This essay is reproduced here as it appeared in the print edition of the original Science for the People magazine. These web-formatted archives are preserved complete with typographical errors and available for reference and educational and activist use. Scanned PDFs of the back issues can be browsed by headline at the website for the 2014 SftP conference held at UMass-Amherst. For more information or to support the project, email sftp.publishing@gmail.com

Genocide of the Mind

by Joe Heath

‘Science for the People’ Vol. 6, No. 3, May 1974, p. 8 – 15

The Uses of Psychotechnology 

Just how widespread is the use of psychosurgery and behavior modification? This is a difficult question to answer with specific numbers. However, a recent article in the New York Times tells of the planned uses of many such programs. It has recently been reported that the Federal Government has issued a ban on some of its spending for prison control programs. The Times was perfectly clear in its reporting however, that: 

The ban does not mean a total halt to the use of behavior modification in law enforcement. It applies only to funds provided by L.E.A.A. (Law Enforcement Assistance Administration), and while the Federal agency is considered a prime source of money in this area a number of other agencies, both state and local, have also financed behavioral programs… 

Investigation by the New York Times over the last two weeks has found that behavior modification—whether through psychological techniques based on principles such as the Skinner “reward” theory or through psychological methods combined with drugs or electric shock—has become a significant tool in American law enforcement

On the Federal level, in addition to L.E.A.A.-funded programs, the Bureau of Prisons has or is planning a number of projects that, according to its director of mental health programs, involve “principles of behavior modification.” The National Institute of Mental Health, a part of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, is funding several behavioral modification programs for juveniles.¹

So, although some of the funding and programs have been curtailed, many proliferate still at federal and state levels, according to further details in the article. 

Dr. O.J. Andy, neurosurgeon at the University of Mississippi Medical Center who performs lobotomies on neurotic adults, aggressive adolescents, and hyperactive children as young as 6, has said: 

There’s no question that behavior can be controlled. We have performed surgery on patients in which psychosurgery has been very effective in controlling behavior or resulting in it being altered so that it conformed more with normal human beings in contrast to one that’s at the extremes of behavior… Lobotomies have reduced the tension level to a degree compatible with society… These individuals will not be contributors to society, but at least they will be tolerated.² 

It should not be at all surprising that a United States Marine psychiatrist has run behavior modification programs in the South Vietnamese mental hospital at Bien Hoa: 

We started the program on a ward of 130 male patients by announcing that we were interested in discharging patients to make the hospital less crowded. Who wanted to go home’? About 30 patients indicated their interest. We explained to these patients that they would have to work and support themselves if they went home—that we could not send them home to live off relatives. We wanted them to work for three months or so in the hospital to prove their capability. If they would do this, we would make every effort to have them discharged. Ten indicated their willingness to work. The reaction of the remainder was, “Work! Do you think we’re crazy’?” 

We sent the ten off to work. To all the remaining patients we announced, “People who are too sick to work need treatment.” 

The next day we gave 120 unmodified electroconvulsive treatments. Although modified ECT was used on some of the patients on the admitting ward, time and drug limitations precluded its use on the chronic wards. Perhaps because of the smaller size and musculature of the Vietnamese people, no symptoms of compression fractures were reported at any time. 

The treatments were continued on a three-times-a-week schedule. Gradually there began to be evident improvement in the behavior of the patients, the appearance of the ward, and the number of patients volunteering for work. This latter was a result of the ECT’s alleviating schizophrenic or depressive thinking and affect with some. With others it was simply a result of their dislike or fear of ECT. In either case our objective of motivating them to work was achieved… 

The second ward where we started this procedure was a women’s ward of 130 patients. Expecting the women to be more pliable, I hoped for quicker and better results. Instead, due perhaps to their greater passivity or the attitude that success in life is achieved when they can be idle, at the end of twenty treatments there were only fifteen women working. We stopped the ECT then, and to the men and women still not working said, “Look. We doctors, nurses, and technicians have to work for our food, clothes, rent money, etc. Why should you have it better’? Your muscles are just as good as ours. After this, if you don’t work, you don’t eat. Who is ready to start work immediately rather than miss any meals’?” 

