What the Stanford Prison Experiment teaches us about police brutality

The infamous 1971 experiment became a criticized spectacle, but it still holds real-world implications for the epidemic of excessive violence among American police departments

In the summer of 1971, 24 college men filed into the boarded-up basement of Stanford University’s psychology department building. They were joining psychologist Phil Zimbardo’s simulated prison — an experiment to study the intricacies of prison life. The men were randomly assigned into two groups — guards and prisoner — and the experiment began.

The prisoners’ heads were shaved, they were stripped and forced to wear beige prison uniforms. They were each given a convict number that became their new name. The guards were given tan guard uniforms and aviator sunglasses — a simple way to hide their eyes and coincidentally hide their identity as they adopted a new authoritative persona.

Zimbardo’s infamous experiment placed ordinary students in a realistic prison situation, aiming to discover the impacts that prisons have on individuals. He hired ex-convicts to help create an authentic environment. But Zimbardo’s simulation possibly became too authentic, as many draw parallels between the experiment and real-world cases of police brutality.

What was meant to last two weeks was cancelled after six days. The guards started taking their role too far, and many prisoners rapidly became emotionally disturbed. At first, the prisoners were subject to simple punishments like random pushup sessions at 2-o-clock in the morning. But by the second day, prisoners stopped complying, so the guards used harsher tactics. By the fifth day, prisoners were rarely allowed to use the bathroom, some were banished to solitary confinement and at times were physically harassed.

Cases of deadly violence between police officers and victims who “didn’t comply” are all too common in America. Eric Garner, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and many others all fell victim to the police’s excessive force. Unfortunately, police departments don’t get shut down after just six days.

However, even as the experiment was happening, it became a dramatized spectacle of itself. On the second day, Zimbardo sent out a press release detailing his experiment, garnering the first bit of endless press attention that this experiment would receive. Almost immediately, the experiment became a drama series. In the following years, textbooks would outline what happened in hollywood-esque dramatic detail. Even my own description makes it sound like fiction.

But in reality, it actually happened. It wasn’t just the farfetched drama that it was hyped up to be. It’s easy to forget that it was real and has real-world implications.

Eventually, over 40 years later, the reality of what truly happened in that dark basement surfaced, and criticism of the experiment’s scientific validity started to flow like The Nile.

One such critique was that the guards weren’t acting solely on impulse. In his 2019 paper “Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment,” Thibault Le Texier explains how the experiment’s officials encouraged the guard’s behavior and instructed them to be as harsh as possible. They held major influence over the guards and the prisoners, forcing the prisoners to stay despite their pleas to be sent home. They were interfering with their own experiment.

While these accounts question the experiment’s scientific value, it parallels what we see in real police departments — where the higher-ups encourage and allow officers to use excessive violence when victims aren’t complying. Even the simulated prison’s flaws highlight the flaws in our police system.

Le Texier also explains that the experiment’s most aggressive guard — nicknamed John Wayne — was only behaving the way he thought Zimbardo wanted him to. His violence wasn’t subconscious or genuine; he was simply playing the part.

But as Zimbardo points out in his response to Le Texier, what the guard did still occurred. Regardless if it was genuine or not, he used unnecessary excessive force. Even if he was playing a role, it was a convincing performance. He was behaving the way he thought guards should behave — violently.

This idea is arguably how real police officers justify excessive violence. They perceive themselves as figures of authority — so they act, well, authoritatively. They are overaggressive and violent because that’s how police are supposed to act to protect order.

One of the experiment’s most gut-wrenching moments was when one prisoner locked in solitary confinement yelled, “I’m so fucked up inside… Jesus Christ, I’m burning up inside.” In a 2018 interview, this prisoner admitted that he was faking this iconic psychotic break. He wasn’t going crazy, he just wanted to go home and study for his GRE exam. Inevitably, he wasn’t allowed to leave.

Not even someone faking helplessness was set free, just as victims of police brutality are ignored as they yell “I can’t breathe.” Police officers and fake wardens alike won’t let up the pressure despite victims’ pleas.

Even if this experiment became a soap-opera-version of itself, there are still lessons to take away from it. America needs to reexamine the Stanford Prison Experiment, flaws and all, and take a long look in the mirrored reflection of the guard’s aviators to realize what’s wrong with our current policing system.