PRISONS: HOW pEOPLE OF FAITH

MUST RESPOND.[1]

INTRODUCTION: Back in the summer of 1971, a psychologist[2] on the faculty of Stanford University decided to run an experiment. Its purpose was to answer these two questions:

1.     What happens when you put good people in an evil place?

2.     When that happens, will humanity win over evil, or will evil triumph?

He placed an ad in the newspaper offering $15 per day to male students selected to participate in a two-week long, professionally conducted psychological study.

            More than 70 responded. They were given diagnostic interviews and personality tests so as to weed out those with significant emotional disabilities, medical disabilities, past criminal behavior, or drug abuse. Of the 70 who applied, 24 were selected, all from the U.S. and Canada.

Half were randomly selected as guards, the other half as inmates. The nine guards were divided in units of three, who would rotate every eight hours; and nine who were to be the inmates, with the other six ready to serve as substitutes in case one or more dropped out. A basement in the Department of Psychology building was temporarily set up as a prison, with each cell having room enough for three cots and three inmates.

On the day in which the study started, police in police cars appeared at the residences of those selected. They were arrested, handcuffed, and blindfolded, and taken to the temporary jail set up at Stanford University. Once there, students who had been selected as guards awaited. They were not only in police type uniforms, but were also wearing dark sunglasses.

The inmates were then stripped, showered and sprayed with delouser. They were given identical gowns -- something like smocks -- and nylon nets to go over their hair. On their gowns an ID number appeared front and back. They were given identical rubber sandals, and a chain put on their ankles. The study was underway.

At 2:30 on the first morning, guards came in to the cells with loud whistles blowing, insisting that everybody be part of a “count.” It’s important to remember that neither the guards nor the inmates had been trained or conditioned as to what to expect. Though initially there was a little bit of playfulness between the guards and inmates, that relationship quickly evaporated. Guards insisted on pushups and other exercises for those who did not fully obey instructions. Video showed that one guard put his foot on the back of an inmate to make it harder to rise up. Soon other guards were doing the same. Some even began to sit on the backs of the inmates while they did their pushups.

The next morning the prisoners rebelled, boarding up the doors, throwing off their nylon caps, ripping the numbers off their gowns and used their cots to barricade the doors.

The guards called in three substitute guards to reinforce them. They then took the fire extinguishers and began to spray the inmates with skin-chilling carbon dioxide, and finally regained control. They stripped all the inmates and forced the leaders into solitary confinement cells. Within a day and a half, one of the inmates had a psychological break and had to be released from the program.

Within five days, as punishment, guards were refusing to let inmates go to the restroom, forcing them to use buckets for defecating and urinating. Soon the whole area had a rancid smell as a result.

There were guards who were tough but fair; others who were good to the prisoners and would do little favors for them; and then those who seemed to enjoy their power and wielded it inventively with unique punishments. An example of the latter was the “toilet run,” where bags were put over inmates’ heads, and with hands on the shoulders of the inmate in front of them, they were marched in their chains to the toilet. It was a scary experiment in which the faculty member in charge had become totally identified with what was happening and was emotionally and psychologically invested in the ongoing experiment.

During this time, faculty came in, parents had visiting hours in another area, a mock parole board hearing was held, and the experiment continued on its downward trend. Then on the sixth day, a faculty member in the department, who was supposed to conduct interviews with the students and guards, came for the first time. She was horrified. Though some 50 others had been there at different times and in different capacities, she saw differently and reacted viscerally to what had happened. She absolutely insisted that the experiment stop. And it did. That was the Stanford Prison Experiment of 1971.

Now join me for a moment as I provide a religious quote from the poverty stricken young prophet of Judaism, Jesus of Nazareth. He was arrested, tried and executed b the state. After his death, he was made into a god by his followers and is known to his followers as Jesus the Christ or Jesus Christ for short.

SCRIPTURE.

One of his seldom quoted sets of scripture comes from one describing what will happen at the end of the world. By “sets” of scripture, I mean that what we know as the four gospels of the New Testament are really a compilation of many different stories that had been told at various times. None of the writers known as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were present with Jesus. They were attempting to put together the best of the recollections coming from those who had been told, by those who had been told, by those who had been told. Each has different emphases and material unique to them.

This particular “pericope” or segment is unique to the Gospel Attributed to Matthew. There’s a great court hearing at the end of time, with Jesus as the King presiding. Final and eternal punishment and rewards are about to be passed out.

As an historical aside, it’s interesting to note that no less than Immanuel Kant contended that the strongest reason for believing in life after death is because it is the only way that true justice can be assured, given the inequities of life in our world today. The poor, the disabled, the tortured – every unfair life situation – can only be balanced out by a final judgment. It’s a variation of Hindu karma.

At the judgment, the good are rewarded, and the bad are punished. As the people come before the judge, it’s somewhat like the concentration camps in Germany, during World War II. As the Jews, gypsies and homosexuals enter the camp, there is someone who is pointing which way to go: to the left are the gas chambers and to the right the work camps.

And in this scriptural precursor, it’s not about your race, your sexual orientation, or your culture; rather, it’s were you a giving person in life? Did you feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, provide clothing for the naked, welcome the immigrant, care for the sick, and did you visit the people in prison?

