I was one of the researchers in the well-known Stanford prison experiment in 1971, demonstrating the destructive dynamics that are generated when one group of people — randomly assigned as “guards” — is given near total power over a group of “prisoners.”

In six short days, inside a simulated prison environment, authoritarian forms of mistreatment emerged and numerous emotional breakdowns ensued among otherwise psychologically healthy college-student volunteers. In the decades since, I have studied these dynamics in real correctional settings: jails, prisons and immigration detention centers throughout the United States.

Among the things I have learned is that the damaging dynamics unleashed inside such places are not self-correcting. Quite the opposite. Absent transparency and accountability, dehumanization and degradation intensify. Indeed, if left unchecked, the destructive forces that are set in motion almost invariably lead to greater and greater levels of mistreatment.

Because they make up what Justice Anthony Kennedy years ago called a “hidden world of punishment,” what goes on inside these facilities largely escapes public awareness and scrutiny. Many of these sites operate outside the conventional bounds of the rule of law. Lawless institutions in particular do not merely tolerate mistreatment: They engender, normalize and amplify it.

A recent HBO documentary, “The Alabama Solution,” dramatically illustrates many of these forces at work. Based on a six-year investigation and contraband cellphone footage that courageous incarcerated men supplied from inside one of America’s most dangerous and dysfunctional prison systems, filmmakers Andrew Jarecki and Charlotte Kaufman give their audience a gut-wrenching view of something that few outsiders ever see: that hidden world of punishment laid bare, vividly depicting the depth of institutional cruelty and indifference to suffering that characterize many of our nation’s penal facilities.

The Alabama prison system on which the film focuses is one I know well. I was an expert witness in a federal lawsuit in which Judge Myron Thompson found the entire system to be unconstitutional. I spent many days in that role documenting the egregious living conditions inside the state’s prisons and interviewing prisoners about the neglect and mistreatment to which they were subjected. Remarkably, the system was so dangerously out of control that there were a number of days when my scheduled fact-finding missions had to be canceled because, as prison officials told me, they “could not guarantee my safety.” If they could not guarantee the safety of an expert witness with a court order to come inside, we should all wonder whether and how they could guarantee the safety of the 30,000 prisoners under their control. The new documentary provides all too chilling answers to that question.

The film also gives lie to a common stereotype that prisoners cannot be believed about the terrible realities they face in their daily life and regularly exaggerate the suffering and indignities they endure. In my experience, the opposite is true. If anything — perhaps because they do not want to fully relive the trauma or worry that skeptical outsiders will not believe them — they tend to understate what really goes on inside. As viewers of “The Alabama Solution” will see, the brutal reality is actually much worse than most people can imagine. And it is infinitely worse than the rosy accounts from many officials and politicians — who are themselves responsible for creating and maintaining these horrific places.

I wish that I could say that the egregious conditions and shocking treatment depicted in the film were limited to just one prison or prison system. The truth is that, although Alabama may be an outlier in some respects, scenes like those depicted in the film play out all too often in jails, prisons and detention facilities across the country. There are currently nearly 2 million people confined inside the nation’s bloated carceral system, which costs taxpayers more than $180 billion annually to maintain. Yet in far too many of these places — operating away from public view and meaningful legal regulation — callousness, cruelty and mistreatment prevail instead of rehabilitation, programming and treatment. Far too many people emerge from them traumatized by the experience, if they are fortunate enough to emerge at all.

Rather than reforming these institutions and minimizing their reach, federal and state governments are expanding their dehumanizing penal practices beyond the prison walls. We are daily witnessing the metastasizing of an increasingly lawless system of state-sanctioned oppression in society at large, one in which anonymous government actors operate unrestrained by due process safeguards, subjugating and terrorizing people with impunity — as has long been common inside prisons and jails. Only the restoration of transparency and the rule of law can reverse the perilous direction in which our country has been moving and shift the tide back toward justice and humanity.

Craig Haney, a professor of psychology at UC Santa Cruz, is the author of “Criminality in Context: A Psychological Framework for Criminal Justice Reform.” He wrote this column for the Los Angeles Times.

