If physical torture was an acceptable part of the criminal justice system, how would your analysis above apply to that?rhymenocerous wrote: On the issue of the death penalty as a completely moral question, I've always vacillated between some abstract notion of what I think society should be and reality, where real people are affected by the actions of others. On the one hand, the issue is purely conceptual and selfish. I say, "I don't want to live in the kind of society that executes its own citizens." This view is centered on me, my feelings, and reflects the world I want to live in. Notice that specific cases involving real people don't even enter into the equation. I also don't really think about the guilty party as an actual person. In the thought experiment, he's just a generic, faceless person.
When confronted with the kinds of cases that warrant death penalty sentences, however, it is hard to restrain the desire for retribution in the name of victims. Here my thoughts are centered on the feelings of others, and bringing them some sense of justice to appease their suffering. Also, it's usually hard to feel any sympathy for the actual assailant.
I usually move between these two ends of the spectrum, but once you factor in the practical issues like cost and the possibility of executing innocent people, I usually stand on the side of abolishing the death penalty in the US, as has already been established in almost every other developed country. Some cases though just make you want to make an exception to the rule, like that gunman in Norway who killed 85 people, most of them teenagers. I don't even think they have life sentences in Norway, but I seriously wonder if anyone would care if he is executed. You may care in some abstract sense that he is a person in general, and we shouldn't kill people. But I doubt that few would mourn the loss of this specific individual.
I think you would reach the same conclusion.
It's peculiar to me that as a society we are mostly okay with killing a few of the worst criminals, but we still seem to be bothered by physcial torture. There seems to be tension in these two positions, especially considering that we have no problem with mental torture.
If we are okay with applying all sorts of mental torture (including extended periods of isolation), and we are okay with killing certain criminals, what does anyone think our hangup is with physcial torture?
Maybe we just don't want to listen to a lot of screaming.
An interesting case in recent years that really pushes the boundaries of torture is the Jose Padilla case:
To me, when a person reaches that level of psychological duress, it starts to remind me of the way Winston Smith was at the end of 1984. They had so completely destroyed him psychologically that it really didn't matter whether he was executed or set free--what made him human in the first place had been destroyed, and that was really the goal of the state in the first place.Padilla was convicted of aiding terrorists in 2007 and was sentenced to 17 years, 4 months in prison. While awaiting trial, reports surfaced that he was being tortured for information with the use of sensory deprivation for weeks at a time. For 1,307 days, Padilla was kept in a 9' x 7' cell with no natural light, clock or calendar. When Padilla left his cell, he was shackled and fitted with heavy goggles and headphones. His counsel argues that while he was being interrogated Padilla was subjected to harsh lights and pounding sounds. While meeting with his counsel, they reported Padilla exhibiting facial tics, random eye movements and unusual contortions of his body. According to them, Padilla had become so "shattered" that he became convinced his lawyers were part of a continuing interrogation program and saw his captors as protectors.
Here is Padilla on his way to court:
Following his conviction he was sent to the Colorado Supermax prison to serve his 17 year sentence. Since that time the government has appealed the length of the sentence, arguing that it was too short and should be lengthened.
Bear in mind that Padilla never took any action toward committing any crime. The only charge was conspiracy--i.e., he either thought about committing a crime or talked to someone about comitting a crime.
