Some would argue that it’s excessively cruel to torture criminals. But both prison and torture impose costs on criminals. Why is one type of cost crueler than the other? If a convicted criminal is indifferent between receiving a certain type of torture or being imprisoned for a given period of time then why would it be excessively cruel to torture but not to imprison?I think this is all correct, but misses the point. If we consider only the incentives of criminals, then the prohibition on torture seems rather pointless (so long as we don’t delude ourselves into thinking it will be very effective in eliciting information, like the site of planned terrorist attacks). But the prohibition on torture makes much more sense when we consider the incentives for the rest of us, in our role as voters and policymakers. The possibility of torture allows us to indulge our very worst impulses at low cost. As John Locke observed, one problem with humans in the state of nature is our willingness to impose excessive punishments on each other to remedy perceived violations. Torture enables us to exact harsh retribution without any great sacrifice. If torture is not frowned upon, the foreseeable result is to encourage excessive punishment of things that should be crimes (murder and so on) as well as to widen the net of state control over things that should not be crimes (like drug use). Given our built-in impulse to punish others for things we dislike, it’s actually a good thing that punishment is costly to those who impose it.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Posted by Glen Whitman at 8:55 PM
James Miller at Overcoming Bias argues that we have a bias against torture as a form of punishment. Using torture instead of imprisonment could achieve equivalent results (in terms of deterrence and so forth) at lower cost. The claim of cruelty doesn’t really fly, says Miller, because criminals would be indifferent between their existing punishments and appropriately selected tortures:
Labels: criminal justice