Is it licit for the state to 'break' a criminal

[DL82]

I was having a discussion with someone with quite extreme views on crime and punishment. The question arose of whether it is morally licit for the state to ‘break’ someone, both as a deterrent and in order to prevent them being a threat. In this context, I am interpreting that as meaning inducing the kind of long term mental distress experienced by those who have been held hostage by terrorists, soldiers who have suffered severe post-traumatic stress, the victims of severe repeated violent domestic abuse, etc. - in other words, a severe and lasting state of fear and inadequacy, of never again being able to feel entitled to safety, love or basic human respect.

Someone voiced the view that prison ought to completely ‘break’ the criminal, so that they would be so overcome by fear of the state that they wouldn’t even look someone in the eye again, let alone re-offend, and that seeing them wandering the streets mere husks of men, others would be deterred from committing crime. I can only imagine they had in mind something like the starvation and solitary confinement inflicted by the French in the prison colony of Guyana in the film Papillon.

I, of course, assumed that this would be explicitly condemned by the Church. The Catechism states “2297… Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity… 2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order… Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy… In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.”

I suppose the question is whether such a ‘breaking’ would constitute torture in this sense? It seems obvious to me that it would, but I’m open to the suggestion that I may be wrong. Opinions?

Regardless of whether it’s morally licit, I still think my friend who suggested it is on the wrong track on this one.

 

[Newbie2]

Such is torture.

Torture=Immoral.

 

[Dale_M]

The use of such extreme measures requires that the interrogators have already passed djudgment on the arrestee. In other words, the interrogators have placed themselves in front of the judicial system, they have effectively taken over the role of judge. Although sometimes this might not result in harm, there is a very real danger that innocent persons might be railroaded into false confessions or similar false cooperation with prosecution.

Since 1970, 42 wrongful murder convictions have been documented in Illinois. Twenty-five of the convictions, or 59.5%, rested in whole or part on false confessions. Fourteen of the cases involved the defendant’s own confession. Three of the 14 also involved confessions of co-defendants, and the remaining 11 stemmed principally from co-defendants’ false confessions. Of the 25 cases, all but two involved additional obvious problems - including dubious forensic evidence, police failure to pursue viable alternative suspects, incorrect or perjured eyewitness identifications, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of defense counsel.

law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/issues/causesandremedies/falseconfessions/FalseConfessionsStudy.html

 

[Rascalking]

I’m of the opinion that if someone breaks into my home, steals my stuff and rapes my children, we should let him go free to do it again. After all, he’s just “misguided”. He didn’t mean it. Arresting him and throwing him into a jail just lowers us to his level.

If we catch terrorists who are going to kill thousands of people, and we know they will do it again, I say, let them. Kill those innocent people!! In fact, why not stop there? Let’s supply them with ammunition and weaponry!

Torture isn’t pretty, neither is punishment. It’s necessary in a fallen world though. Are there limits to what we should do? Of course. But there is a gray area.

 

[Newbie2]

I’m of the opinion that if someone breaks into my home, steals my stuff and rapes my children, we should let him go free to do it again. After all, he’s just “misguided”. He didn’t mean it. Arresting him and throwing him into a jail just lowers us to his level.

If we catch terrorists who are going to kill thousands of people, and we know they will do it again, I say, let them. Kill those innocent people!! In fact, why not stop there? Let’s supply them with ammunition and weaponry!

Torture isn’t pretty, neither is punishment. It’s necessary in a fallen world though. Are there limits to what we should do? Of course. But there is a gray area.

Torture is contrary to Catholic Morality, so from our perspective, it certainly is not NECESSARY. However, I do agree when you say there are grey areas as to what constitutes torture.

 

[Rascalking]

Torture is contrary to Catholic Morality, so from our perspective, it certainly is not NECESSARY. However, I do agree when you say there are grey areas as to what constitutes torture.

If your against “torture” or extreme measures, you have to admit that the only other option is letting innocent people die.

IE-You capture a 9/11 participant on 9/01/01. He does not want to talk or give information. Since your a noble soul, you say you won’t torture him. You arrest him, give him an attorney, and then walk away. Ten days later, 3000 people innocent people die.

If you want to be against it extreme measures, you have to be consistent and say that the deaths of innocent people is irrelevant.