About twelve patients made this choice. After one day without food, ten more patients volunteered for work and after two days without food, ten more. After three days without food all the remaining patients volunteered for work.³ 

Burton Ingraham explores the potential use of electronic technology on parolees, high risk ex-convicts, and people on bail. This proposal advocates the use of electronics “to maintain a 24 hour-a-day surveillance over the subject and to intervene electronically or physically to influence and control selected behavior.”⁴ Ingraham and Smith explain how their system would work: 

A parolee with a past record of burglaries is tracked to a downtown shopping district and the physiological data reveals an increased respiration rate, a tension in the musculature, and an increased flow of adrenalin. It would be a safe guess, certainly, that he was up to no good. 

The computer in this case, weighing the probabilities, would come to a decision and alert the police or parole officer so that they could hasten to the scene; or, if the subject were equipped with an implanted telemeter (long-distance transmitter-receiver system) it could transmit an electrical signal which could block further action by the subject by causing him to forget or abandon his project.⁵

A parolee is equipped with an unremovable electronic device implanted in his-her brain. It transmits basic information to a central computer. The computer analyzes the data and sends back electronic messages to “correct” the behavior of the parolee, if it does not conform to the computer’s expectation. Dr. Smith, a University of Utah professor, maintains that electronic control of prisoners is “the cheapest and most effective way to remedy the chronic problems of this country’s penal system. a system with tremendous costs and lack of success in “changing people … Smith thinks that an electronic surveillance system would have “tremendous humanitarian value” even though he feels that “the lowest priority is the individual offender.”⁶ 

What these programs and others like them have in common is the acceptance of the victim as the source and cause of crime, violence, illness, whatever. The notion that the social, political and economic oppression of the system creates the conditions for a difficult life and leads to crime, violence and depression is never the focus of these programs. The notion that broad fundamental social change must take place in American capitalist society does not appear in the justification of these programs. Therefore it is no accident that the federal government is funding many of them: 

The Senate Appropriations Committee told the National Institute of Mental Health to award a $500,000 grant to Dr. William Sweet, Chief of Neurosurgery at the Massachusetts General Hospital to develop a way to identify and control persons who commit “senseless” violence, as well as those “who are constantly at odds with the law for minor crimes, assaults and constantly in and out of jail.” 

The Justice Department’s Law Enforcement Administration (LEAA) gave $108,930 in further brain research to two of Dr. Sweet’s colleagues, Dr. Frank Ervin, a psychiatrist, and Dr. Vernon Mark, Chief of Neurosurgery at Boston City Hospital to “determine the incidence of brain disorders in a state penitentiary for men; to establish their presence” in a civilian population; and to “improve, develop and test the usefulness of electrodes and brain surgery for the detection of such disorders in routine examinations.” Judging from the language of this directive, the Justice Department is interested in devising an early-warning system for riot control… 

It didn’t matter that the Kerner Commission had already concluded that white racism was at the root of civil violence.⁷ 

Who Gets To Take Part In The Programs? 

It is also no accident that the people who are subjected to psychosurgery and behavior modification techniques are often captive populations. The use of these methods is not guided by rational scientific principles but by social and political considerations. 

Targets of psychosurgery are supposed to be depressed women, hyperactive children, drug addicts, alcoholics, epileptics, neurotics, psychotics, and convicts. Targets are often black… 

Typical patients include those who display what psychosurgeons refer to as “symptoms of abnormal behavior” such as emotional tension, anxiety, aggressiveness, destructiveness, agitation, distractability, suicidal tendencies, nervousness, mood changes, rage, stealing, and explosive emotions… And since every human being exhibits at least one of these traits, presumably all one has to do to qualify for such an operation is to rub society the wrong way.⁸ 

Walter Freeman, who has done 4000 lobotomies, in his classic textbook, Psychosurgery, describes the people who he thought were the best candidates. They were old people, poor people, people with low skills and low education, women in particular. His best clients, those with whom he had the most “success,” were black women. Freeman said openly that:

…the operation permitted people to function where little was required of them. Therefore it would be suitable for a woman of whom you expected nothing but that she do a minimal amount of housework; whereas men weren’t wanted under those restricted conditions, except occasionally in the very lowest laboring groups. Women have been more easily subjected to abuse; they make better victims; they tend to submit more easily to victimization and they have less power in general.⁹

This statement is telling. Women aren’t particularly important, according to Freeman. As well, they aren’t visible, alone at home. They are isolated from view and therefore lobotomizing them to do low-level labor is perfectly acceptable. 