Rather than the offenders being sent to the gas chambers, the judge sentences them to a fiery lake that burns forever…the same place where the devil and his angels live, so we’re told. But those who had helped others, they get a good deal: life with the righteous for ever and ever. (One caveat to that however: Mark Twain said if that going to heaven meant having to listen to harps and choirs of angels singing how great god is forever and forever, he would prefer to pass up on that opportunity.)

Now let’s be clear: Life in America today has little similarity to life 2,000 years ago. Then, there were no hospitals, no trained physicians, no pharmacies, no testing equipment and procedures. It meant that when you got sick, you were in deep jell-o! So visiting the sick as listed at the trial takes on a totally different meaning. As to food and clothing, there was no Salvation Army, United Way, nor Harry Chapin Food Bank.

Neither was there an elected officer known as the sheriff as we have in Lee County, who has a multi-million dollar budget and hundreds of employees to run the prison system. Nor had the government farmed out the medical services to a for-profit company. Nor were those who were in prison behind wires and fences, and electronically operated gates.

So when we read stories in sacred texts like this one in Christian scripture – myths, we call them – no one should believe that they are literal projections of the past, present or future. Rather, they are trying to give us a clue as to how to live. And you know what that clue is?

Very simple: Be good to those who are less fortunate– not in theory, but in practice. Practice helping the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the sick, the immigrant, and those in prison.

But given the complexity of our world, how do we do that? Addressing that question is the whole purpose of this month of services in August: How do we help those less fortunate: foster teenage mothers who become adults with no resources…those struggling with mental illness…the nearly 50 million women with children who aren’t making enough to pay bills…and the millions of immigrants hiding in the shadows for fear of being deported?

More specifically, the text transported to today asks, how do we address the situation we’re in with our prisons in America…in Florida…in Lee County?

I.

The first issue in addressing the prison system is, how do we define crime?

Two things are driving the enormous increase in incarceration rates in American prisons: One that we learned about last Sunday relates to the incredible number of the mentally ill being put behind bars. The second is the increase in the number of people incarcerated for narcotics offenses. In fact, the number of women in prison is increasing at a rate nearly double that of men. Put another way, the phenomenal increase in women going to prison is due to the increase in punishing of drug offenses by incarceration.

But the issue isn’t just that one alone: There is a one to one ratio between the number of women in prison and the number of children in foster care whose mothers are in prison. So every time we put a mother in prison for drug addiction, we are most probably adding to the rolls of foster care and the cost and neglect that those children will experience.

This is important, because it has been proved time and again, that foster children who are moved around from family to family, who have no constant parental presence in their lives, are more likely to be the ones who will do most poorly in school. Without a decent education, they most likely will be the ones who will have difficulty competing in the marketplace for jobs. They are also an at risk population when it comes to crime.

That puts the question more specifically: Is drug addiction a criminal act or a physical dependency? That is, is it an addiction…like smoking and alcoholism…or is it criminal behavior? Should we decriminalize our current drug policies? In other words, when someone is addicted to narcotics, should they be offered free and professional help, before they feel forced to turn to crime to support their habit? Should we re-define crime, so that it doesn’t include the mentally ill nor those addicted to drugs?

II.

Should our aim in addressing crime and criminal behavior be to punish or rehabilitate? Depending on how we define crime determines whether our justice system should only be about punishing those who have committed a crime, or should we also seek to invest in rehabilitation?  

An essential corollary to the question is this: Remember, most of those incarcerated will one day be out of prison. Given the state of the prisons today, will those incarcerated be better citizens now, or will it have made things even worse.

For certain, we already have data which show that when we treat juveniles as adults, it’s almost a guarantee that when they come out, they will turn to crime. In fact, the whole notion of classifying children as adults is a stain on our democracy and should absolutely be eliminated from our judicial system.

Again the question: Is incarceration’s only purpose to punish or should it include rehabilitation? And for certain, when those imprisoned have served their sentences, why in the name of God does Florida still make it tough for them to vote?

III.

Finally, how do we express what we hope is our “enlightened” awareness? Can we simply trust the process and leave it to others to take care of? Or should we ask periodically how people incarcerated are being treated?

For those of you who went to the workshop this morning, Mary Lynn Canton is an example of one person who quite innocently became involved with a young boxer trained by her husband, who murdered his promoter.

Since then, she’s taken on the system in what she has discovered is gross misconduct on the part of our prison officials. It’s a nightmarish example in real time of the Stanford University Prison Experiment. Mary Lynn, we honor you this morning.

CONCLUSION.

In my opinion, one of the healthiest games that children can ever engage in is, “play like.” You remember: Play like I’m Roy Rogers and you’re Tonto. Or play like I’m the police and you’re the gangster. Or an all-time favorite: play like I’m the doctor and you’re the patient.

            Because the very foundation of what religious practice is all about is being able to put ourselves in the place of others. And when we do, it elicits care and compassion.

            So, I’m suggesting today that we “play like”: Play like it’s you in prison – how would you like to be treated? Play like it’s your son or daughter, your mother or father in jail – how would you like for them to be treated.

            The ancient Jewish prophet Jesus said, that’s how our lives are judged. Do we care for others…the sick, the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the immigrant, and those in prison?

Shalom, Salaam Aleikum. Amen. And blessed be.

We will pause now for 7½ minutes of brief questions as a part of our Conversation Café. The Service and Support Council will provide microphones for you to speak into.