| Torture |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Copyright © 2006 - 2009 - Barry M. Baker - CareerPoliceOfficer.com |
| Disclaimer |
| CareerPoliceOfficer.com is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites. Links are provided only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by this site. |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Torture |
United Nations Torture Convention of 1984 "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether
physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a
third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or
is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason
based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or
with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a
third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or
is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason
based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or
with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
Torture (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) - This entry is in four parts. The
first part addresses the question what is torture?; the second part, what is wrong with torture?; the
third part, is torture ever morally justifiable?; and the last part, should torture ever be legalised or
otherwise institutionalised?
first part addresses the question what is torture?; the second part, what is wrong with torture?; the
third part, is torture ever morally justifiable?; and the last part, should torture ever be legalised or
otherwise institutionalised?
While the United Nations may be one of the most corrupt and inefficient organizations on the planet, its
definition of torture seems to be pretty reasonable. However, as long as terrorism remains the focal point of
anything, it's highly unlikely – make that impossible – that any definition of torture will be universally
accepted to any reasonable degree.
I think that anyone who looks at some of the torture devices from centuries past can agree that any
interrogations involving their uses constituted cruel, inhuman and depraved treatment inflicting severe
physical and mental pain and suffering. However, those devices are not the subject of modern torture
methods; even though, the most discussed method, waterboarding, does date back to the Spanish Inquisition.
A big part of the torture debate revolves around the question, "Does torture work?" A lot of time and energy
is wasted on this question since torture obviously works. If torture is applied to obtain a confession, those
applying the torture already know what they want to hear. American POW's during the Viet Nam war were
subjected to torture to extract confessions of war crimes for political propaganda dissemination. There will
always be plenty of people, even Americans, who are eager to believe the worst about their own. Why do you
think Jane Fonda will be forever known as "Hanoi Jane?"
Then, there's the quality of intelligence information question. This should be a no brainer, but some people
will never seem to understand the nature of information regarding its timely relevance and methods to verify
information acquired by any means... including torture. Simply put, information will be timely and good, or it
will be bad, or it will be out of date and no longer relevant. No matter how intelligence information is obtained,
its value will always be determined by the means and methods available to verify or discredit the information.
As a police officer, you'll have the luxury of avoiding the torture debate, because you'll never have a reason,
valid or otherwise, to apply torture to anyone. You will have occasions where you'll be required to apply severe
physical pain and suffering to subdue suspects. The degree of pain and the duration of suffering will depend
upon the level of force exerted against you to prevent you from effecting a lawful arrest. Your use of deadly
force will be the ultimate force whether or not death results from your use of deadly force. Whatever degree
of force you use during the course of your duty, your application of force ends as soon as the suspect is
incapacitated or otherwise under your control.
As a police officer, if you use your knowledge and instruments of force to extract a confession, or other
information, from a suspect, you'll be committing a criminal assault, and it won't make any difference how
your application of force is described... torture, brutality, excessive force, or an act done in good faith due to
exigent circumstances... it just doesn't matter.
Although American police officers are very much a part of the war against terrorism, police officers operate in
domestic jurisdictions where police officers are expected, and indeed required, to respect the civil rights of
every person with whom they come into contact. When you become a police officer, you'll work with a few who
think that extraordinary means are justified to meet just ends for the public good.
Imagine yourself in this scenario. You're a new police officer who's just apprehended a robbery suspect.
There's no question that this suspect is a dangerous felon. During the robbery in question, the suspect shot
and wounded the victim. While your arrest of the suspect was based on sufficient probable cause, there's
probably not enough evidence currently developed to obtain a conviction. The victim's identification of the
suspect is less than positive, and the gun the suspect used has not been recovered. Other circumstantial
evidence does exist; however, a confession from the suspect would seal the deal.
This suspect is really bad news. During the arrest, the suspect resisted, and you used your Taser to subdue the
suspect, so you're surprised when the suspect subsequently agrees to be interrogated. You have the suspect
transported to your department's robbery unit where detectives are waiting to conduct an interrogation. Since
you're new and eager to learn, you'd like to be present for the interrogation, so you ask the lead detective for
permission to sit in and observe. Since your request is perfectly reasonable, you have no idea what a big
mistake you've just made.
