Torture

Torture

Torture and international instruments prohibiting it

The implication of torture is intentionally inflicting relentless physical or mental pain or suffering to an individual with a motive of squeezing out of the person, third person confession or information. Torture also means subjecting the individual to a form of punishment to an individual because of an act he or she did, or was done by a third person, or for any known reason attributed to a form of discrimination in which case the suffering or the pain is instigated with the acquiescence or consent of a government official or the instigator of the suffering acts in official capacity[1]

This definition of torture gives a reflection of premeditated infliction of brutal mental or physical suffering or pain for the achievement of a precise objective by state authorities under whose consent the act is executed. The aim of torture is punishing the victim so that a confession or some desired information can be obtained or an act of revenge or creation of feelings of terror in a specific population. The execution of physical torture is achieved by suffocating the victim, beating the victim, subjecting the victim to electric shocks, stretching, submersion, burns, rape as well as sexual assault.

Torture can also take psychological orientation and ill treatment. This category of torture is associated with long term consequences to the victims. The most commonly used forms of psychological torture include isolating the victim, threatening the victim, humiliation to the victim, mock executions, mock amputations, as well as witnessing others being tortured. The victims of torture can range from children to adults from diverse religious or education backgrounds. Nobody has immunity although factors of political, minority or ethnic groups sometimes shield some people from torture that is instigated by government agencies. The most frequent victims of torture are the politicians, the journalists, human rights activists, prisoners and detainees, union leaders, health professionals, student leaders and ethnic minority groups.

The effects of the suffering from torture do not affect the victim in isolation. The impacts permeate to the family members and the friends of the victim. The local community is also affected as trauma is injected among members coupled with instilled awareness that there is no guarantee for utmost respect to the basic human rights. The community is also made aware that they have no guarantee for respect of their freedom and also the people living in that society. The application of torture in the society is a source of a sturdy warning that people in the political, religious as well as social opposition are not guaranteed to live freely and safely in their society[2].

The governments are obligated by the ratification of convention to take the full responsibility in implementation of measures that are seen to prevent torture coupled with initiatives of redressing the torture victims. The fight against torture on an international context requires that all people take proactive action and governments in all territories to assume ultimate responsibilities for any cases of torture that may take place within their borders. As a consequence, all the governments have a corrective responsibility to fight against torture. The fist step in the process of this struggle has been taken as ratification of convention.

This is the reason that makes “International Rehabilitation Council for Torture”, the IRCT highlights the need for collective action that is intended to achieve a worldwide ratification of this convention[3]. In case there are countries that have been procrastinating on the ratification of this convention, then it is the obligation of their citizens to lobby the entire society towards this end. And for the countries that have complied with the ratification of the convention, they equally have a role to play with regard to the creation of awareness as well as educating others on the raising activities that will most likely promote the cause of international ratification of convention.

Immunity of agents of a state

Under the doctrine of “act of State”, some individuals must be shielded from criminal responsibility for an act they commit in the name of or as an agent of a state. The doctrine of “act of State” offers protection and immunity to individuals against criminal responsibility committed as an agent of a state. The immunities that are also referred to as the ‘personal immunity’ or the ‘immunity ratione personae’ are however applicable only when the government agent is in office. Agents of the state should be given immunity against serious abuse of human rights during torture as stipulated in the doctrine of “act of State”. It is clearly evident that these agents of a state do not work to serve their own interests but the interests of the states. Any action that they take is decided by other organs of the state whose interests are being advanced. The requirement for protection and immunity for the state agents who are responsible for actions of torture is therefore not a debatable point and they should be guaranteed the necessary protection and immunity against their criminal responsibility associated with their mandate in torturing suspected terrorist[4].

According to some arguments from notable commentators, the immunity of the state in regard to issues of grave abuse to human rights is a debatable subject. The issues of concern in this regard relate torture and fundamental human right in relation to the immunity of the state agents and what should be given priority. It is common sense that the ranking of these argument is superior relative to the doctrine of state agents immunity and they safeguard the citizends against impunity. However, the security of the citizens in a nation necessitates that the agents of the state who are obligated to use even unethical means to gurantee these security including torture must be accorded ‘personal immunity’ or ‘immunity ratione personae’ but only during the time that they serve in the office.