 

[Newbie2]

If your against “torture” or extreme measures, you have to admit that the only other option is letting innocent people die.

IE-You capture a 9/11 participant on 9/01/01. He does not want to talk or give information. Since your a noble soul, you say you won’t torture him. You arrest him, give him an attorney, and then walk away. Ten days later, 3000 people innocent people die.

If you want to be against it extreme measures, you have to be consistent and say that the deaths of innocent people is irrelevant.

Once again, we would need to define where “torture” and “extreme” measures begin.

And what if the person in question did not know what we think he or she knows, or even claims to know?

You would then have to justify the torture of an innocent person. Good luck with that.

I dismiss your claim:
“If you want to be against it extreme measures, you have to be consistent and say that the deaths of innocent people is irrelevant”. Of course the lives of innocents are relevant. However, so is the human dignity of the prisoner, whether or not he or she is directly or indirectly involved in such a horrendous act.

It is not morally licit to do evil (torture) in order for good (saving lives) to come about through that evil act. This is one of the principles in Catholic Moral theology.

If you go down that road i.e. it’s OK in some instances to do evil to have a good outcome, then embryonic stem cell research becomes OK, among other things.

 

[Rascalking]

Once again, we would need to define where “torture” and “extreme” measures begin.

And what if the person in question did not know what we think he or she knows, or even claims to know?

You would then have to justify the torture of an innocent person. Good luck with that.

I dismiss your claim:
“If you want to be against it extreme measures, you have to be consistent and say that the deaths of innocent people is irrelevant”. Of course the lives of innocents are relevant. However, so is the human dignity of the prisoner, whether or not he or she is directly or indirectly involved in such a horrendous act.

It is not morally licit to do evil (torture) in order for good (saving lives) to come about through that evil act. This is one of the principles in Catholic Moral theology.

If you go down that road i.e. it’s OK in some instances to do evil to have a good outcome, then embryonic stem cell research becomes OK, among other things.

Ok than. Tell all that to the people who die in a terrorist attack. Tell that to their familes. If you can look them in the eye and tell them that, well, God help you.

 

[Newbie2]

Ok than. Tell all that to the people who die in a terrorist attack. Tell that to their familes. If you can look them in the eye and tell them that, well, God help you.

I wouldn’t need God’s help if it is the morally correct thing to do, right?

And if the person really didn’t know anything, could you look his or her family in the eye and say, “Sorry, we tortured them in error”? You think maybe God would look kindly on torturing an innocent person?

Look, I’m not suggesting that all we do in such cases is to ask politely then give up if we do not get an answer. Certain types of interrogation techniques are licit, but there is a line that cannot be crossed. Where that line is a legitimate topic for discussion.

That’s what Catholic Theology teaches, like it or not.

 

[Rascalking]

I wouldn’t need God’s help if it is the morally correct thing to do, right?

Look, I’m not suggesting that all we do in such cases is to ask politely then give up if we do not get an answer. Certain types of interrogation techniques are licit, but there is a line that cannot be crossed. Where that line is a legitimate topic for discussion.

That’s what Catholic Theology teaches, like it or not.

Yes, but most Catholic theologians don’t have to worry about their wives and children getting blown out of the sky. It’s the regular people-those not lucky enough to have the time to debate these things.

I’d rather tell God that I tried to save thousands, or in some cases, millions than tell him I felt “morally correct” and watched as a nuke went off in a major city.

 

[Newbie2]

Yes, but most Catholic theologians don’t have to worry about their wives and children getting blown out of the sky. It’s the regular people-those not lucky enough to have the time to debate these things.

I’d rather tell God that I tried to save thousands, or in some cases, millions than tell him I felt “morally correct” and watched as a nuke went off in a major city.

Hypothetical:

A person gets tortured. He or she divulges nothing. They die from the torturing.

You OK with that?

Add to that hypothetical that they really knew nothing.

You OK with having tortured an innocent person to death?

 

[Rascalking]

Hypothetical:

A person gets tortured. He or she divulges nothing. They die from the torturing.

You OK with that?

Add to that hypothetical that they really knew nothing.

You OK with having tortured an innocent person to death?

Of course not.That was an insulting question. I wouldn’t even torture a 9/11 perpetrator to death, thank you.

However, if we have credible evidence that someone has planted a bomb in a NYC subway, I am for doing what it takes to save innocent people.