Behavior modification may sound more appealing than surgery and systematic discrimination, but it is merely more subtle. It wears a technical-medical justification and hides the elements of social control and coercion behind the rhetoric of treatment and therapy for the “welfare” of the “client.” 

The warnings are clear: application of medical, social therapy, first to socially deviant and captive populations: the prisoners, the children, the aged, the drug users, the gays, and the women; and finally to all categories of social dissent… 

Clearly, we are at a threshold of use of a massive psycho-technology to the ends of social control of behavior. Arguments about the effectiveness or feasibility are at this time irrevelant. What cannot be accomplished right now with monitoring, shock, anectine, apomorphine, beatings and behavior modification will be possible next year or in five years. Technology’s favorite problem is the insurmountable one.¹⁰ 

Psychosurgeons and behavior modifiers suggest that they offer us a more rational approach to the problems of human behavior (such as “the violence problem”), one that relies upon the skills of scientists and clinicians. This represents another illustration of the use of technology to repress behavior that is unacceptable to the existing order. Its hucksters are men such as Dr. Hutschnecker, former  psychiatrist to Nixon, who proposed the use of sophisticated psychological tests on children in order to identify and isolate potential social deviants;¹¹ Dr. R.G. Heath, who claims that drug addiction is an attempt at self-medication for pleasure in people who have a neurological defect in their pleasure center—who suffer from brain damage (his cure is corrective surgery or a more efficient pleasure-producing compound);¹² and Dr. Jose Delgado, who has proposed a billion dollar government-sponsored project on the feasibility of electrical stimulation to control minds, and who wants to develop a psychocivilized society.¹³ The acceptance of such practices, justified by simplistic theories of human behavior, can serve only to legitimize. sanitize, and further institutionalize repression and brutality. 

The objective of psychosurgery and behavior modification is pacification. Violence or the potential to violence is seen by psychosurgeons as abnormal, deviant behavior that must be stopped, even if the result is the obliteration of all brain functions. We must understand that in many cases, rebelliousness and violence are appropriate responses to intolerable conditions in our society. When these responses lead to self-destructive behavior or attacks on one’s family, the individual requires human assistance and social and economic equality, not permanent brain damage. When violence is a part of the struggle against oppression, it warrants support. 

The use of psychosurgery, aversion and drug therapies, and behavior modification in the prisons, mental hospitals, schools and research centers in this country should raise broad questions for us about social control in America, and about the use of the so-called science to justify the control of target populations here. The reliance upon “experts,” who are not responsible to the people upon whom they work their programs but rather to those who pay for and ask for the methods, is typical of a society that fosters elitism, class segregation and oppression. The role of the psychologist and neuropsychologist in guiding the actions of administrators in institutions of control in this society is expanding. Both sets of people are able to hide behind a curtain of technical jargon which they claim justifies their work, and which no one else is able to understand. Under these circumstances, it is difficult for us, the people, to have assurance that what they are doing is in our interest. But, whether we have assurance or not, the “professionalism” is invoked to make us believe we are not capable of understanding; nor, they say, is it necessary for us to understand or to question their policies which shape our lives. 

The following statement by a group of Philadelphia mental patients sheds some more light on the nature of psychosurgery and coercive behavior programs. The people who composed this statement are like many whom the psychosurgeons would claim qualify for time under the scalpel. 

We are a group of mental patients at Haverford State Hospital. 

We have decided that psychosurgery is a bizarre form of social engineering. 

We find the very concept of physical control of the mind and its implicit goal of a psychocivilized society to constitute a violation of both the natural and human world. 

