The impulse to seek retribution against those who have perpetrated heinous crimes is a natural human inclination. Yet, it’s vital to remember that even those who commit the most grievous offenses are, at their core, human beings endowed with certain inalienable rights. In the context of warfare, the use of torture to extract information is undeniably a reprehensible act. It stands to reason, then, that torture employed solely as a means of inflicting pain for punishment’s sake is even more morally indefensible. However, I perceive a well-intentioned undercurrent in your remarks. Your response appears to reflect a person who retains a sense of empathy towards others, an attribute that is commendable.
That’s assuming one does not see their heinous actions as evidence of them revoking the social contract, and being subsequently greenlit for retribution by society at large.
If individuals have committed crimes, they’ve clearly broken the social contract. Your mention of retribution is especially interesting when we consider the Code of Hammurabi, one of the earliest known sets of laws, which introduced ‘lex talionis’ or ‘the principle of retribution’—likely the origin of the ‘an eye for an eye’ concept.
The idea of retribution does seem to tap into something intrinsic in our sense of justice. However, it’s important to note that during Hammurabi’s era, resources were much scarcer than today, making the sustained imprisonment of criminals impractical.
So, what is the underlying purpose of modern incarceration? In no particular order, it seems to be: isolating individuals from the public to prevent further crimes, serving as punishment to deter criminal behavior, and rehabilitation.
Torture, I believe, doesn’t make us safer nor does it contribute to rehabilitation. This leaves punishment to deter criminal activity. This can be seen either as a warning to potential criminals or, for those not facing life imprisonment, as a means to reduce recidivism.
Therefore, we’re left to balance the human rights of the individual against the potential deterrent effect of torture in preventing future crimes. Even in this simplified scenario, discounting the message sent by tacitly accepting state-sponsored torture and the diminishing impact of additional punishment on those who act irrationally, torture seems to serve only to satisfy a base desire for vengeance. We should not lower ourselves to such methods, aligning us closer to those who commit these heinous crimes.
Torture is not a good tool for rehabilitation. It’s also not a good tool for prevention, as I do not believe this individual would have behaved differently had they believed the risk for getting caught was torture instead of imprisonment.
Stick him in solitary for the duration. Nothing harmful to others will come back out.
The impulse to seek retribution against those who have perpetrated heinous crimes is a natural human inclination. Yet, it’s vital to remember that even those who commit the most grievous offenses are, at their core, human beings endowed with certain inalienable rights. In the context of warfare, the use of torture to extract information is undeniably a reprehensible act. It stands to reason, then, that torture employed solely as a means of inflicting pain for punishment’s sake is even more morally indefensible. However, I perceive a well-intentioned undercurrent in your remarks. Your response appears to reflect a person who retains a sense of empathy towards others, an attribute that is commendable.
That’s assuming one does not see their heinous actions as evidence of them revoking the social contract, and being subsequently greenlit for retribution by society at large.
If individuals have committed crimes, they’ve clearly broken the social contract. Your mention of retribution is especially interesting when we consider the Code of Hammurabi, one of the earliest known sets of laws, which introduced ‘lex talionis’ or ‘the principle of retribution’—likely the origin of the ‘an eye for an eye’ concept.
The idea of retribution does seem to tap into something intrinsic in our sense of justice. However, it’s important to note that during Hammurabi’s era, resources were much scarcer than today, making the sustained imprisonment of criminals impractical.
So, what is the underlying purpose of modern incarceration? In no particular order, it seems to be: isolating individuals from the public to prevent further crimes, serving as punishment to deter criminal behavior, and rehabilitation.
Torture, I believe, doesn’t make us safer nor does it contribute to rehabilitation. This leaves punishment to deter criminal activity. This can be seen either as a warning to potential criminals or, for those not facing life imprisonment, as a means to reduce recidivism.
Therefore, we’re left to balance the human rights of the individual against the potential deterrent effect of torture in preventing future crimes. Even in this simplified scenario, discounting the message sent by tacitly accepting state-sponsored torture and the diminishing impact of additional punishment on those who act irrationally, torture seems to serve only to satisfy a base desire for vengeance. We should not lower ourselves to such methods, aligning us closer to those who commit these heinous crimes.
Yeah, let’s just torture him so he goes off twice as hard when they release him…
That’s the neat part… We don’t release him!
Torture is not a good tool for rehabilitation. It’s also not a good tool for prevention, as I do not believe this individual would have behaved differently had they believed the risk for getting caught was torture instead of imprisonment.