Normal People Give In To Authority

People are taught early in life to respect and obey their elders and authority at all times, and not doing so will have its consequences. People learn the rules of conduct that even as we age and mature, they become permanent fixtures in our everyday lives. Our environment can affect our behavior from infancy to adolescence and even ethical people may break the law under certain conditions. Studies have been done and have challenged people’s views that behavior is primarily under the influence of dispositional factors.

The Milgram study was to show that people can be influenced by other humans based on social conditioning and reasoning. The study was successful in showing how people will do what they know is wrong, just to follow orders, and therefore be liked by people they see as intelligent and of a high social status. The study also confirmed that everyday normal people can cause pain and suffering to another person, under the right set of circumstances. His use of normal individuals reinforces the theory that extreme situations, not deviant personalities or atypical dispositions were often the root of evil and societal dysfunction. Milgram’s research gives insight to human behavior and obedience and gives understanding of why humans use drugs, murder, steal, and act immorally since these are all influenced by social circumstances.

Milgram’s research was controversial and raised ethical questions with critics. Deception was a factor because participants were not aware of the nature of the study, being told the study was on memory and forgetfulness, and that the learner and experimenter were real when they were actors. But the problem with informing the participants that the electrical shocks were not real is the results gathered from the experiment would not have been a clear indication of their obedience and behavior. Consent was obtained, but due to the deception this was not informed. The participants had the right to withdraw, but if they told the experimenter they were ready to quit he would tell them that the experiment required them to continue, making some of them feel they had to continue. Also there were signs of those participants had become distressed making the study unethical.

The Stanford Prison Experiment was a study about the psychology of imprisonment, meant to assist the military in explaining and correcting the problems that existed in their prison system and explain how people norms and the effect of peoples positions or titles, along with the expectations of society, all contribute to the individuals behavior when placed in a replicated prison situation. This experiment showed how prisons demean humanity, destroy human nature, and bring out the worst in people when the guards began showing an imbedded streak of sadism while prisoners were showing real signs of distress. The participants reacted to the specific needs of the situation, rather referring to their internal morals and beliefs. Zimbardo’s research shows how normal people, under the control of situational forces, can be transformed into perpetrators of evil, corrupting their innermost beliefs and feeling without direct pressure to do so.

Zimbardo obtained informed consent with participants agreeing to their human rights being suspended. There was no deception in this case because all the participants were told in advance if their usual rights would be suspended and that they would have less than adequate health care and diets during the experiment. The right to withdraw was clear since some of them did. The research was considered unethical because some participants suffered while others were allowed to humiliate and abuse others for an extended period of time. There were signs of psychological distress caused by lack of bedding, food, and prisoners be locked in solitary confinement.

Sham surgery is a controversial component used in clinical trials to evaluate surgical interventions. Clinical trials done recently to determine the effectiveness of transplanting human embryonic dopamine neurons into the brains of persons with advanced Parkinson’s disease proved to be beneficial. They are picked randomly and blind, meaning they don’t know if they are getting the real thing or a placebo. The patient goes under anesthesia and the surgery is performed with holes are drilled into skull. Doctors claim all this stimulates optimism in the patient and results in a rise in dopamine production, which then alleviates some of the symptoms. The ending result showed the procedure benefited younger but not older patients.

But all of this doesn’t come without controversy, leaving medical ethicists divided about the surgery and its benefits. There have been indications that most support the technique for randomizing trials. Some argue the benefit of the placebo effect outweighs the ricks of the surgery and justify the research. Others argue that unless the surgery would be recommended solely for therapeutic purposes outside the research context that the risks are too high and therefore don’t justify the surgery. Then comes the controversy over deception, to achieve the effect that a placebo controlled trial aims for, the researchers had to make misleading statements to the subjects in the placebo group. Many argue that performing a surgical procedure that has no expected benefit other than the placebo effect violates the ethical and regulatory principle that the risk of harm to subjects must be minimized in the conduct of research.

The purpose behind the Kagan temperament study was to find out if certain behaviors in infancy are predictive of certain other behavior patterns in adolescence. He stated tracking whether or not babies were easily upset when exposed to new things. He did this in a laboratory, placing them in infant seats in front of a video camera and exposed them to a series toys and other objects. Kagan labeled them either each infant was categorized as either low-reactive, high-reactive or somewhere in between. The infants labeled as low-reactive were the classic easy babies, the ones who take unfamiliarity in stride. But the high-reactive infants thrashed and whimpered when exposed to the same unfamiliar things. The high-reactive infants they twisted about in their infant seats Kagan seen these babies as high-maintenance and difficult to comfort.

Kagan suspected that most edgy infants were more likely to grow up to be inhibited, shy and anxious. Most of the infants gazed calmly at things that were unfamiliar. But there was one who seemed distressed by things such as new sounds, voices, and toys and kicked their legs, arched their back and cried. Kagan seen many more infants like this and felt most of them would run into trouble with anxiety or other problems as they grew up. He said some would find themselves always mentally preparing for doom because they born worriers, their brains forever anticipating the worse. Kagan’s study showed babies differ according to inborn temperament; with some of them reacting strongly to novel people or situations; and that strongly reactive babies are more likely to grow up to be anxious.

Manifestations of offender behavior at a crime scene:

Three possible manifestations of offender behavior at a crime scene:

*modus operandi

*personation or signature

*Staging

The difference between the MO and the signature: the MO is changing where the signature is unchanged, and the MO tells us something about how he did it, the signature gives us some insight into why.

The signature is a ritual; something the subject does intentionally for emotional satisfaction — something that isn’t necessary to perpetuate the crime. Evidence of torture is a signature. Posing — displaying the victims in a certain way — is a signature. Signature is a way of linking cases. Like a real signature, it’s a personal detail that’s unique to the individual.

Signature can be a more reliable guide to the behavior of serial offenders than an MO, because the MO evolves, the emotional reasoning that triggers the signature doesn’t. The method a killer uses to get women into his van may change, but the fact that he always tortures them once they’re inside stays the same.

*In a rape case, a signature could be the language the rapist uses in scripting the victim — getting her to say what he wants her to say. It’s something the rapist needs.

*He doesn’t need it for the sex act, he needs it for himself.

*At times, the way a rapist wants his victims to react becomes his signature. I.E. the power-reassurance rapist: Just like as the name implies, he gains control over the victim, he’s then constantly asking for reassurance about his performance; i.e. “Is this good for you? How do I stack up against your husband, your boyfriend?” He needs her to respond in a certain way.

*Often you will need more than one case to determine what the signature is, because you don’t know if there’s a pattern by looking at a single case.
Considering the evidence found at the crime scenes, could one man be linked to all of the murders? Wouldn’t such differences in modus operandi (M.O.), which is the offender’s actions while committing the crime, and victimology (characteristics of the victims) eliminate the connection to one offender?

Modus Operandi (M.O):

When attempting to link cases, the M.O. has great significance. A critical step in crime scene analysis is the resulting correlation that connects cases due to similarities in M.O. But, what causes an offender to use a certain M.O.? What circumstances shape the M.O.? Is the M.O. static or dynamic?

*I.E., a novice burglar shatters a locked basement window to gain access to a house.

*Fearing that the sound of a window breaking will attract attention, he rushes in his search for valuables. Later, during subsequent crimes, he brings tools to force open locks, which will minimize the noise. This allows him more time to commit the crimes and to obtain a more profitable haul.

*The burglar refines his breaking-and-entering techniques to lower the risk of apprehension and to increase profits. This demonstrates that the M.O. is a learned behavior that is dynamic and malleable. Developed over time, the M.O. continuously evolves as offenders gain experience and confidence. Offenders refine their M.O.s as they learn from the mistakes that lead to their arrests.

*The victim’s response also influences the evolution of the M.O. If a rapist has problems controlling a victim, he will modify the M.O. to accommodate resistance. He may use duct tape, other ligatures, or a weapon on the victim. Or, he may blitz the victim and immediately incapacitate her or even worse kill her.
Offenders continually reshape their M.O. to meet the demands of the crime.

Signature (Calling Card):

*Unusual behavior by an offender beyond that necessary to commit the crime is called personation. The offender invests intimate meaning into the crime scene. Only the offender knows the meaning of these acts. When a serial offender demonstrates repetitive ritualistic behavior from crime to crime is called the signature. The signature aspects of a crime are simply repetitive personation. A signature is a killer’s psychological calling card that is left behind at crime scenes. The signature may evolve over time, but it will not ever change. This is something a killer must do to make the crime satisfying to him (or in some cases her).

*The MO of the killer can and does change over time as the killer discovers that some things he does are more effective. The FBIs John Douglas of the Behavioral Science Unit in Quantico has said that the Modus Operandi if a killer is only those actions which are necessary to commit the murder.

*John Douglas describes the nature of the nature of the signature as the person’s violent fantasies which are progressive in nature and contribute to thoughts of exhibiting extremely violent behavior. As a person dreams and thinks of his fantasies over time, he develops a need to express those violent fantasies.

*Signature killers the single largest subcategory of serial killers are driven by such a primal psychological motivation to act out the same crime over and over again that their patterns become obsessive. All signature murders seek some form of sexual gratification and their crimes are expressions of the ways they satisfy that need
Some offenders who commit sex crimes whether they’re crimes against women or men, adults or children commit them out of anger.

*Anger either excites a sexual reaction or drives the crime or it is the fuel for a retaliatory assailant seeking revenge upon some ultimate source of his anger but substituting each victim for that source.

*The more violent an attacker assumes and maintains control the more likely his is to escalate with greater violence as the killer experiments with all the core components of signature murder to satisfy his ever-growing sexual needs

*There are two basic categories of anger driven crimes with signature killers: the anger-retaliatory killer and the anger-excitation killer.

*Typically a killer begins as a retaliatory type and may escalate to an excitation type as his crime series progresses.

*During the course of that crime series the killer evolves according to the nature of his anger.

*He leaves a signature which represents one or more of the core components of sadism, control, humiliation, progression of violence, posing, torture, overkill, necrophilia and cannibalism.

*Most violent crime careers have a quiet, isolated beginning within the offender’s imagination. The subject daydreams about raping, torturing, killing, building bombs, setting fires or any combination of these violent acts. When the offender translated these day dreams into action, his needs compel him to exhibit unusual behavior during the crime. (Douglas, J. E. (2006) P 250)

*Undoing represents a form of personation with a more obvious meaning. Undoing frequently occurs at the crime scene when there is a close association between the offender and the victim or when the victim represents someone of significance to the offender. (Douglas, J. E. (2006) P 251)