If it turns out that you could have stopped a bomb going off if you slapped a terrorist in the face, kept him awake for hours, or something along those lines but choose not too-could you live with that?

 

[Newbie2]

Of course not.That was an insulting question. I wouldn’t even torture a 9/11 perpetrator to death, thank you.

However, if we have credible evidence that someone has planted a bomb in a NYC subway, I am for doing what it takes to save innocent people.

If it turns out that you could have stopped a bomb going off if you slapped a terrorist in the face, kept him awake for hours, or something along those lines but choose not too-could you live with that?

Insulting? You say that you “would do what it takes”(and we aren’t talking about you or I personally doing the interrogating or torturing, but whether we are OK with it being done).

What does that mean? You’re vague enough that I don’t know if you’re OK with torturing a person to death, even “accidentally”, and finding out later that whoops, they didn’t know anything afterall. So don’t be offended…be more concise. It’s not my intent to offend you but to better understand your argument.

I’m curious to know if you even read my posts.

If not, let me restate: It is my contention (that is consistant with Catholic teaching) that certain interrogation techinques may be morally acceptable to use. Slapping, sleep deprivation, use of “truth serum” are considered by some to be “torture”. Some, including myself, consider them morally licit. But there is a line somewhere that includes immoral torture; electric shocks, waterboarding, etc. certainly come a lot closer to that line, if not crossing it, than sleep deprivation. That line may be narrow or thick; there may or may not be a significant grey area depending on who you talk to.

What the Catholic Church says is that there IS a line that must not be crossed, even while not defining where that line is. And I happen to agree.

 

[Rascalking]

I’m curious to know if you even read my posts.
.

Nope. I have no idea what this thread is even about. We’re discussing what Iago’s motivation was in Othello, right?

 

[Newbie2]

Nope. I have no idea what this thread is even about. We’re discussing what Iago’s motivation was in Othello, right?

Never read it.

 

[Rascalking]

Never read it.

Outstanding play. My dog is named Othello.

 

[DL82]

I think this thread has got somewhat derailed. What my ‘friend’ was talking about was not torture as an interrogation technique, but rather the idea that, after being convicted of a crime, a person ought to be treated so badly (not necessarily tortured, but perhaps kept in humiliating conditions in solitary confinement, I’m not sure, we didn’t go into details) that they come out of jail a ‘broken man’. Is this any different?

 

[Light1111]

In Papillon, McQueen emerges from solitary with a head of white hair, despite his young age. If that doesn’t clear up any questions about its morality, I don’t know what will! Perhaps it’s always possible to find justifications for any act; but as my Dad always says, “Rationalization is the breakdown of moral fiber.” When you find yourself needing to look up Biblical quotes to support a position, because there’s no other possible way to support something, perhaps that by itself is indicative of the tendency of “rationalization” to rear its ugly (immoral) head.

 

[Rascalking]

I think this thread has got somewhat derailed. What my ‘friend’ was talking about was not torture as an interrogation technique, but rather the idea that, after being convicted of a crime, a person ought to be treated so badly (not necessarily tortured, but perhaps kept in humiliating conditions in solitary confinement, I’m not sure, we didn’t go into details) that they come out of jail a ‘broken man’. Is this any different?

Sorry for the derailment than. My bad.

 

[didymus]

In Papillon, McQueen emerges from solitary with a head of white hair, despite his young age. If that doesn’t clear up any questions about its morality, I don’t know what will! Perhaps it’s always possible to find justifications for any act; but as my Dad always says, “Rationalization is the breakdown of moral fiber.” When you find yourself needing to look up Biblical quotes to support a position, because there’s no other possible way to support something, perhaps that by itself is indicative of the tendency of “rationalization” to rear its ugly (immoral) head.

No we are getting some where.
Our first reaction to prisoners is “the are scum, lose the key, &c”. They are brutal and bruatalise each other. But they are still souls in need of salvation.

Why to do that in any prison system bits the hell me hollow. Nowadays “therapeutic” ideas are in vogue in some countries. In US just warehousing. In the 1800s penitentiaries had the idea of “breaking and reforming”, e.g. total silence, with mixed results.

What if there were some sort of kinder “Clockwork Orange” treatment that worked like a prosthetic conscience? That would be (to me) Satanic.