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

[Rascalking]

No we are getting some where.
Our first reaction to prisoners is “the are scum, lose the key, &c”. They are brutal and brutalize 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.

Okay. Let’s try the alternative of being sweet as pie to them. We give them a slap on the wrist, and let them out to kill again, drunk drive, and rob innocent people. You wouldn’t want to live in the world, I assure you.

Interestingly enough, I agree with you that they are souls in need of salvation. They do need to be treated better. However, giving them candy and kisses (It’s tongue-in-cheek, not claiming you want to treat them that way) isn’t going to work.

 

[Newbie2]

Methinks there is a middle ground here somewhere.

 

[gamewell45]

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.

As an alternative to torturing them, how about simply incarcerating them where they cannot harm anyone including themselves?

 

[Rascalking]

As an alternative to torturing them, how about simply incarcerating them where they cannot harm anyone including themselves?

Thats a fine idea, in theory-but how can we make sure they don’t hurt other prisoners, themselves, or guards/prison staff?

Again, I’m not in favor of random beatings and torturing them for glee sakes, but its a tough world, and there are bad people out there-people who don’t respond to good actions and cuddly hugs, regardless of our intentions. .

 

[bhall0689]

There are laws against torturing animals, and people get very upset about animal abuse cases. While animals have value and should be treated humanely and with respect, wouldn’t you say the value of a human life is priceless? And yet it would be morally justifiable to torture them?

Ever heard the phrase “the end does not justify the means?”

 

[gamewell45]

Thats a fine idea, in theory-but how can we make sure they don’t hurt other prisoners, themselves, or guards/prison staff?

Again, I’m not in favor of random beatings and torturing them for glee sakes, but its a tough world, and there are bad people out there-people who don’t respond to good actions and cuddly hugs, regardless of our intentions. .

Obviously there are no guarantees; however most modern prisons are set up to deal with these types of issues on how do deal with dangerous/difficult prisoners. I just think beatings are not the way to go as it causes us to lower ourselves to their standards.

 

[Rascalking]

There are laws against torturing animals, and people get very upset about animal abuse cases. While animals have value and should be treated humanely and with respect, wouldn’t you say the value of a human life is priceless? And yet it would be morally justifiable to torture them?

Ever heard the phrase “the end does not justify the means?”

Yes, in fact, I have. Ever heard the phrase, “Help! I’m about to be attacked by some gun toting maniac?” or what about “My daughter was raped by someone who just got out of prison?”

 

[Rascalking]

Obviously there are no guarantees; however most modern prisons are set up to deal with these types of issues on how do deal with dangerous/difficult prisoners. I just think beatings are not the way to go as it causes us to lower ourselves to their standards.

I don’t think beatings are either~I think I’ve said that 3 times now!

 

[Light1111]

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.

Here, here!

 

[bhall0689]

Yes, in fact, I have. Ever heard the phrase, “Help! I’m about to be attacked by some gun toting maniac?” or what about “My daughter was raped by someone who just got out of prison?”

I am not going to get deeply involved in this thread or a debate, since this really is a no-brainer issue that I believe does not warrant much debate.

Your points are moot in justifying torture. If you’re about to get attacked by a gun-toting maniac, how would you torture him in order to disarm him? You wouldn’t. You would shoot him with a gun, taser or otherwise. If your daughter was raped by someone who just got out of prison, are you saying you would take it upon yourself to go to his home and torture him? This is a complete knee-jerk reaction, and one that would most certainly land you in prison yourself.

I think we are talking about torturing people who can give us information, not just to be vengeful. In this sense, the phrase “the end doesn’t justify the means” does apply. Even if you get suitable information out of torturing a terrorist, just because you got that information out of him, which is good, does not make the way in which you got it morally just.

Others have asked, but you have not responded . . . let’s say torture where legal, and you tortured a person to death who later turned out to be innocent. How would you justify that?

 

[Rascalking]

I am not going to get deeply involved in this thread or a debate, since this really is a no-brainier issue that I believe does not warrant much debate.

?

Now THAT’S an answer! No-brainer huh? Wow. Glad you have such clarity. Must make you feel great. Yes, protecting innocent peoples lives is a “no-brainer”. Yes, this topic-one of the most morally gray topics in recent history-a “No-brainer”. Also, by saying your “not going to get deeply involved” that absolves you from any debate, huh? Automatically gives you the higher ground? I’ve never heard that one before-saying your going to not get involved than saying your opinion.

In the rare case an innocent person was tortured those responsible should be held accountable. That means subject them to criminal punishment.

 

[pnewton]

"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.

Not that this definition specifies a type of torture (physical or moral violence) and a purpose (punish, frighten or contrary to respect). Therefore, while I consider the OP’s ideas laudable and are within the scope of what is allowable, I do not see how it can be said that the Church does not allow for the psychological breaking of prisoners for any cause. Indeed, some have never in their raising been told “No” and benefit from it.

 

[markomalley]

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.

I don’t think that ill-treatment would qualify as “torture,” per se, but every person is entitled certain things just in virtue of the fact that they are human beings, no matter the quality of their humanity. I don’t have the time right now to look up the “bare minimum” list right now, but if memory serves, they have to be provided clothing, food, drink, shelter, and so on. More importantly, they have to be treated with a bare minimum level of respect due to the fact that they are humans, not animals.

The treatment depicted in Papillon violates that last one inherently.

Having said that, please don’t take my response to imply that I think that they should be served high tea every day, but there is a certain minimum standard of treatment.