Psychosurgery is a violent practice, yet its brutality is concealed by the language of medicine and science. It destroys healthy brain tissue to eliminate undesirable behavior. It is a quick and cheap way of eliminating the symptoms but does not resolve the cause. In the process, psychosurgery destroys human creativity, imagination, deeper insight, and, in general, those human qualities which stand in opposition to the progressively rationalized, computerized, therapeutic state.¹⁴ 

(There exist other aspects of control for us to examine.) 

An intelligent boy of 9 is considered a pest by his mother. She takes him to a doctor who describes him as “hyperactive, aggressive, combative, explosive, destructive and sadistic.” To make him more obedient and to control his behavior, the doctor slices the child’s scalp open, drills holes through his skull and plants a few electrodes in his brain. Nine months later, the operation is repeated and the doctor reports that the boy’s behavior is “markedly improved” and he is able to return to school. A year passes and his symptoms reappear. The doctor performs a third operation, after which he observes “impaired memory for recent events—grounds for a fourth operation, following which all of the boy’s original symptoms disappear. Satisfied, the doctor halts surgery but concludes: Intellectually, however, the patient is deteriorating.¹⁵

This information helps to underline the priorities that psychosurgeons have: They are more worried about modifying the behavior of the victim than with treating the causes of the behavior. They are more concerned about making the victim docile to the point where he-she will accept his-her oppressive condition than about the possible and probable damage to the person’s brain and mental capacities. They are more interested in achieving a society in which each person docilely accepts his-her assigned, oppressive role than with the human needs of their patients. 

What Are The “Treatments”? 

Another method of behavior modification is the use of electrodes implanted in the brain. These electrodes can be used in three ways. First, they can destroy certain areas of the brain with tiny electrical burns. This is a more “refined” and exact method of lobotomy. Second, they are used for electronic brain stimulation. Dr. Robert J. Heath, professor of psychiatry at Tulane, has implanted up to 125 electrodes in an individual’s brain. 

Lobotomies are usually performed by removing portions of the frontal lobe of the brain. The frontal lobe controls many of the mind’s most subtle functioos, such as intelligence and emotion. A lobotomy leaves the subject in a totally passive state, in essence a human robot who can perform simple tasks totally without challenge and emotion… Lobotomies are performed not only by surgery, but also by implanting radioactive radium seeds in the brain, or by attaching electrodes to the brain. With electrodes, a lobotomist can destroy brain cells gradually as he tests the intellectual and emotional reaction of the conscious patient.¹⁶

Heath has patients hooked up to transistorized pleasure-packs so that they can walk around stimulating themselves toward orgasm up to 1000 times per hour. One patient he describes never quite reaches it: he gets frustrated. Heath says that this particular patient had narcolepsy, that is a tendency to fall asleep inappropriately, and when he would fall asleep inappropriately one of the men on the ward could press his button for him and wake him up. And can you imagine the potential control in this’? There’s a man in Norway who was trained at the Mayo Clinic here in America. He describes the severe terror and fright that can also be created by the use of these implanted electrodes. I think a great deal of the future psychosurgery will be in that direction if it’s not stopped.¹⁷ 

Completely within the realm of possibility is the situation in which people are trained not to be “subversives,” communists or radicals. To be anything but passive and accepting of conditions would be unacceptable and altered. A third use of electrode implantation has been for monitoring and controlling behavior in general. Justifying it with the now familiar “carrot” of shortened sentence and the rhetoric of “humane treatment,” R.K. Schwitzgebel of the Harvard Law School has proposed a tracking or surveillance system similar to one used to monitor heart patients. This one, however, would monitor parolees and “sexual deviants” 24 hours a day. It would not be for maintaining the victim’s heart beat though. According to Schwitzgebel what it would do: 

Special security equipment has been designed and is being further developed to prevent the removal or compromise of personally worn equipment by parolees. If this equipment were used to guarantee the wearing of personal transmitters and integrated into an electronic locator system, a very powerful involuntary system of surveillance would be possible. All of the major components of such a system have been developed in a design or prototype stage in various laboratories… For example, devices have been developed for measuring penile erection during therapeutic treatment of sexual deviates or for the objective measurement of sexual preferences… Transducers have been designed that provide an electrical output suitable for the continuous monitoring and recording of penile changes. The linkage of these transducers to a portable transmitter rather than a recorder would not be difficult and could, when included with an electronic locator system, provide the capability of precisely monitoring sex offenders within the community.¹⁸

