Torture as punishment

[Edric O]

We can all agree that torture as a form of interrogation is unacceptable. It is a violation of the principle that anyone accused of a crime should be presumed innocent until proven guilty; it is a dangerous extension of state power because it places some people above the law; and it's not even an effective way of gathering good information.

But what about the use of torture - or "cruel and unusual punishment" - as a form of retribution against people who have been convicted based on undeniable evidence of having committed inhumanly cruel and unusual crimes? Do you think that should be a legal form of punishment for the more extreme crimes? I believe it should be an option; but only when a conviction is made based on overwhelming evidence, and only when there have been multiple victims over a long period of time.

The reason I thought of this topic is because of the case of this man:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/29/austria.internationalcrime

I do not think putting him in prison for the rest of his life would be sufficient retribution for his incredibly horrific crimes. He should be locked up in a dark cellar and never allowed to see the sun or speak with another human being again; he should not be provided with any facilities, not even a toilet, but a doctor should regularly check up on him to keep him in good health - wouldn't want him to escape his punishment by dying.

[Caid Ivik]

Austrians are weird in general, such case doesn't have as terrific value here as it would have in Romania. There are influental feminists here, trying to minimize any state-caused violence, and thus 'cruelty' is understood more in a psychological sense. It seems to me people think here the media coverage of the cause is a kind of 'torture' (as cruel punishment, social vengeance) itself, but I would have to ask, to be exact. If you want  ;)

[Edric O]

There are influental feminists here, trying to minimize any state-caused violence, and thus 'cruelty' is understood more in a psychological sense.

I wouldn't call them "feminist," but people like that annoy me. The state should be open, democratic and concerned with the welfare of its citizens, but it should also deliver harsh justice on those who prey on the defenceless.

[Sneakgab]

''only when there have been multiple victims over a long period of time.''

Are you suggesting that multiple victims are required to justify torture?

Some might say that punishment should only be there purely to discourage further committing of heinous act rather than for the fulfillment of justice, vengeance or the general idea of people getting what they deserve.

I have no problems with vengeance. When vengeance is committed, the wrongfully aggrieved gains pleasure at the expense of the person who caused him pain. You can see the extraction of that pleasure at the price of the original causer of pain as something akin to payment for damages.

When it comes to people getting what they deserve, then it is definitely true that it is possible to commit an act so heinous that conventional punishment cannot suffice. If you think this is important then you are definitely justified in bringing other methods of punishment too bear until the punishment suffices.

As for justice... Not even sure what people mean when they speak of justice. Maybe I should check the dictionary. :D.

There is also the idea of increasing the punishment for specific crimes to further discourage them. Although, it's possible those not sufficiently discouraged by even a life sentence will not be stopped by any threat.

[Dunenewt]

Just bring back the Death Penalty with minimum bureaucracy I say, that way it would be cheaper, and us tax payers would have to pay less for the justice system, and it would be an effective deterrent.

[Caid Ivik]

I just went around few photos of a new prison in Austria, a fair place for enforcing discipline and mediating a just punishment - http://kyberia.sk/id/3925975

[Dante]

I think the form of punishment should all depend on what one is trying to achieve with it. Retribution? Then yes, torture all you like. Rehabilitation? Hardly. Justice? A laughably subjective concept. To remove a threat? Then don't bother with torture, just kill. Though capital punishment is expensive and, to be honest, imperfect.

No matter how you look at it, there is something wrong. You can only kill someone once, which speaks in favour of torture over killing for retribution. But one could also argue that there is little point in hurting someone after the fact, and that removing them from society is just the most expedient route. This speaks in favour of killing over torturing.

Of course the state also has a responsibility, both to its citizens and itself. Criminals are citizens as well, and by law are due certain rights as human beings (as the situation stands). The state itself has an international and internal image to consider. "Yes he did terrible things, but what kind of people would we be to treat him the same? The state does not sink to the level of its lowest, not even for the lowest himself."

In other words, the state may wish to prove itself better than the person in question. Also I always thought it hypocritical to condemn one man for breaking the law and then breaking another in order to punish him...

So here's a thought. How about punishment in some cases is the responsibility of the victim, or the victim's family or chosen representative? Maybe they get a small donation, maybe not. Maybe it could become a custom for sympathetic people to donate money to the family so that they can afford better punishment.

First the jury decides guilt, and then it decides whether the crime is heinous enough to warrent personal retribution or not. If not, the state handles it with due course and legal coldness. If so, the victim or family has free range to choose whatever punishment they like, limited only by their own funds.

It's personal, inexpensive to the state, granted by a jury of peers, gives absolute power over the life of another to a group of imperfect humans with no obligation to be fair or impartial... Wonderful really. And humans can be ever so creative.

Edit:

We can all agree that torture as a form of interrogation is unacceptable. It is a violation of the principle that anyone accused of a crime should be presumed innocent until proven guilty; it is a dangerous extension of state power because it places some people above the law; and it's not even an effective way of gathering good information.

It is also, however, remarkably efficient at extracting confessions. And the people doing the torturing are not necessarily above the law, if the law is rewritten. It all depends on what you want from it. Now I'm not countering your point necessarily, just... saying that there are shades of grey.

[Savageman]

well shit if that's the case why not just drown people... it's pretty inexpensive

not to mention it's got torture linked with capitol punishment

2 birds with one stone if you ask me

[Dunenewt]

Drowning takes too long, and is too old school.  Just one shot in the back of the head after court should suffice.

[Savageman]

not really much fun in an instant kill

i mean it'd be different if you shot them in the main organs and watched them die

but shit... what ever happened to being stoned to death in public

i'm sure that'd bring in a crowd

[Dunenewt]

I suppose it depends on whether you want a long slow death, to punish them and make a spectacle, or just a quick clean cheap death, to save money and punish them.  Either way it would be a good deterrent.