Related Articles

F.D. Flam: Experimenting on dogs is getting harder to defend

Karishma Vaswani: Islamic State isn’t back in Asia, but its ideas endure

Mary Ellen Klas: States are now the check on America’s executive

Allison Schrager: 5 reasons to be optimistic about the 2026 economy

Shuli Ren: Never, ever underestimate China

A minority of Somalis have brought shame to our community

There is a Somali proverb that came to mind when reflecting on the bitter language that has been coming from President Trump recently: the barking hyena warns you, but the silent hyena harms you. In Somali wisdom, the quiet hyena is more dangerous than the loud one. The loud hyena is noisy so you know it is coming. Someone who tells you the truth, even if it hurts, is like a loud hyena, giving you a warning. I would argue that President Trump is a loud hyena, though his truth is mixed with untruth. His simplistic stereotyping was uncalled for, and it is not right to call any human being garbage.

But it is true that the Somalis involved in large-scale fraud should face the consequences of their poor choices. And it is true that we Somalis need to ask ourselves what role we may have played in becoming the target of such hostile criticism.

It’s time to stop blaming others for our wrong choices. Blaming is self-sabotage; it keeps us stuck in our problems and prevents us from taking steps toward solutions. It’s time to get rid of the victim mentality.

Many Somalis lived through decades of state collapse, with corrupt and violent conditions. We saw how rules were enforced unfairly and were used to harm rather than protect people. This experience with broken systems and injustice created rule skepticism. On top of that, moral obligations to one’s clan often outweighed obligations to obey formal laws. Sometimes clan loyalty helped people survive. But these strategies didn’t work in Somalia, and they won’t work here either.

Here in the United States, Somalis need to shift their mindset. The government does not exist for personal gain. Too often we approach a situation thinking: “What can I get?” But is it time to ask, “How can I contribute?” It is time to build up the communities that have welcomed us.

Research consistently shows that most immigrants are law-abiding and often commit less crime than native-born citizens. Yet a minority of Somalis who have failed to integrate have chosen to engage in fraud or corruption. They have brought shame to the community.

We need to remember that when we became citizens here, we took an oath of allegiance to the United States. Such allegiance involves fulfilling our civic duties and following the law in our new home.

Badeh Dualeh, St. Paul

 

Urging a transparent reassessment of the Summit Avenue bike trail

Our new mayor hit the ground running to deliver on her promise for transparency and hard work. As we celebrate her victory, I write to urge a transparent and objective reassessment of the planned Summit Avenue raised bicycle trail.

It is crucial that we expand the range of alternatives being considered and commit to a truly unbiased process — one where the outcome is not predetermined, but instead reflects a fair comparison of all options.

The assessment must include an honest evaluation of the real impact on our tree canopy,  and a thorough analysis of this impact should be a key element of the promised Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The assessment must also include an evaluation of safety to pedestrians and bicyclists in view of the fact that e-bicycles, which have become ubiquitous, pose new dangers.

Related Articles

John Mannillo: Some friendly advice for St. Paul’s new mayor

Real World Economics: Tales of economic growth speak volumes

Skywatch: Extended stargazing pleasure in January

Working Strategies: Resolve to create an efficient job search for new year

Mark Glende: Against the odds, this tipsy tree with the leaning star

We also need a clear understanding of the true costs involved. Citizens deserve the chance to voice their opinions on whether a full reconstruction of Summit should be prioritized — especially given the City’s looming financial challenges — or if a more targeted approach, such as a mill and overlay for sections most in need, might be more prudent. Selective reconstruction should be considered where inspections show it is truly necessary.

If the planned Summit Avenue bicycle trail is genuinely the superior option on its merits, let’s allow the facts to speak for themselves. This way, we can resolve the debate once and for all and move forward as a community.

Anastasia (Tess) Galati, St. Paul

 

Mayor Carter’s graceful exit

Kudos to outgoing Mayor Melvin Carter for the way he is exiting office in the aftermath of his surprising re-election defeat.