Schwitzgebel has already set up an experimental program in Cambridge, Massachusetts using electronic monitoring devices capable of tracking the wearer’s location, transmitting information about the wearer’s activities, communicating with him-her, and modifying behavior directly by reward or punishment. Parolees would probably be forced to “consent” in order to gain release from prison. Therefore, anyone in prison, for whatever reason, could be forced to accept this surveillance in order to get out, and then would have his-her thoughts controlled remotely and continuously by the “expert” at the other end. These methods are by no means exhaustive of the techniques at the disposal of the ruling class of this country. Others exist and proliferate. Aversion and drug programs and the use of electroconvulsive shock (ECT) to obtain compliance are available and actively peddled by eager experts and administrators. 

Aversion therapy refers to the use of an unpleasant experience which is coupled with a continuous explanation of the unwanted behavior. Sometimes straight shock to a part of the body is used, sometimes drug induced reactions, and as we have learned before from the Bien Hoa quote, sometimes ECT is administered to force people to comply with the “expert’s” demands. 

The drugs most commonly used in aversion therapy are thorazine, prolixin, anectine and apomorphine. Each of these is hideous in its own special way. 

Thorazine is the mildest of these drugs; it’s basically a strong depressant. Psychiatrists have found that if they give a patient 3000 to 4000 milligrams of thorazine, so that he-she can hardly move about, it is temporarily as effective as performing a lobotomy.¹⁹ Prolixin is the trade name for the version of the phenothiazine derivative, fluphenazine, which is marketed by E.R. Squibb and Sons. It is about 50 times more potent than the more commonly known phenothiazine, chlorpromazine (thorazine). However, its effects are more than just a heavy depressant. The following personal descriptions by prisoners who have been injected with prolixin provide a much more adequate description of its brutality: 

About a month ago I was given prolixin, a punishment drug, at Vacaville… coerced by the presence of three prisoner helpers, one guard and a prison employee called a medical technical assistant. The drug stays in your system for two weeks… I had a Parkinson reaction to it—couldn’t sleep—couldn’t think—couldn’t get comfortable—couldn’t walk normally and my tongue thrusted between my teeth. Prolixin is torture. It is called liquid shock therapy by the prisoners.²⁰

It seems it’s destroying your mind. You can’t concentrate. If you’re thinking three things at the same time, all those thoughts explode. If you’re thinking of spaghetti, for example, the spaghetti is blown up in your mind to the size of large tubes, snaking around every which way. Your thinking is slowed down. 

It seems like your breathing is stopped. Your eyeballs move funny—feel like you’re dying. The doctors tell you you’re dying and without an antidote, you die. You can’t move anything. You’re like a vegetable. You sweat. They tell you if you’re ever caught having sex in here again, you won’t get the antidote and you’ll die.²¹

Prolixin isn’t something that is used only in rare cases. Dr. L.J. Pope, Medical Superintendent of Vacaville, told the San Francisco Examiner that prolixin was administered to 1093 prisoners at Vacaville in 1971.²² 

Apomorphine causes severe nausea. It is used in the following way: 

The subject was initially given a subcutaneous injection of 1.5 mg. of apomorphine. After about 8 minutes, he began to feel nauseated. Severe nausea lasting 10 minutes without vomiting was aimed for, and the dose was constantly adjusted throughout to maintain this response. One minute before nausea comes on, the technician slipped on a slide projector and the patient viewed a slide of a nude or partly nude man. Before the nausea reached its maximum he turned off the projector. 28 treatments were administered at 2-hour intervals over 5 days.²³

The brutality of subjecting a person to these programs every two hours over a five day period is staggering. The victim barely has time to recover from one attack before the onslaught of the next one, which he-she knows is coming. This predictability and anticipation are part of the plan of aversion therapy. 