[Savageman]

i think we could make a pay per view channel

all proceeds could to to cruel and unusual killings

sad thing is it'd pay for itself and then some

not to mention it'd prolly be loved by the rest of the USA too

[Dunenewt]

Surely the proceeds should go to the victims of the people who are being punished.  In which case who would you say deserve these kind of punishments?  Do you support castration for rapists/paedophiles, or do you think they should be killed in a cruel and unusual manner?

[Savageman]

both...lol

i know this is off subject...

how do you get better ranks and stuff on this...

and how do i get a picture thingy?

[Dante]

In your profile settings.

Killing people is expensive, and shouldn't be done lightly. Better for the responsibility to rest with a person than the state.

[Dunenewt]

It is unlikely 'civilised society' would allow such cruel and unusual killings to be done by the state anyway.

[Dragoon Knight]

It's just not PRP without someone being morally superior.

My views on torture are quite simple - it is never acceptable.  Assuming we adhere to the standards of morality established in the world today, it's an ethical double standard.  We condemn people who have committed atrocious acts to suffer equally unthinkable punishments?  That makes us no better than the felons themselves.  And while I do believe in "justice", I do not believe that it can justify immoral acts.

Justice is about punishment, not reprisal or vengeance.  The punishment should always fit the crime, but without compromising moral standards.  For example:

- For the crime of manslaughter: Jail time (several years, with emphasis on counselling and rehabilitation, but comfortable living).

- For the crime of murder: Extensive jail time (25 years minimum, with moderate counselling, release after sentence only if deemed safe, little-to-no luxuries).

- For crimes similar to Edric's link: Life in jail (and that means life, with little counselling, no chance of release, no luxuries, minimal contact with other people, only basic human rights).

Of course, these are just generalisations, but it illustrates the different levels of incarceration that I believe should be used in place of the systems we have in place now.  Executions may have a deterrent factor, but I for one would fear living the rest of my life in semi-solitary confinement much more than a lethal injection.  The cost of the above three methods should also tally at around about the same.  As the time of imprisonment / severity of the crime increases, so too will the cost to the taxpayer to keep them there.  However, the cost of amenities would lower exponentially as well, thus reducing the overall running cost of "Serious Crime" facilities.

But I'm getting more into the "how", rather than focusing on the "why".  The point is that to say "Murder is bad; for this you shall be murdered" and then follow up with "We do this in the name of justice" is fundamentally flawed.  What about the murderer's view of justice?  Perhaps he killed someone who subjected him to verbal abuse constantly for several years - he might see the death as "justice" being served.  This is why the term needs to be elevated above others like "revenge" and "retribution"; to be so distinct as to void direct comparison.

If we can class justice as being a tempered and humane response to infringements of the law, we can keep it as a virtue, rather than a subjective term bandied about hither and thither.  Torture is inhumane, and therefore cannot be classed as as a just punishment.  If we were to participate in torture for whatever reason, we'd be no better off than those we were inflicting it upon, excuses be damned.

[Dunenewt]

- For crimes similar to Edric's link: Life in jail (and that means life, with little counselling, no chance of release, no luxuries, minimal contact with other people, only basic human rights).

Of course, these are just generalisations, but it illustrates the different levels of incarceration that I believe should be used in place of the systems we have in place now.  Executions may have a deterrent factor, but I for one would fear living the rest of my life in semi-solitary confinement much more than a lethal injection.  The cost of the above three methods should also tally at around about the same.

But why should I, a taxpayer, have to pay for someone to spend the rest of their life in person?  If there wasn't so much bureaucracy, an execution would be much cheaper, and save valuable prison places.

[Dante]

Because morals > money?

Just a thought.

[Dunenewt]

Who is to say killing someone is immoral though, if they have already killed someone themselves?

[Dante]

You can either say that killing is wrong, in which case killing the murderer is wrong; or you can say that it isn't, in which case he's done nothing wrong.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

[Dunenewt]

Killing unlawfully is wrong, therefore the state can kill that person, as the state is the law.

[Dragoon Knight]

But why should I, a taxpayer, have to pay for someone to spend the rest of their life in person?  If there wasn't so much bureaucracy, an execution would be much cheaper, and save valuable prison places.

For the same reason that you have to pay for unemployed people, medical care and every other nationalised service.  It's a part of life - there will always be criminals, unemployment, sickness, etc.  They have to be paid by someone, and the fairest method (the only method) is to collect payment from everyone.

It's difficult to try and argue this point to someone who is for capital punishment, though, as they lack the moral code required as a base for the whole thing.  If you don't believe that killing people is wrong, this makes your arguments entirely subjective in nature.  Laws are about objectivity, and as much as some people hate to admit it, there are certain objective morals in civilised society.

Put it this way; justify for me the killing of someone who has murdered, and why this doesn't make you guilty of murder yourself.

[Dante]

Killing unlawfully is wrong, therefore the state can kill that person, as the state is the law.

But not the source of moral good, which one imagines should supercede mere law.

[Dunenewt]

Because a person isn't committing the execution, the state is, and the state cannot be guilty of murder, it is as simple as this.  Sick people, disabled people, unemployed people aren't that way by choice usually, so I cannot begrudge them my taxes, but if someone has willingly murdered someone else, then I see no reason why they should receive any of my money.  Perhaps they should be made to do forced labour then, so they would at least be doing something productive, or is that too immoral for you?  I do have a moral code, but morals are not set in stone and are not the same for everyone, and given the right circumstances, anyone's morals can be put aside.