Reasons for the States and individuals to torture and its ineffectiveness

Torture is seen by individuals and government who apply it as a means of extracting information from the victims. The effectiveness of torture is a debatable question. For example, the use of torture by America under Bush administration against the suspects of September 11 attack did not yield any significant success. The information given by the victims to their interrogators was only what they thought thee interrogators wanted to be told. This is the justification of opposing torture since the victim is likely to say what the interrogators want to hear and they will end it. Torture is therefore completely unreliable as a means of getting the intended truth.

Legalization of torture is therefore untenable in all circumstances. If legalized by powerful nations such as America for example, other nations will tend to use it as a means of perpetuating high profile impunity. The use of torture is responsible for invalidating confessions and the ‘evidence’ that is attributed to torture cannot be applicable in a legal process. The effects of torture are generation of false lead that consequently derails constructive interrogations[5].

Using torture in the course of interrogation of suspects is a subject of complicated moral questions and the proponent of torture fail to account for such issues. Torture in some cases is associated with tragic necessity where saving of innocent lives is the ultimate goal. However, torture is a terrible act within the government circles and in case it has to be used, strict safeguards must be in place and its application should only be warranted to acquire vital information or averting a potential disaster. It must be a choice of last resort after a comprehensive exploration of alternative approaches[6]. There has been no adequate justification of the use of torture although some extreme scenarios have necessitated its justification.

Torture was associated with significantly documented effects of the tendency of the victims to give any sort of confession that will allow them to escape the situation. The confessions may be untrue and the victims can go an extra mile to implicate other people even if they do not have a genuine knowledge about the incidences under interrogation. The people implicated may also be tortured without any knowledge and any information obtained at the end is likely to be counterproductive because the convictions were unsound and confessions worthless. Torture has therefore been a subject under criticism on the ground of moral as well as humanitarian considerations and unreliability of any information that is extracted from the victims as a result of torture. Acts of torture are also linked with corrupt institutions that are obligated to execute it. Torture is responsible for degrading the suspect and debasing the torturer at the same time. The resultant wickedness associated with torture obliterates discipline together with morale. It is important to note that, the existence of soldier is based on upholding law and order but not undermining it.

The proponents of torture are required to consider the consequences that are associated with torture which surpasses the immediate pain that the victim undergoes. The situation is even worse if the victim of torture was truly innocent. Majority of people encounter situations of post-traumatic stress disorders during their later lives. Among these people, incidences of flashback, intrusive thoughts, insomnia, memory lapse, severe anxiety, depression as well as nightmares are common occurrences during their later days in life[7]. The victims of torture also encounter feelings of shame and guilt which are occasionally triggered by the embarrassments that they were forced to endure during torture. Most of them go to the extent of developing a sense of self betrayal, their families as well as friends.

According to some of the arguments advocated for by non governmental organizations including Amnesty International, the decision for worldwide lawful prohibition of torture is arrived at after careful consideration of international philosophical agreement that the ill treatments that are associated with torture are abhorrent, repugnant as well as immoral

The “Ticking time Bomb” Scenario

The ticking time bomb scenario which was a thought experiment investigates what ought to be done in case of a capture terrorist suspected of planting a time bomb in a densely populated area. Subjecting the suspect to torture may yield significant information concerning how the bomb can be defused. Therefore the question underlying this scenario relates to the ethical implications of torturing the terrorist. According to some arguments that were raised in a study addressing this scenario, it is evident that terrorist are responsible fro extreme threat that warrants the state to apply meaningful extent of torture that will lead to some revelations that will lead to saving of innocent lives. In the process of torture in this scenario, it is the obligation of the government agencies to work within clearly stipulated rules because international human rights must be upheld

The occurrences of September 11 attack attracted sharp debate on torture which were centered on the counterterrorism policies in American administration and the revelation of the extent of vulnerability of the United States to terrorists attack. Torture was defended on account of the argument torturing a terrorist to give vital information against subjecting millions of people to untold suffering and death. It was certainly evident that preference would be given to saving the millions of life while subjecting the terrorist to torture. In this situation, the legal and moral implication of torturing the terrorist would require to be shelved because the criminal justice system can also make some allowances for the justified homicide and laws against torture are considered to be irrelevant in a situation of a “ticking bomb”[8].