Anectine produces total paralysis of the voluntary muscles for about two minutes. One of the effects of this total paralysis is that the victim can not breathe voluntarily; oxygen must be administered. The patient-victim is fully conscious during the whole ordeal. According to those who have been injected, the victim is overwhelmed by a feeling of suffocation, of drowning, of sinking into death, and while in this fearful state, is told that when he-she next has the impulse to fight back or get angry, he-she should stop and think and remember the experience under anectine. 

After respiration stops, negative and positive suggestions spoken in a confident, authoritarian manner are made by a male technician. The negative suggestions concern the obliteration of unacceptable behavior… The positive focused upon the patient’s becoming involved with the government, taking individual responsibility, and increasing constructive socialization. These suggestions continue throughout the period of asphyxiation until the patient could verbally respond to the technician.²⁴ 

Dr. Arthur Nugent, who administered anectine to prisoners at Vacaville, says “The prison grapevine works fast and even the toughest have come to fear and hate the drug. I don’t blame them—I would not have the treatment myself for the world.”²⁵ Nugent, however, is able to refuse a treatment, as the captive victims cannot. People in prisons with parole held out like a carrot on a stick, who are subjected to the brutality of prison guards and the daily discomfort of constant control are not able to refuse. For many women, mental patients and children, therapy decisions are made for them by those who are “rational” and who “know” what is good for them. 

Drugs are not the only form of aversion therapy. ECT affects and can easily destroy brain tissue by sending a high voltage current through the brain. It is common that a victim will forget name, age, and life details after the “treatment.” A description of this treatment follows: 

In electroconvulsive shock therapy, electronic currents are applied to the front part of the individual’s head thus producing unconsciousness and a convulsion… Anectine… is often used during the administration of ECT to avoid the risk of fractured bones created by the sharp convulsion induced by ECT… Side effects include disorientation in time and space, damaged muscles and brain tissue, broken bones and loss of memory and inhibitions.²⁶

A prisoner at Vacaville gives us the following description of his experience with such treatment: 

They hit you with the first jolt and you experience pain that you would never believe possible. At the same moment, you see what could be described as a flash of lightning. You cannot breathe and they apply oxygen. During all this, you are in convulsions. This lasts only a few moments, but it seems like a lifetime. A few seconds after that, the pain is so severe that you pass out. 

About three months before I left the hospital, they made us (by threatening us with shock treatment) sign a paper that we have agreed to let them test drugs on us.²⁷ 

According to Dr. L.J. Pope, the medical superintendent of Vacaville, ECT was done on 433 prisoners in 1971.²⁸ 

Conclusion 

Because my mind is superior To your twisted mind of madness, Because I could never agree With your sick sense of reality By force you fill my veins With liquid “predictable behavior” And lobotomize my brothers’ brain So we will march To the sound of your drummer And be content With footballs instead of freedom With fiction instead of fact And with humiliation of us Instead of your humility    — Christopher Sutherland The author is an inmate at a New York State prison.

This paper has been an attempt to clarify some of the contradictions of the techniques now in use to modify and control behavior. Coupled with the brutality and the totalitarian nature of these methods is the destruction that they cause to the individual. 

Psychosurgery is said to produce bad side effects such as “loss of memory, dreams, and daydreams; intellectual emptiness; lack of awareness; shallow religious feelings; lack of creativeness; and loss of the ability to get angry.”²⁹ Dr. Charles King, president of the American OrthoPsychiatric Association, puts it this way: “If such experiments result in a nation of zombies, we might ask if the next step would be mass execution of the ‘undesirables.'”³⁰ A number of follow-up studies on the original, large group of lobotomized patients show that afterwards one-third of them didn’t even have enough brain power left to know they had been operated on. 

There is a great possibility that lobotomies are not effective in their own terms, and that the aims of aversion therapy are open to question: 

Clearly the aim here is not the etiology and origins of criminal behavior or a general solution to the crime rate and recidivism, but rather a blind concern with compliance and coercion. It is well known by professional psychologists that behavior sustained by reward and punishment will terminate when those rewards and punishments are removed. There is no treatment here—no rehabilitation, but only the same coercive control which has been the main concern of prison administrators for the past few decades.³¹

Hopefully the preceding statements and the quotation to follow will indicate the urgent need to act on the issues raised in this paper. And the need is not unique to prison populations. It is a common need of all people in society who seriously oppose this systematic oppression. 

