United States v. Frederick

CCA 20041129, vol. 4 of 8 (2004)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Frederick

Court-Martial
CCA 20041129, vol. 4 of 8 (2004)

Facts

[Editor’s Note: The casebook excerpt presents the testimony of Dr. Philip Zimbardo, who, along with two others, conducted the landmark Stanford Prison Experiment published in 1973.] Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick, II (defendant) was a guard at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Frederick participated in the mistreatment of detainees that gained worldwide attention. For example, Frederick participated in hooking wires to a prisoner’s hands, instructing the prisoner to stand on a box, and threatening that stepping off the box would result in electrocution. Frederick forced naked detainees to get into a pyramid formation and to masturbate publicly. Frederick forced a detainee to position his head relative to another detainee in a manner that simulated oral sex. Zimbardo was asked to present testimony regarding his prison study. Zimbardo explained how, 32 years prior, he had simulated a prison environment using 24 college students as guards and prisoners. The study was supposed to continue for two weeks, but it had to be halted after only six days. Zimbardo drew parallels between the behavior of the night-shift guards in his study and at Abu Ghraib, both of whom forced prisoners to be naked, forced them to simulate sexual conduct, and put bags on their heads. Zimbardo argued that his study should have been a warning to military personnel that proper training was necessary for the guards at Abu Ghraib. Zimbardo testified that the situational forces in such a setting made abuse inevitable, especially considering that the guards were expected to soften detainees up in preparation for interrogation. For Zimbardo, the question was whether Frederick brought a measure of pathology to the context or whether the context brought out a measure of pathology in Frederick, a good soldier. Zimbardo described Frederick as a terrific young man whom he would allow to babysit his children anytime. On cross-examination, the government drew distinctions between Abu Ghraib and Zimbardo’s study, which used untrained college students under the age of 24, and Frederick, a 38-year-old soldier who had served as a correctional officer for seven years. Zimbardo acknowledged that in his experiment, the use of hoods at times and the fact that inmates wore smocks with no underwear was his and his staff’s idea to humiliate and sexually emasculate the prisoners. The government asserted that what Zimbardo now described as the abuse in his experiment was just his research controls and not parallel to abuse at Abu Ghraib. Zimbardo disagreed that abuse was either encouraged or permitted in his study. Zimbardo explained that he simply had detainees wear smocks to minimize their masculinity, but the guards took it to another level, treating the detainees like playthings, forcing them to simulate sodomy, and the like. On redirect, Zimbardo explained that he was not excusing Frederick’s behavior and that the situational approach tried to ascertain why a good soldier with a clean record and whose psychological tests did not predict abuse would suddenly engage in such terrible conduct. Zimbardo argued that the military itself was on trial, along with all those in Frederick’s chain of command who should have provided adequate training and stopped the abuse. Zimbardo argued that Frederick’s sentence should be mitigated by the responsibility of his superiors.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning ()

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership