Book Theme: Torture

This blog is the first in a series of blogs dealing with major and minor themes touched upon in my debut science fiction novel. I will visit some of the book’s topics from time to time in the blog section of my website in the lead-up to publishing my first book. There are multiple reasons why I’m choosing to include these write-ups. First, it gives me opportunities to share my thoughts on various topics that are at least tangentially related to essential aspects of my book. Another reason is that writing these blogs allows me to keep writing something of substance between book writings. A third reason is that I am interested in hearing feedback from people, whether it be about the blog topic or my writing style. Finally, and to be clear, not every blog will be about book-related themes. I plan on having a separate series of blogs dealing with lighter miscellaneous topics. I will talk more about that in upcoming blogs.

Before I go any further, I want to state unequivocally that my stance on torture is this: it is a repugnant and a barbaric means to an end. It shows the darkest sides of humanity in all of its wretched glory. I am not and never have been a proponent of it for various reasons, no matter the situation. I understand why governments may incorporate torture. However, I disagree with using such means to carry out some perverse sense of justice or necessity. I will discuss different perspectives on torture, specifically state-sanctioned torture, with my point of view. I will first go into a bit of the historical background on state-sanctioned torture before discussing the evolution of the logic behind the justifications for implementing such measures.

State-sanctioned torture was instituted as early as 2100 B.C. with the oldest known law code, Code of Ur Nammu, and 1700-1800 B.C. with the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi[1]. Respectively, these codes documented the Sumerian and Babylonian rules of law, which governed the routine functions of that society, from marriages and commercial contracts to criminal penalties, including torture. As expected of primitive societies, the prevailing thought was that these laws were divinely ordained and people obeyed without question.  It was not until the legal system of Ancient Greece when laws were considered to be man-made inventions. A somewhat softer tone was taken, reserving various forms of torture for slaves to violate some more penal severe codes.

During this period, people considered torture a tool to extract the truth from seemingly deceitful individuals; thus, making any resulting confessions admissible evidence before the judiciary[2]. Such logic has numerous apparent flaws, but it was a necessary step in the evolution of torture as a governmental tool. Over the following centuries, governments used torture to” create evidence” and as a form of punishment. These forms of punishment were not reserved only for slaves. They were also often extended to other peoples who were not considered acceptable to society, such as foreigners, ethnic minorities, and religious outcasts, to name a few. Eventually, governments were open to torturing citizens to manufacture confessions for various crimes ranging from petty theft to the most severe crimes against authority and the established moral codes. Such serious crimes included (but are not exclusive to) heresy and the ultimate sin against the state, acts of treason. Not coincidentally, religion has historically been intertwined with politics in numerous societies. Thus, at the whim of the state, anyone could be deemed candidates to suffer physical and psychological torture[3]. To be clear, the justification for the implementation of torture varied widely from society to society and from period to period. It was not until the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century when Italian philosopher Cesare Beccaria helped usher in a new era of reduced state-sanctioned torture[4]. Beccaria’s treatise, On Crimes and Punishments (1764), became a significant part of the foundation upon which liberal democracies worldwide based many of their capital punishment policies. However, this produced a new problem in which so-called liberal democracies overly dependent on incarceration as the primary form of punishment and reform while never abolishing physical or psychological torture[5]. Not only was torture not repealed by this time, but it was also increasingly used throughout the 20th century[6]. In all honesty, incarceration presents its versions of physical and psychological torture, which has, unfortunately, become perfectly acceptable in modern society.

As referenced above, there have been various justifications for state-sanctioned torture. However, for brevity, this blog will only focus on the most common reasons given. The original known reason documented by ancient societies was that physical torture was a tool decreed by the gods to help the state produce proof of guilt or innocence[7]. The logic behind justifying torture was that the perpetrator of the crime would be compelled to confess their guilt if subjected to torture. Ancient Greece somewhat addressed the inherent flaws in this logic with the ethical and philosophical tenets of a relatively vague and complex theory known as natural law. For clarification, it makes sense to give a brief definition of the term’ natural law.’ Natural law is a philosophical and ethical theory that states that inherent values serve as the basis for human behavior and reasoning[8]. According to natural law, such qualities are void of societal, governmental, or judicial influence. Natural law is applicable at the governmental level and the individual level. At the government level, natural law provided general guidelines that helped preserve social norms that dictate how civilized societies moved[9]. At the personal level, the natural law theory laid out a general policy of rules to govern interactions between people.  These rules embody the belief that man-made laws are based heavily on pre-existing norms, social practices, and ideas held under natural law[10]. With that said, ancient Greek society had begun to look at the implementation of torture through an analytical lens, not depending on the belief of divine law. Under natural law theory, the state’s use of physical and psychological torture results from humanity’s choices.  An innate sense of what was necessary to carry out the state’s idea of justice serves as the basis for these choices. That may have meant extracting information from an uncooperative culprit or making an example out of particularly egregious perpetrators to dissuade others from committing the same illegal acts. There was often an underlying presumption of guilt by the state that preceded the perceived necessity to utilize torture.

Over the following centuries, various civilizations built upon the natural law theory as the basis for their justifications for torture, but the most influential in refining the approach is the Roman Empire, mainly behind the legal mind of Marcus Tellius Cicero. At the core of Cicero’s advocacy for natural law was his belief that law is logical human reasoning in harmony with nature. Such laws are not in constant flux or evolution but remain consistent with what human nature dictates[11]. My interpretation of Cicero’s reasoning is twofold.  First, human nature has always held the same basic ethical principles.  Second, people must maintain civility if humanity is to continue existing. Therefore, there was a sense of having a moral high ground in carrying out tortures for the sake of helping to maintain a civil society. This sentiment followed in the centuries to come during periods such as the Spanish Inquisition, the Middle Ages, the Crusades, slavery in the Americas, to name a few examples.  