The class  that he has displayed is a sharp contrast to the graceless behavior of the current occupant of the White House after he lost his bid to stay there four  years ago as well as that of one of his acolytes, Mike Lindell, now seeking the gubernatorial position here.

Both the president and the pillow maker could learn from the mayor how to handle the agony of defeat and provide an example to others, rather than the way they have tainted the democratic process as perpetrators of petulance.

Marshall H. Tanick, Minneapolis

 

Accountability?

Related Articles

Letters: Overfed on materialism, starved for enchantment …

Letters: If we can sue automakers for car theft, whom should we sue for Minnesota fraud?

Letters: Rage rear-ended by hope in the middle of a St. Paul intersection

Letters: Tone it down and deliver, elected officials left and right

Letters: Both Tim Walz and Donald Trump do the Minnesota Somali community a grave disservice

The US Government Accountability Office reports that the federal government loses a billion dollars to fraud everyday – so why are only Democrats and Somali-Americans in Minnesota in trouble?

The GOP is all over Tim Walz, holding him responsible for the fraud that happened in Minnesota, when Donald Trump resides over the federal government that loses a billion dollars every day to fraud.

But this is par for the course when it comes to Trumpers and accountability. Trump is on tap saying he sexually assaults women, but then when women come forward and say Trump did sexually assault them, Trumpers go after the women and claim Trump is the victim.

Trumpers have a very bizarre approach to accountability.

Frank Erickson, Minneapolis

The U.S. economy has been marked this year by the paradox of a rising stock market but a slowing labor market. Could the explanation be a productivity boom, led in part by artificial intelligence? That seems possible given last month’s report that the economy grew a robust 4.3% in the third quarter.

The report, delayed by the government shutdown, came in well above most forecasts. Consumer confidence is down in surveys, but you wouldn’t know it from the healthy 2.4 percentage-point contribution to third quarter GDP. Healthcare, prescription drugs and international travel were leading contributors, with healthcare accounting for a third of the increase. Is this an Ozempic boom?

Airlines have reported that wealthier customers are traveling abroad more, and a buoyant stock market lifted by AI may make them feel richer. If your stock portfolio is up 20% over the year, why not holiday in Rome?

One concern is that spending is uneven, with many companies reporting a pullback by lower- and middle-income consumers. General Mills said last month that consumers earning less than $100,000 a year are buying more food at price promotions. Chipotle in October reported a slowdown in spending among younger and less affluent customers.

Another concern is inflation. The core personal consumption expenditure price index (less food and energy) rose 2.9% in the third quarter, versus 2.6% in the second. Yet disposable personal income increased only 2.8% and the savings rate fell to 4.2%. People aren’t going to feel better about the economy until their incomes keep up with rising prices.

An increase in net exports supplied 1.6 percentage points to growth. Much of this owes to a decline in imports, following the import boom early in the year as businesses tried to front-run tariffs. A decline in imports isn’t healthy if it means higher prices for consumers or U.S. businesses that become less competitive because they pay more for components. Business investment in equipment continued its healthy growth (AI?), though overall private investment was down owing to declines in residential housing and business structures.

Trumponomics boils down to a bet that the pro-growth impact of deregulation and tax reduction can offset the damage from tariffs, which are tax increases. Imagine how well the economy would be doing without tariffs.

— The Wall Street Journal

Related Articles

Trump vilifies Kennedy family hours after Tatiana Schlossberg’s death

Chief Justice says Constitution remains ‘firm and unshaken’ with major Supreme Court rulings ahead

US imposes sanctions on 4 Venezuelan oil firms and 4 more tankers in Maduro crackdown

Farmers can now learn how much aid they will get from the Trump administration

US military strikes three more alleged drug boats, killing 3 and possibly leaving survivors

Medical experiments on research dogs could be phased out soon — a change that’s based as much on science as ethics. Pressure is coming from within the scientific community as well as from activists, following a string of scandals involving inhumane living conditions. It follows a similar phase-out in the last decade of the use of captive chimpanzees, which was driven by growing recognition of chimpanzee intelligence and the close evolutionary kinship between our species and theirs.

Two areas of science are precipitating change. Scientists are developing new types of human cell cultures and other alternatives that may mimic human disease at least as well as animals, while new research has revealed the depth of animal cognition and the richness of their emotional lives.

Scientists in government, universities, hospitals and private companies use thousands of dogs a year, often subjecting them to isolation, confinement in small, barren cages, and painful procedures. Some are force-fed high doses of pesticides, fungicides, or other hazardous chemicals.

Ethics should inform what scientists are permitted to do and how animals should be treated, but science informs our ethical guidelines.

A common argument in favor of animal research is historical: animals were used to develop insulin, organ transplantation and blood transfusions. That justification rests on an untestable assumption — that these discoveries could not have been made in other ways, even if progress would have been slower.

In an opinion column that ran earlier this year in the Washington Post, Jane Goodall and evolutionary biologist Marc Bekoff detailed the ways dogs suffer from the research itself, as well as from the isolation, boredom and confinement that accompany being a lab dog. This is no longer just a projection of the way we’d feel under those circumstances. A growing body of research has shown that being caged and isolated causes stress in dogs. Similar studies have revealed stress and self-harm among caged research monkeys.

Bekoff and Goodall wrote that most research dogs are beagles, which are bred to be obedient and trusting. The scientists call this a “betrayal of man’s best friend.” The general public’s attitude is also shifting. A Gallup poll this year showed Americans split evenly on the morality of experimenting on any animal, with disapproval of animal research slowly increasing across the board.

One reason is growing visibility. In 2018, a panel assembled by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine reviewed dog research at four Veterans Administration facilities after activists released footage of apparent inhumane treatment. The panel was led by urologist, flight surgeon and Gulf War veteran Rhonda Cornum.

The 2020 report concluded that only a small number of dog experiments might still be necessary for certain research programs. The report also deemed justifications based on historical breakthroughs to represent “circular reasoning” since we don’t know what’s possible with other methods. The study also noted that some data relevant to human health can be obtained by enrolling sick dogs in clinical trials, which might benefit them.

Adding to the pressure to change the way dogs are treated were scandals exposing inhumane conditions at several industrial facilities that breed thousands of lab dogs. In 2021, USDA inspectors found 70 violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the major facility called Envigo in Cumberland, Virginia. The inspectors documented puppy deaths, untreated illness and injury, and dogs kept in cramped cages in extreme heat amid a stench of urine and feces. Under pressure, the facility shut down in 2022.

Another breeding facility, Ridglan Farms in Wisconsin, was the subject of a criminal investigation into inhumane conditions. In October, the owners agreed to stop supplying beagles for research as part of a settlement with federal authorities.

It’s still hard to get good data on the number of dogs used for different kinds of experiments — whether for basic science aimed at understanding physiology, medical research aimed at particular diseases, or toxicology to test chemicals. USDA data show more than 40,000 research dogs are used annually.

There’s also no scientific basis for the view that lab dogs are inherently different from pets, or that they were somehow not meant to be companion animals. People who’ve adopted the small fraction of lab beagles set free have found they’re just like any other dog. This reminded me of the science fiction novel “Never Let Me Go,” about human clones who serve as organ donors for “normal” people.

Today, some organizations opposing animal research have found allies on the political right, such as the White Coat Waste Project, which has highlighted numerous abuses. Support from both sides of the political divide could help create the impetus for real change. Researchers are actively developing human alternatives, including various configurations of human cells and tissues. But developing and testing those takes money.

Being pro-science doesn’t have to include a belief in progress at all costs. It can mean accepting — and being guided by — the findings of existing science, including what they tell us about our kinship with other animals.

F.D. Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering science. She is host of the “Follow the Science” podcast.

Related Articles

Mary Ellen Klas: States are now the check on America’s executive

Allison Schrager: 5 reasons to be optimistic about the 2026 economy

Shuli Ren: Never, ever underestimate China

David Brooks: How things work, what happened, our mystical, fluid world

Gonzalo Schwarz: America needs even more billionaires fueled by the American Dream, not fewer