Tag Archive

What struck me about a recent news item in The Dominion Post was that an admittedly large, but otherwise rather unremarkable-looking prisoner was noted for his ability to inspire terror among fellow inmates. Convicted murderer Graeme Burton (aka “The Bear”), despite having only one leg, wielded a great deal of power and intimidation at his former residence at Rimutaka Prison, being described by others at the facility as a man “that no-one said ‘no’ to”. Why was this?

Those who have ever studied psychology will probably have heard of Martin Seligman, a researcher who carried out a seminal study in learned helplessness. In this experiment, a group of confined dogs learned to avoid electric shocks by pressing a lever, while another group were subjected to shocks that were apparently random. The dogs in this group eventually became immobile; learning that nothing they did could help them, they entered a state of what we would describe as despair. Interestingly, however, when they were placed in a different situation in which electric shocks could be avoided, the group of dogs with learned helplessness did not even attempt to avoid them.

So what made Burton so particularly terrifying? The press chose to focus on his imposing size as a major factor. But a large part of the answer can perhaps be found in one particular dynamic in abusive relationships. Learned helplessness is a classic behaviour trait exhibited by abused partners. The abused partner eventually ‘learns’ that nothing he or she does can be enough to avoid violent episodes in the relationship, and so ‘gives up’ trying to avoid them altogether. Graeme Burton, in addition to being known for his manipulative personality, was also feared for the fact that he could be friendly in one moment while violent the next. Those who lived near him quickly found that nothing they did could control the schedule of rewarding (friendly) and punishing (violent) behaviour. In the confined environment of a prison, then, it perhaps is unsurprising that despite being only one amongst many violent convicted criminals, a combination of physicality and unpredictable personality made ‘The Bear’ into an object of fear - and not simply a challenge to be overcome.

It was all over the news here today: The Solicitor General has declined NZ Police permission to prosecute the group of arrested individuals under the relatively new Suppression of Terrorism Act. This was a major blow for the New Zealand Police as they have had a lot of negative publicity and scandals over the last couple of years. However, Police Commissioner Howard Broad seems to have taken the decision with professionalism and grace, accepting that there were some elements of the operation in Ruatoki (the settlement closest to where the supposed Military-style training camps were ensconced) that he finds regrettable, talking about the need for the rebuilding of relationships between the police and affected communities.

It’s interesting to me how everyone reacts to these types of issues. I just had a brief argument with my flatmate over the emotiveness of Pita Sharples (Maori Party co-leader, and a strong critic of the whole operation) when his opinion was sought on the current events show Campbell Live. Sharples has a very melodramatic style that really gets on my nerves. The thing is, I might have been more sympathetic with the substance of his comments had they been made with a little less of the hyperbole in which he seems to often indulge. A couple of weeks earlier he had famously claimed that race relations in this country had been “set back 100 years” by the actions of police, and on this occasion he used language like “police ninjas” and “gung ho” and all the rest. Just not necessary, in my view. But my flatmate, who knows a few of those arrested, is very much against the case, and was agreeing wholeheartedly with Sharples. A brief but uncharacteristically heated exchange followed between us; let’s just say that we disagreed over the significance on how something is said, over what is said. It left me wondering what it is that we are reacting to when we can become polarised so easily even when many of the facts are not in dispute.