Alan Dershowitz perspective of the ticking time bomb scenario

According to the argument of Alan Dershowitz, the use of torture to acquire important information from the suspect outweighs any ethical as well as moral argument against the use of torture in scenario like that one of a “ticking bomb”. The people who defend torture can hardly expect all people to agree with the asserting that torture is a constructive idea. Their objectives are based collecting torture opponents to concur that some people are justified in concluding otherwise even if torture is an unethical practice.

Ethical basis of ticking time bomb scenario

The ethical implications underlying the ticking time bomb scenario are devoid of sufficient depth. To any logical thinker, justification of torture is clearly apparent with the perception of an appeal to impending threat on premises that, although it might be emotionally appealing, it fails to hold to decisive examination. The arguments on the ticking time bomb scenario are based on false premises. The first premise is that torture has no alternative. The second one is that torture is certainly constructive. Research has indicated that all information obtained through torture is generally unreliable since the victims are likely to say anything that will deliberate them from the sufferings of torture. The third premise is that the prisoner is guilty with no provision of doubt. In a number of cases, there is no clear evidence of the guilt of an individual in respect to the crimes they are alleged to have committed and this is the justification for trials that is supposed to prove the true position of the victim. The assumption that all prisoners awaiting trial are guilty nullifies the constitutional rights that guarantees fail trials. The other premise is that a bomb is there for certain. In most situations, threats of fake bombs have been made. The last premise relates to the certainty of the knowledge of the prisoner in defusing the bomb. May be defusing the bomb could not be possible or the prisoner has no skills in defusing it and can not have any information to assist the experts in defusing it.

The contrary view of the of ticking time bomb scenario

Any of the premises discussed in this section could be false and this invalidates the prisoner’s torture since no beneficial information will be forthcoming even with whatever magnitude of torture. Worse still, there is no means of getting beforehand knowledge concerning the truthfulness of any of the premises[9]. In the situation that the pain associated with torture in instigated against tentative benefits of torture, then the logical ethical choice is to stop the suffering associated with this scenario.

Some people have been exploiting the arguments contained in the ticking time bomb scenario with a failure to appreciate the unending violence cycle that is created by their reasoning. It is good to first assume the sanity of the prisoner is not doubtable before making the allegation of linking the prisoner to acts of terrorism.

The states and some individuals have therefore engaged in endorsing inhumane approaches and try to disregard any evidence that tries to proof the ineffective of torture in meeting the objectives of its user.

Bibliography

Conroy, John (2001). Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People: The Dynamics of Torture. California: University of California Press.

Franklin, J. (2001). The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 26-30.

Marshall, John (2006). John Locke, Toleration and Early Enlightenment Culture. Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Monter, E. William (1973). “Crime and Punishment in Calvin’s Geneva, 1562”. Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 64: 282.

Nguyen L. (2007). “The question of survival: the death of desire and the weight of life”. Am J Psychoanal 67 (1): 53–67.

Parry, John T. (2010). Understanding Torture: Law, Violence, and Political Identity. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Vreeland, James Raymond (2008). Political Institutions and Human Rights: Why Dictatorships enter into the United Nations Convention Against Torture. International Organization. pp. 62(1):65–101.

Yamey, Gavin (11 August 2011). “Torture: European Instruments of Torture and Capital Punishment from the Middle Ages to Present”. British Medical Journal 323: 346.

[1] Nguyen L. (2007). “The question of survival: the death of desire and the weight of life”. Am J Psychoanal 67 (1): 53–67.

[2] Nguyen L. (2007). “The question of survival: the death of desire and the weight of life”. Am J Psychoanal 67 (1): 53–67.

[3] Parry, John T. (2010). Understanding Torture: Law, Violence, and Political Identity. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

[4] Vreeland, James Raymond (2008). Political Institutions and Human Rights: Why Dictatorships enter into the United Nations Convention Against Torture. International Organization. pp. 62(1):65–101.

[5] Yamey, Gavin (11 August 2011). “Torture: European Instruments of Torture and Capital Punishment from the Middle Ages to Present”. British Medical Journal 323: 346.

[6] Monter, E. William (1973). “Crime and Punishment in Calvin’s Geneva, 1562”. Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 64: 282.

[7] Marshall, John (2006). John Locke, Toleration and Early Enlightenment Culture. Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[8] Franklin, J. (2001). The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 26-30.

[9] Conroy, John (2001). Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People: The Dynamics of Torture. California: University of California Press.