where she is going with the Commander and likes odd surprises. Strict leadership can cause rebellious acts among the people of the totalitarian government, also the leader can commit rebellious acts too. The Republic of Gilead can relate to other governments as well.

While the test subjects did in fact consent to the experiment via documents, they developed this false understanding through the experiment that they could not leave at any time, that “there was no way out”. During this time period, there were no existing laws that this experiment violated but it did pave the way for several to be introduced. For example, in the consent form it stated that the prisoners would not experience physical harm, but several days later they were brutally beaten by the guards. A few scenarios such as this one would be considered illegal with today’s legal system. One law that was created after this required federal prisons to separate minors awaiting trial from adults to avoid them suffering from abuse.

Not only are you Guilty but they must not care about anyone's Mental Sanity. If Justine was having mental issues, If she was Sick it was not fair of them to take her statement then. They should Have waited until she was in her right mind. It really seems like they were not going to give her a fair

Law acts really quickly, so by following one 's impulses could mean an assured unhappy doom. It does not take much, just patience, to be able to stop and think before acting. In the end, it is worth it, decisions taken guided by impulses and rushed are most likely to be regretted afterward. There is a clear pattern created by Romeo 's actions throughout the

If this were to happen then you would have to further step away from your moral code of ethics and torture them further or even resort to something drastic such as threatening members of their family as a demonstration of your power over them. In some cases people will say anything, to avoid being tortured. In some countries with oppressive governments, people will sometimes accuse innocent people of criminal activity in an attempt to save themselves. As a result of this innocent people are tortured until they admit to things they didn't do, and punished. Torture may not necessarily guarantee accurate or reliable information at the expense of a potentially innocent person.

Having a friend in there would help overcome the difficulties of transiting. Despite wanting a friend to cope better, be-friending someone in prison can cause conflicts. Conflicts

Ayn Rand depicts characters that make important choices; her characters select from alternatives available to them — significant and sometimes life-and-death issues. Equality 7-2521 is the most obvious example, but not the only character in the book to make such choices. He chooses to wonder about the Unspeakable Word when he could (and, according to this society, should) decide not to. He chooses to conceal both the existence of the tunnel and his experiments, refusing to bow to the Councils ' will. He chooses not to tell his captors where he has been though they torture him.

After Kevorkian served his time, he believed that it was pointless to keep advocating for assisted suicide because “if he could not fix the problem then, he would not fix it now.” Furthermore, he stated that it is up to the next generation to keep up this issue. Afterward, Kevorkian decided to travel around the country to talk about assisted suicide instead of actively participating in it. He stated that he wanted to instill this subject into the minds of the next generation so they might begin to advocate and stand up for what they believe

Among multiple issues including giving misleading information, the most dominate is the lack of consent Milgram received from his subjects to participate in such a test (102). While I do see that this is immoral, there is no way that Milgram could have completed his experiments effectively if he had done it morally. The first issue is if he explains what is actually going to happen during the experiments, that would obviously hurt the integrity of his results. Also, going back to how the experiments help us, if those who participated knew what was going to happen, it wouldn’t have affected them as severely. It was the shock that the experiment gave that brought their life choices into question.

The solutions existent to raise awareness on the issue and analyze history to learn from mistakes. In order to prevent this discrimination leading to violence, the snake’s head must be cut off. The only problem with this, however, is that labels are not going to be able to be stopped, as it seems instinct subconsciously forces mankind to do so. But, by raising awareness, the next link can be stopped. One can learn to keep these labels to oneself.

Ashley, I concur that the Stanford Prison Experiment did, in fact, violate research ethics. I believe that Zimbardo’s research experiment violated the ACJS code, specifically, the experiment did expose participants to more than a minimal risk of personal harm, and the research purposes were not fully disclosed to the participants. Zimbardo himself also admitted that his research experiment violated these standards. I further believe that Zimbardo made several errors in his research including the fact that he gave himself a position in the experiment as “prison warden”. Clearly Zimbardo should have had another person play this role so he could remain independent, an error Zimbardo also admits to having done.