The beginning of the interrogation goes along routinely as the suspect is given his Miranda warnings which he
waives agreeing to answer questions. Even though you're inexperienced, it soon becomes evident to you that
this suspect doesn't intend to admit to anything. You're not all that impressed with the obvious frustration
being displayed by the lead detective as the suspect voices nothing but denials and useless banter. By the
suspect's facial expressions, it's apparent that he's pleased with himself as the lead detective stands up and
slowly walks around the table and behind the suspect as he continues to ask questions. When the detective
stops directly behind the suspect, you notice a Taser in the detective's hand. Before you can interrupt what is
about to happen, the detective presses the Taser against the suspect's shoulder and, "Zap!" The suspect goes
flying off the chair and lands on the floor in a seizure like state... okay, let's end the scenario here.
You've just observed a detective – a police officer – commit a criminal act, and an act of torture. Now... how
should you feel, and what should you do?
The first part of this question is easy. You should feel enraged; not because the detective tasered a useless
piece of humanity, but because he committed a criminal act right in front of you, and he expects you to be okay
with it and – most importantly – be part of the criminal act.
The second part of the question, what should you do, is not that easy. You could zap that detective with your
Taser and arrest him. Actually, as the scenario is described, your use of force and arrest of the detective would
be perfectly lawful. The detective committed a criminal assault in your presence, and your use of force would
be justified to disarm him of his Taser. While this course of action would be legal, it wouldn't be advisable.
What you definitely should do is put your handcuffs back on your suspect and spirit him back to the lock-up, or
the point of the arrest process from which you removed him for the interrogation.
Hopefully, you'll never have to experience anything like the scenario describes, and you'll never have to decide
on any action or inaction to undertake following such an event. The best way for you to avoid being
compromised by those lacking integrity or brains is to immediately begin to establish your reputation for
adherence to principled and lawful conduct in everything you do. Others will avoid placing you in compromising
situations when they realize your low tolerance for stupid non-sense.
As far as the limited use of what is commonly referred to as aggressive or enhanced interrogation techniques
used against terrorists, I have no problem with terrorists being subjected to the enhanced versions as long as
it's not police officers doing the interrogations. It shouldn't take you too long to learn that liberty, justice, and
survival is a balancing act. In a country where liberty and justice is balanced better than most, the threat – and
indeed the realty – of terrorist acts of disastrous proportions have placed survival squarely within the balancing
act.
definition of torture seems to be pretty reasonable. However, as long as terrorism remains the focal point of
anything, it's highly unlikely – make that impossible – that any definition of torture will be universally
accepted to any reasonable degree.
I think that anyone who looks at some of the torture devices from centuries past can agree that any
interrogations involving their uses constituted cruel, inhuman and depraved treatment inflicting severe
physical and mental pain and suffering. However, those devices are not the subject of modern torture
methods; even though, the most discussed method, waterboarding, does date back to the Spanish Inquisition.
A big part of the torture debate revolves around the question, "Does torture work?" A lot of time and energy
is wasted on this question since torture obviously works. If torture is applied to obtain a confession, those
applying the torture already know what they want to hear. American POW's during the Viet Nam war were
subjected to torture to extract confessions of war crimes for political propaganda dissemination. There will
always be plenty of people, even Americans, who are eager to believe the worst about their own. Why do you
think Jane Fonda will be forever known as "Hanoi Jane?"
Then, there's the quality of intelligence information question. This should be a no brainer, but some people
will never seem to understand the nature of information regarding its timely relevance and methods to verify
information acquired by any means... including torture. Simply put, information will be timely and good, or it
will be bad, or it will be out of date and no longer relevant. No matter how intelligence information is obtained,
its value will always be determined by the means and methods available to verify or discredit the information.
As a police officer, you'll have the luxury of avoiding the torture debate, because you'll never have a reason,
valid or otherwise, to apply torture to anyone. You will have occasions where you'll be required to apply severe
physical pain and suffering to subdue suspects. The degree of pain and the duration of suffering will depend
upon the level of force exerted against you to prevent you from effecting a lawful arrest. Your use of deadly
force will be the ultimate force whether or not death results from your use of deadly force. Whatever degree
of force you use during the course of your duty, your application of force ends as soon as the suspect is
incapacitated or otherwise under your control.
