Show Menu
Cheatography
  1. Home >
  2. Education >

Criminology and MKULTRA Cheat Sheet (DRAFT) by

Criminology and MKULTRA Lecture Notes

This is a draft cheat sheet. It is a work in progress and is not finished yet.

Why MKULTRA is Relevant to Crimin­ology

Definition of MKULTRA:
CIA mind control and behavi­oural modifi­cation program (1953–­1973), involving covert experi­ments on unwitting human subjects.
Crimin­ology relevance:
Example of state crime and crimes of the powerful.
 
Illust­rates systematic violation of domestic and intern­ational law.
 
Demons­trates how scientific expertise can be weaponised by state agencies.
Key research lens:
State secrecy → prevents detection, obstructs accoun­tab­ility.
 
Inters­ection of law, ethics, and power.

Crimin­olo­gical Frameworks Applicable to MKULTRA

State Crime
Defini­tion:
Illegal or deviant acts committed by state agencies or officials in pursuit of their policies.
MKULTRA as state crime:
Violated the Nuremberg Code (informed consent, avoidance of harm).
 
Covert dosing of civilians → assault, poisoning, battery.
 
Experi­ments overseas violated host country sovere­ignty.
Crimes of the Powerful
Edwin Suther­land’s white-­collar crime theory:
Crimes committed by persons of respec­tab­ility and high social status.
MKULTRA fit:
Perpet­rators were senior scient­ists, psychi­atr­ists, government officials.
 
Shielded by profes­sional authority and classified security clearance.
Neutra­lis­ation Theory (Sykes & Matza, 1957)
Techniques of neutra­lis­ation used by MKULTRA personnel:
Denial of injury: Framing experi­ments as harmless or necessary for national security.
 
Appeal to higher loyalties: Claiming Cold War threats justified the actions.
 
Denial of victim: Viewing subjects (priso­ners, psychi­atric patients) as expendable or unworthy.
Strain Theory
Merton:
Crime arises when legitimate means to achieve goals are blocked.
MKULTRA angle:
The CIA sought control over human behaviour — an “innov­ation” where they abandoned lawful means and pursued illegal experi­men­tation to achieve strategic dominance.
State-­Cor­porate Crime
Partne­rship between government and private actors to commit harm.
MKULTRA used:
University resear­chers (e.g., Harvard, McGill).
 
Pharma­ceu­tical companies supplying drugs.
 
Front organi­sations to hide CIA involv­ement.
 

Criminal Acts and Legal Violations

Domestic US Law
Assault and battery:
Covert drugging without consent.
Homicide:
Deaths of subjects (e.g., Frank Olson).
Kidnap­pin­g/u­nlawful detention:
Some subjects held in isolation.
Fraud:
Misuse of federal funds under false pretences.
Intern­ational Law
Nuremberg Code breaches:
Experi­ments without voluntary consent.
Geneva Conven­tions:
Prohib­ition on inhumane treatment of civilians and POWs.
Sovere­ignty violat­ions:
Experi­ments conducted in Canada, Germany, Japan.
Civil Liability
Tort law violat­ions:
Neglig­ence, intent­ional infliction of emotional distress.
Barriers to litiga­tion:
State secrets doctrine, statute of limita­tions.

Victims and Vulnerable Popula­tions

Prisoners:
Viewed as expend­able; less public oversight.
Psychi­atric patients:
Already instit­uti­ona­lised and discre­dited.
Minorities and the poor:
Dispro­por­tio­nately targeted.
Military personnel:
Sometimes used without full disclo­sure.
Crimin­ology note: Victim­ology shows a pattern where those with least social power are most vulnerable to state abuse.
 

Invest­iga­tions and Exposure

Church Committee (1975–­1976)
US Senate invest­igation into intell­igence abuses.
Revealed MKULTRA and related programs.
Found systematic destru­ction of evidence (Sidney Gottlieb ordered MKULTRA files burned in 1973).
Legal Cases
Frank Olson family lawsuit (1970s­–19­90s).
Canadian survivors of Ewen Cameron’s “Montreal Experi­ments” sued the CIA and Canadian govern­ment.
Barriers to Justice
State secrecy doctrine:
Courts defer to executive branch claims of national security.
Evidence destru­ction:
Limits prosec­ution.
Statute of limita­tions:
Many claims time-b­arred before program exposure.

Theore­tical Insights from MKULTRA in Crimin­ology

State immunity enables large-­scale harm without accoun­tab­ility.
Elite deviance can operate under the guise of legitimate authority.
Crimes of obedience (Kelman & Hamilton, 1989): Indivi­duals commit acts they know are wrong when ordered by superiors.
Moral diseng­agement (Bandura): Ration­alising harm by reframing it as necessary or justified.

Legacy and Policy Reforms

Post-M­KULTRA reforms:
Stronger human subject research protec­tions (Belmont Report, IRBs).
 
Increased congre­ssional oversight of intell­igence agencies.
Continuing concerns:
“Black sites” and covert experi­ments post-9/11 raise parallels.
 
Survei­llance and behavi­oural data collection as modern equiva­lents of control research.