Verithrax2007-03-26 14:18:47
QUOTE(Iridiel @ Mar 26 2007, 11:12 AM) 393789
There's good, dedicated, hard working policemen.
There's also pigs in human bodies that go into the police because they get a stick and the right to beat and abuse people and autorithy backs them. They get to carry a gun and look violent and dangerous. They're happy to have power. They're also proud to boast about it in bars with friends/colleagues. Incidentally, this also happens in the army. Those cause the newspapers (I read british ones as well as spanish ones) to have stuff to write about negatively, and cause people like me to be wary of any policeman asking somebody "WTF Who do you think you are show me your papers or you're going to get your ass raped in the police station" (this is a translation, it was more colorful in spanish) because said somebody looked north-african and clearly didn't understand what he was being asked to do.
Claiming that all policemen are there to serve and protect is like saying that all politicians are there for the improvement of the country and to serve the voters.
There's also pigs in human bodies that go into the police because they get a stick and the right to beat and abuse people and autorithy backs them. They get to carry a gun and look violent and dangerous. They're happy to have power. They're also proud to boast about it in bars with friends/colleagues. Incidentally, this also happens in the army. Those cause the newspapers (I read british ones as well as spanish ones) to have stuff to write about negatively, and cause people like me to be wary of any policeman asking somebody "WTF Who do you think you are show me your papers or you're going to get your ass raped in the police station" (this is a translation, it was more colorful in spanish) because said somebody looked north-african and clearly didn't understand what he was being asked to do.
Claiming that all policemen are there to serve and protect is like saying that all politicians are there for the improvement of the country and to serve the voters.
Policemen are there to serve and protect in the same way civil servants in general are there to serve the people - It's their job, but that doesn't mean they're doing it properly. That's why democracies have systems of checks and balances to keep them in line; the reason you're not obligated to answer a policeman is simply that if you were, they would have a lot more power to harass you.
Besides, a lot of perfectly fine people turn into pigs as soon as they're put in a position of authority and handed a big stick; it's human nature. Which is why we should minimise that feeling of authority by not giving them any more rights or powers above those of the average citizen than are strictly necessary for them to do their jobs.
Aiakon2007-03-26 15:54:19
QUOTE(Verithrax @ Mar 26 2007, 03:18 PM) 393791
Besides, a lot of perfectly fine people turn into pigs as soon as they're put in a position of authority and handed a big stick; it's human nature. Which is why we should minimise that feeling of authority by not giving them any more rights or powers above those of the average citizen than are strictly necessary for them to do their jobs.
That's a rather bleak view. Needless to say, I must demur.
Verithrax2007-03-26 16:13:49
QUOTE(Aiakon @ Mar 26 2007, 12:54 PM) 393821
That's a rather bleak view. Needless to say, I must demur.
People have been demonstrated to behave like that before; it's reasonable to think that giving someone a position of authority (Particularly the kind of authority which you find in military and police organisations, IE direct, physical authority) leads to abuse unless said authority is under oversight and the person holding the authority is proven to be apt at holding it. A lot of the world's police forces don't have sufficient oversight or training, and even when one does have such things, they aren't totally effective - Which is what constitutional protections are for.
A worrying thing nowadays are private security forces, which in some places (Read: Certain American states) have police-like rights and privileges without police-like training, duties, and oversight.
Aiakon2007-03-26 16:48:42
QUOTE(Verithrax @ Mar 26 2007, 05:13 PM) 393822
People have been demonstrated to behave like that before
And that is nothing more than an unsubstantiated generalisation. I read a lot of biography, and it seems to me that many people 'have been demonstrated to behave' in a very different manner indeed.
Xavius2007-03-26 20:42:14
QUOTE(Aiakon @ Mar 26 2007, 11:48 AM) 393827
And that is nothing more than an unsubstantiated generalisation. I read a lot of biography, and it seems to me that many people 'have been demonstrated to behave' in a very different manner indeed.
I can't be bothered to find links right now, but I can think of three separate controlled studies demonstrating that people become more violent and demanding when told that they get authority, especially at the level of enforcer.