As a police officer, if you use your knowledge and instruments of force to extract a confession, or other
information, from a suspect, you'll be committing a criminal assault, and it won't make any difference how
your application of force is described... torture, brutality, excessive force, or an act done in good faith due to
exigent circumstances... it just doesn't matter.
Although American police officers are very much a part of the war against terrorism, police officers operate in
domestic jurisdictions where police officers are expected, and indeed required, to respect the civil rights of
every person with whom they come into contact. When you become a police officer, you'll work with a few who
think that extraordinary means are justified to meet just ends for the public good.
Imagine yourself in this scenario. You're a new police officer who's just apprehended a robbery suspect.
There's no question that this suspect is a dangerous felon. During the robbery in question, the suspect shot
and wounded the victim. While your arrest of the suspect was based on sufficient probable cause, there's
probably not enough evidence currently developed to obtain a conviction. The victim's identification of the
suspect is less than positive, and the gun the suspect used has not been recovered. Other circumstantial
evidence does exist; however, a confession from the suspect would seal the deal.
This suspect is really bad news. During the arrest, the suspect resisted, and you used your Taser to subdue the
suspect, so you're surprised when the suspect subsequently agrees to be interrogated. You have the suspect
transported to your department's robbery unit where detectives are waiting to conduct an interrogation. Since
you're new and eager to learn, you'd like to be present for the interrogation, so you ask the lead detective for
permission to sit in and observe. Since your request is perfectly reasonable, you have no idea what a big
mistake you've just made.
The beginning of the interrogation goes along routinely as the suspect is given his Miranda warnings which he
waives agreeing to answer questions. Even though you're inexperienced, it soon becomes evident to you that
this suspect doesn't intend to admit to anything. You're not all that impressed with the obvious frustration
being displayed by the lead detective as the suspect voices nothing but denials and useless banter. By the
suspect's facial expressions, it's apparent that he's pleased with himself as the lead detective stands up and
slowly walks around the table and behind the suspect as he continues to ask questions. When the detective
stops directly behind the suspect, you notice a Taser in the detective's hand. Before you can interrupt what is
about to happen, the detective presses the Taser against the suspect's shoulder and, "Zap!" The suspect goes
flying off the chair and lands on the floor in a seizure like state... okay, let's end the scenario here.
You've just observed a detective – a police officer – commit a criminal act, and an act of torture. Now... how
should you feel, and what should you do?
The first part of this question is easy. You should feel enraged; not because the detective tasered a useless
piece of humanity, but because he committed a criminal act right in front of you, and he expects you to be okay
with it and – most importantly – be part of the criminal act.
The second part of the question, what should you do, is not that easy. You could zap that detective with your
Taser and arrest him. Actually, as the scenario is described, your use of force and arrest of the detective would
be perfectly lawful. The detective committed a criminal assault in your presence, and your use of force would
be justified to disarm him of his Taser. While this course of action would be legal, it wouldn't be advisable.
What you definitely should do is put your handcuffs back on your suspect and spirit him back to the lock-up, or
the point of the arrest process from which you removed him for the interrogation.
Hopefully, you'll never have to experience anything like the scenario describes, and you'll never have to decide
on any action or inaction to undertake following such an event. The best way for you to avoid being
compromised by those lacking integrity or brains is to immediately begin to establish your reputation for
adherence to principled and lawful conduct in everything you do. Others will avoid placing you in compromising
situations when they realize your low tolerance for stupid non-sense.
As far as the limited use of what is commonly referred to as aggressive or enhanced interrogation techniques
used against terrorists, I have no problem with terrorists being subjected to the enhanced versions as long as
it's not police officers doing the interrogations. It shouldn't take you too long to learn that liberty, justice, and
survival is a balancing act. In a country where liberty and justice is balanced better than most, the threat – and
indeed the realty – of terrorist acts of disastrous proportions have placed survival squarely within the balancing
act.
Protect
your files
your files
Protect
your identity
your identity