The proliferation of such devices in the criminal justice field is most dangerous and unethical. While purporting to provide public protection, it threatens to eliminate the distinction between liberty and confinement. 

Just as seriously, it opens the way for extensive social control under coercion of imprisonment as an alternative. The opportunities for abuse are extensive.³²

Perhaps the use of such a system would concretely make us see that “Attica is all of us.” It is no secret to us now that education institutions are not towers of freedom and value-free science. The state, through its funding, directs areas of research and uses these institutions to help increase the technology of social control. The universities, at the same time, provide the justification for the findings as scientific, value-free, and correct. We must learn to recognize how all institutions in capitalist society serve to maintain the status quo. From prison, to mental hospital, to university, we must learn to understand our common interest in opposing social control in our society.

 

>> Back to Vol. 6, No. 3 <<

 

NOTES

1. Lesley Oelsner, “U.S. Bars Crime Fund Use on Behavior Modification” New York Times, February 15, 1974.
2. B.J. Mason, “New Threat to Blacks: Brain Surgery to Control Behavior,” Ebony, XXVII, No.4, February 1973, p. 63.
3. Robin Winkler, “Operant Conditioning In a South Vietnamese Mental Hospital,” Rough Times, Vol. 2, No.8, July 1972, p. 7.
4. Ruth Tebbets, “‘The Next Step in Law Enforcement: Electronic Brain Control,” Liberation News Service, No. 500, February 1973, p. 5.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Mason, p. 63.
8. Ibid.
9. “An Interview with Dr. Peter Breggin: Lobotomy — It’s Coming Back Again,” Liberation, October 1972, p. 33.
10. Stephen, Fox, et al, ‘The New Psychiatric Prison: Corrections Immune from the Law,” (Report to the National Convention of the National Lawyer’s Guild, Austin, Texas, February 1973), p. 9.
11. “Psychosurgery: Abuse of Medicine for Social Control,” A Report by the Medical Committee for Human Rights, note 40.
12. Ibid., note 17.
13. Ibid., note 10.
14. “Philadelphia Coalition Protests Human Experimentation and Psychosurgery,” Rough Times, Vol. 2, No. 8, July 1972, p. 16.
15. Mason, p. 63.
16. Chicago People’s Law Office, “Check Out Your Mind: Behavior Modification Experimentation and Control In Prison and a National Proposal to Fight It,” Up Against the Bench, Vol. 2, No. 2, February 1973, p. 9.
17. Breggin, pp. 31–2.
18. Ralph K. Schwitzgebel, “Limitation On The Coercive Treatment of Offenders,” Criminal Law Bulletin, Vol. 8, No. 4, May 1972, p. 292.
19. Breggin, p. 31.
20. John Bowers, “Prisoners’ Rights in Prison Medical Experimentation Programs,” Clearinghouse Review, VI, No.6, October 1972, p. 20.
21. Don Jackson, “California’s Atascadero State Hospital: A Prison for Sex Offenders, Sociopaths and Cultural Deviants,” Liberation News Service, No. 506, March 7, 1973, p. 4.
22. ”Gay Death at Vacaville,” Radical Therapist, Vol. 2, No. 7, June 1972, p. 5.
23. Louis Landerson, “Psychiatry and Homosexuality: New ‘Cures’,” Rough Times, Vol. 2, No.8, July 1972, p. 15.
24. Landerson, p. 15.
25. Weiner, p. 436.
26. Tebbets, p. 633.
27. Gay Death at Vacaville,” p. 5.
28. Ibid.
29. Fox, p. 8.
30. Mason, p. 72.
31. “Conditioning and Other Technologies Used to ‘Treat’?, ‘Rehabilitate’?, ‘Demolish’? Prisoners and Mental Patients,” Southern California Law Review, 616, 1972, p. 617.
32. Fox, p. 5.