Aiakon2007-03-26 20:47:51
QUOTE(Xavius @ Mar 26 2007, 09:42 PM) 393887
I can't be bothered to find links right now, but I can think of three separate controlled studies demonstrating that people become more violent and demanding when told that they get authority, especially at the level of enforcer.
I would be interested to see them.
Xavius2007-03-26 22:22:03
Stanford prison experiment
Milgram experiment
There's another one out there by Leon Festinger, but I can't find you a web resource worth looking at. The gist of it was that people who're told by authority figures to be more violent than they would normally be in their day-to-day lives begin to believe that they are, in fact, violent people, and it becomes self-perpetuating. It fits in neatly with his broader theory of cognitive dissonance. The Stanford experiment shows that enforcers will become more demanding even without pressure from above, and the Milgram experiment shows peoples willingness to violate their own ethical boundaries when asked to do so by an authority figure, even one without the weight of law.
Milgram experiment
There's another one out there by Leon Festinger, but I can't find you a web resource worth looking at. The gist of it was that people who're told by authority figures to be more violent than they would normally be in their day-to-day lives begin to believe that they are, in fact, violent people, and it becomes self-perpetuating. It fits in neatly with his broader theory of cognitive dissonance. The Stanford experiment shows that enforcers will become more demanding even without pressure from above, and the Milgram experiment shows peoples willingness to violate their own ethical boundaries when asked to do so by an authority figure, even one without the weight of law.
Daganev2007-03-26 22:45:11
QUOTE(Xavius @ Mar 26 2007, 03:22 PM) 393914
Stanford prison experiment
Milgram experiment
There's another one out there by Leon Festinger, but I can't find you a web resource worth looking at. The gist of it was that people who're told by authority figures to be more violent than they would normally be in their day-to-day lives begin to believe that they are, in fact, violent people, and it becomes self-perpetuating. It fits in neatly with his broader theory of cognitive dissonance. The Stanford experiment shows that enforcers will become more demanding even without pressure from above, and the Milgram experiment shows peoples willingness to violate their own ethical boundaries when asked to do so by an authority figure, even one without the weight of law.
Milgram experiment
There's another one out there by Leon Festinger, but I can't find you a web resource worth looking at. The gist of it was that people who're told by authority figures to be more violent than they would normally be in their day-to-day lives begin to believe that they are, in fact, violent people, and it becomes self-perpetuating. It fits in neatly with his broader theory of cognitive dissonance. The Stanford experiment shows that enforcers will become more demanding even without pressure from above, and the Milgram experiment shows peoples willingness to violate their own ethical boundaries when asked to do so by an authority figure, even one without the weight of law.
However, we are not talking about the people who decide to make the laws of the police force, we are talking about the policemen themselves.
In all of those experiments, it is the head person who tells the "normal" people to act sadistic, or encourages them to do so.
That is more like the original post in this thread, where the police Authority tells people to do bad things to their neighbors.
Xavius2007-03-26 22:50:08
Stanford's experiment is pretty distinctly not in that vein. That was the whole point. Synthesize the three of them and you get a pretty scary picture. Enforcers show a degraded sense of camaraderie and respect for those they're told to watch over to the point of dehumanization without any policy decision. Enforcers show a willingness to violate their own ethical standards regarding people (which opens the door to well-intentioned controls turning into despotic issues on the street). Enforcers who break their own ethical standards change their ethical standards to match their new, degraded behavior.
Daganev2007-03-26 22:54:50
QUOTE(Xavius @ Mar 26 2007, 03:50 PM) 393929
Stanford's experiment is pretty distinctly not in that vein. That was the whole point. Synthesize the three of them and you get a pretty scary picture. Enforcers show a degraded sense of camaraderie and respect for those they're told to watch over to the point of dehumanization without any policy decision. Enforcers show a willingness to violate their own ethical standards regarding people (which opens the door to well-intentioned controls turning into despotic issues on the street). Enforcers who break their own ethical standards change their ethical standards to match their new, degraded behavior.
Except that the conductor of the experiment was -heavily- involved in it.
Apparetly the BBC did a show based on the experiment which had drastically different results.
Based on the link you gave, there were many criticisms of the experiment, especially the opening order people were given, which gave a strong emphasis on doing their best to dehumanize the subjects.