It wasn’t until the 19th century that Western countries began to abolish the use of state-sanctioned torture. There are several different minor explanations as to how this came to be. One answer suggests that governments repealed the use of torture during the 17th and 18th centuries due to lowered standards of legal proof[12].  Another explanation is that the 19th century saw significant cultural shifts in views on torture. These shifts eroded the moral argument for torture[13].  Yet a third explanation is that by the 19th century, the authorities in many Western countries developed and implemented methods of discipline considered to be superior to torture[14].  However, the most widely accepted explanation is that by the 19th century, society had become enlightened to the point that the use of state-sanctioned torture was unpopular[15]. I believe that combining all the above explanations (and likely even more) attributed to the temporary decline in instances of state-sanctioned torture during the 19th century in Western civilization.

Between two World Wars, the Cold War, the rise in mass incarceration, and counter-terrorism activities, the 20th century saw a massive uptick in state-sanctioned torture across the world[16]. The explanation for the reversal of the trend that had taken place in the previous century, particularly among liberal democracies, varies among commentators. Although there are numerous explanations, the common themes often referenced are 1) the need for information extraction and 2) deterrence of horrific behavior. Absent were the ethical rationalizations that had been prevalent in pro-torture arguments of the past. The focuses for many of these governments were primarily twofold. The first is the perceived efficiency of adequately motivating subjects to divulge desired information as quickly and thoroughly as possible. Second, governments’ designed torture methods to be as traumatizing psychologically as it was physically. These current justifications are the primary fuels for the arguments for the continuation of state-sanctioned torture until this day. For example, incarcerated solitary confinement is a form of torture used often and indiscriminately. It affects the individual psychologically by allowing minimal human contact for extended periods. This treatment has induced psychological effects such as suicidal thoughts, anxiety, stress, depression, inability to socialize, psychosis, paranoia, hypersensitivity to sounds and smells, among many other maladies[17]. The physical effects are often chronic migraines, digestive problems, severe weight loss, muscle and joint pain, eyesight deterioration, nerve damage, among many other maladies[18].

Historically speaking, the justifications for the use of torture by various governments have been surprisingly simple. They have fluctuated between being morally necessary and ethically reprehensible.  The motives were always boiled down to either extracting information to further the state’s agenda or brutality required to maintain law and order in a civil society. I find it ironic that in all of the time, effort, and resources expended to achieve these objectives, state-sanctioned torture methods implemented by those governments undermine them. Over the last few decades, many studies have highlighted how typically unreliable extracted information is when resulting from so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. One such study showed how such information could be intentionally deceptive or heavily inaccurate due to the stressful situation under which it is being distracted[19].

Regarding torture as a deterrent, there is a lack of empirical evidence to prove that torture consistently deters perpetrators or future would-be perpetrators from committing acts of violence. On the contrary, state-sanctioned torture more often increases the chances of future violent criminal acts[20]. My final statement on this topic is that the acceptance of state-sanctioned torture makes society less civil, not more. I believe this because governments have long abandoned the so-called ethical arguments for justifying torture and have instead chosen views that are either naive or ominous.

CITATIONS

[1] History of Torture. (2015). Tortureum. https://tortureum.com/history-of-torture/

[2] Ibid

[3] Einolf, Christopher J. American Sociological Association. (2007, June 2). The Fall and Rise of Torture: A Comparative and Historical Analysis. www.Asanet.Org. https://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/images/journals/docs/pdf/st/June07STFeature.pdf

[4] History of Torture. (2015). Tortureum. https://tortureum.com/history-of-torture/

[5] Vick, Jason. “‘Putting Cruelty First’: Liberal Penal Reform and the Rise of the Carceral State.” Social Justice, vol. 42, no. 1 (139), 2015, pp. 35–52, www.jstor.org/stable/24871311. Accessed 30 Apr. 2021.

[6] Einolf, Christopher J. American Sociological Association. (2007, June 2). The Fall and Rise of Torture: A Comparative and Historical Analysis. www.Asanet.Org. https://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/images/journals/docs/pdf/st/June07STFeature.pdf

[7] History of Torture. (2015). Tortureum. https://tortureum.com/history-of-torture/

[8] Murphy, Mark. The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 26 May 2019, plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=natural-law-ethics.

[9] Mineshema-Lowe, Dale. Natural Law. The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University, 2009, www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/788/natural-law.

[10] Ibid

[11] Cicero, De Re Publica, 3.32 and 3.33

[12] Einolf, Christopher J. American Sociological Association. (2007, June 2). The Fall and Rise of Torture: A Comparative and Historical Analysis. www.Asanet.Org. https://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/images/journals/docs/pdf/st/June07STFeature.pdf

[13] Ibid

[14] Ibid

[15] Ibid

[16] Ibid

[17] Shalev, Sharon. A Sourcebook on Solitary Confinement. Sharon Shalev, 2008.

[18] Ibid

[19] Shannon C. Houck & Lucian Gideon Conway III (2015) Ethically Investigating Torture Efficacy: A New Methodology to Test the Influence of Physical Pain on Decision-Making Processes in Experimental Interrogation Scenarios, Journal of Applied Security Research, 10:4, 510-524, DOI: 10.1080/19361610.2015.1069636

[20] Gary LaFree, Laura Dugan, and Raven Korte. “The Impact of British Counterterrorist Strategies on Political Violence in Northern Ireland: Comparing Deterrence and Backlash Models.” Criminology 47 (2009): 17–45.