This is also to say that some form of behavior modification is not in line with Church teaching, either. Military basic training involves (or at least used to involve) a “breaking” of the individual, but it doesn’t go to the degree shown in Papillon either. What was shown in Papillon was nothing more than organized sadism. The point is that there is a line that cannot be crossed.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t think that ill-treatment would qualify as “torture,” per se, but every person is entitled certain things just in virtue of the fact that they are human beings, no matter the quality of their humanity. I don’t have the time right now to look up the “bare minimum” list right now, but if memory serves, they have to be provided clothing, food, drink, shelter, and so on. More importantly, they have to be treated with a bare minimum level of respect due to the fact that they are humans, not animals.

Whose list are you thinking of?

This is also to say that some form of behavior modification is not in line with Church teaching, either.

It is not? I have never heard this. Does this apply to children as well, since they are, by and large, human?

 

[markomalley]

Whose list are you thinking of?

I seem to recall reading something, somewhere listing some things that are bare minimum human rights. Some encyclical. (I’m thinking Mater et Magistra, but I don’t have time to go through it right now)

It is not? I have never heard this. Does this apply to children as well, since they are, by and large, human?

That’s what I get posting before caffeine.

Please replace the sentence with the following:

This is -]also/-] not to say that some form of behavior modification is not in line with Church teaching, either.

 

[markomalley]

Here it is:
11. But first We must speak of man’s rights. Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of ill health; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood.

Bl. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris
​

That is not to say that the State is responsible to dole out the above under normal circumstances, but since the State has taken custody of the prisoner, the State must assume responsibility for providing the above in that situation.

 

[pnewton]

Here it is:
11. But first We must speak of man’s rights. Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of ill health; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood.

Bl. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris​

Here is the link to this encyclical:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem_en.html

The problem I see is that this list is for people as a whole, not prisoners and does not address the issue of proper treatment. By necessity, when a man commits a crime he may forfeit some of his rights. This can include, in the most extreme circumstances, his right to live. While the Catholic Church does not think the state should exercise this option, it does not deny the validity of it.

Other examples of rights that are given in this document, but do not apply to prisoners, are:

1. The right to emigrate and immigrate.
2. The right to choose one’s state in life.
3. The right to exercise personal initiatve in his work.
4. The right to meet and form associations with his fellows

There are all situations where the above rights must be disallowed. Yes, the person had those rights, but may have forfeited one or more through free choices. That is why I can not see applying this encyclical to the situation of prisoners.

That is not to say that a prisoner should forfeit any right, except as necessary. However, deciding what is necessary only brings us full circle back to the original question. All I know is that some things are specifically forbidden actions specifically for prisoners.

 

[markomalley]

Here is the link to this encyclical:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem_en.html

The problem I see is that this list is for people as a whole, not prisoners and does not address the issue of proper treatment. By necessity, when a man commits a crime he may forfeit some of his rights. This can include, in the most extreme circumstances, his right to live. While the Catholic Church does not think the state should exercise this option, it does not deny the validity of it.

Other examples of rights that are given in this document, but do not apply to prisoners, are:

1. The right to emigrate and immigrate.
2. The right to choose one’s state in life.
3. The right to exercise personal initiatve in his work.
4. The right to meet and form associations with his fellows

There are all situations where the above rights must be disallowed. Yes, the person had those rights, but may have forfeited one or more through free choices. That is why I can not see applying this encyclical to the situation of prisoners.

That is not to say that a prisoner should forfeit any right, except as necessary. However, deciding what is necessary only brings us full circle back to the original question. All I know is that some things are specifically forbidden actions specifically for prisoners.
[/indent]

All I’m saying is that any human being should be treated as a human being. The treatment in Papillon (the prototype the OP mentioned) did not qualify. I, frankly, doubt that most of our “Supermax” prisons, particularly in segregation, would qualify.

But it brings up another point: the death penalty. The way I read it, the Church rejects the death penalty as a matter of vengeance for past actions, but does not reject it if that is the only way to protect society from the criminal in question.

Here is the interesting moral dilemma: if the only way to protect society (to include that segment of society that includes prison guards and other prisoners) from an individual is to treat him with utter disregard for his basic human rights (keep him locked in a cell 24X7, no contact with other people, no visual stimulation, no worship, etc., etc., etc.) that have been shown to almost always drive a man crazy, is that more morally licit than to execute him?

 

[pnewton]

Here is the interesting moral dilemma: if the only way to protect society (to include that segment of society that includes prison guards and other prisoners) from an individual is to treat him with utter disregard for his basic human rights (keep him locked in a cell 24X7, no contact with other people, no visual stimulation, no worship, etc., etc., etc.) that have been shown to almost always drive a man crazy, is that more morally licit than to execute him?

That is an excellent question. I think the key to balance is to never deprive any right that is not necessary. The criteria the courts use is that there must be a “legitimate penalogical interest.” Keep a prisoner fed, housed and tend to his medical needs. Allow him what freedom of contact that you can. Allow him what intellectual stimulation and interaction with others you can. However, with some prisoners, this must be zero. There are a few that are so dangerous as to allow for an increased danger to life from any contact with the outside world.

As to the need to break a criminal, there are also those that will present a continued threat to all who come in contact with him. I have no moral qualms about breaking the will of such people, if it can be reasonably done, by solitary confinement and isolation. It is not that value such a person as less than human, as my belief that one should protect the innocent before comforting the guilty. I have had occasional success in this endeavor, though most results tend to be more short term.