AHC Torture more "moral" than prison

[Fleetlord]

Inspired from a discussion in Chat (hey, it is good for something other than getting long-time posters banned!)

I think we should bear in mind that the idea that torture isn't moral isn't as universal or as long-held as some people seem to assume. One example I like to bring up is the old English legal system from the Middle Ages: torture was considered a reasonable deterrent, providing it did not impair your ability to do your job, whereas imprisonment was considered inhumane. The reason being that given the social system of the time, if a man was imprisoned and was not earning wages, his family would starve when they had not committed any crime themselves, whereas torture would be a painful deterrent to him without hurting them. Obviously that kind of idea doesn't apply any more, but I use it as an example to show how attitudes can be more relative than people think.

So what POD would be required for this to remain the legal and moral standard in your home country, or better yet, the world as a whole? (To the extent that the *UN routinely condemns nations barbaric enough to subject anyone but the most dangerous and incorrigible criminals to prison, as opposed to just sentencing them to 6 hours with the State Torturer's Office and then letting them get on with their lives.)

Putting this in Before-1900, though if someone could manage a POD after 1900, that would be mighty impressive.

 

[Elfwine]

Define torture.

As in, what kind of punishment are we talking about.

 

[Fleetlord]

Define torture.

As in, what kind of punishment are we talking about.

Somewhat left as an exercise for the writer, but generally anything short of permanent debilitating injury goes -- beatings, floggings, waterboardings, maybe removing some of the less important fingers...

 

[Evan]

One possibility would arise from the early prison movement. IIRC, they lobbied for prisons as a means to motivate the criminal to think through the evil of his crime (hence, "penitentiary.") Of course, prisons aren't really the best way to do this - suppose someone repents a month into a ten-year sentence; why keep him around for the rest of the time? Or suppose a criminal was starving on the streets and is now well-fed in prison; how remorseful will he be feeling? Maybe a pro-torture movement could stem from this: it's the fastest and simplest way of getting criminals to regret their crimes.

Besides, it's also cheap. That's another bonus for many governments.

 

[Fleetlord]

One possibility would arise from the early prison movement. IIRC, they lobbied for prisons as a means to motivate the criminal to think through the evil of his crime (hence, "penitentiary.") Of course, prisons aren't really the best way to do this - suppose someone repents a month into a ten-year sentence; why keep him around for the rest of the time? Or suppose a criminal was starving on the streets and is now well-fed in prison; how remorseful will he be feeling? Maybe a pro-torture movement could stem from this: it's the fastest and simplest way of getting criminals to regret their crimes.

Besides, it's also cheap. That's another bonus for many governments.

Perhaps a few more and/or worse prison riots, so that governments think: "Hmm, maybe sticking a bunch of criminals in the same house just teaches them to be better criminals..."?

 

[Elfwine]

That doesn't necessarily lead to "torture is moral" though. Just more attempt to address that (by those out to reform the system).

 

[Fleetlord]

That doesn't necessarily lead to "torture is moral" though. Just more attempt to address that (by those out to reform the system).

Well, it only has to be more moral than prison. Perhaps some counter-reform movement -- "Don't send my boy to be corrupted by murderers and rapists for one mistake.", that sort of thing?

 

[Elfwine]

Well, it only has to be more moral than prison. Perhaps some counter-reform movement -- "Don't send my boy to be corrupted by murderers and rapists for one mistake.", that sort of thing?

Right. Point being, there's alternatives between that (sending him "to be corrupted by murderers and rapists for one mistake") and flogging - say, having separate prisons for people guilty of murder and rape vs. people guilty of minor crimes.

 

[Evan]

say, having separate prisons for people guilty of murder and rape vs. people guilty of minor crimes.

And how expensive will they be?
Plus, I could see protests saying, "Don't ruin my son's next five years over this one mistake!"

 

[Elfwine]

And how expensive will they be?
Plus, I could see protests saying, "Don't ruin my son's next five years over this one mistake!"

You need about the same amount of prison space either way, so I'm not sure how much difference there is in cost. If I'm overlooking something obvious, this is your cue to point it out.

As for "don't ruin my son's next five years...", well, why didn't we see that OTL?

Not saying it couldn't happen, just not convinced it stands a reasonable chance of prevailing.

Maybe you have minor offenders get flogged and keep the major-offenders-are-imprisoned. That seems easy to do.

 

[Crazed Victorian]

It would certainly hurt the rehabilitation part.

 

[Fleetlord]

You need about the same amount of prison space either way, so I'm not sure how much difference there is in cost. If I'm overlooking something obvious, this is your cue to point it out.

Separate kitchens, exercise yards, etc...generally two physical plants are more expensive than one big one.

Perhaps what we need is to retard the notion of social welfare, so that, going back to the OP, putting a working man in prison effectively condemns his family to the streets...

 

[Elfwine]

It would certainly hurt the rehabilitation part.

Were Victorian prisons that good at that anyway? Just curious here.

Separate kitchens, exercise yards, etc...generally two physical plants are more expensive than one big one.

Perhaps what we need is to retard the notion of social welfare, so that, going back to the OP, putting a working man in prison effectively condemns his family to the streets...

Yeah, but if you're building multiple prisons anyway, its not as if you're facing that choice (two vs. one).

 

[mrmandias]

It wouldn't be called torture. Torture is almost by definition immoral, illicit, and extralegal.

Inspired from a discussion in Chat (hey, it is good for something other than getting long-time posters banned!)



So what POD would be required for this to remain the legal and moral standard in your home country, or better yet, the world as a whole? (To the extent that the *UN routinely condemns nations barbaric enough to subject anyone but the most dangerous and incorrigible criminals to prison, as opposed to just sentencing them to 6 hours with the State Torturer's Office and then letting them get on with their lives.)

Putting this in Before-1900, though if someone could manage a POD after 1900, that would be mighty impressive.

 

[carlton_bach]

It wouldn't be called torture. Torture is almost by definition immoral, illicit, and extralegal.

By our standards. Torture used to be just another word for something lawyers had fancier terms for.

Still, you need to keep in mind the difference between corporal punishment and coercive torture (which is what we tend to think of when we say torture). What we are talking about here is corporal punishment - an amount of pain and suffering that you are sentenced to for something you did and that will now be administered. I still don't think it's terribly moral, but it's not significantly worse than imprisonment often turns out to be in reality. Coercive torture is different - it's pain and suffering designed to make someone do something against their will. It assaults human dignity in a way corporal punishment does not. Aside from that, it also has much more problematic legal and practical aspects (like false confessions, potential for abuse of power and extrajudicial punishment, and miscarriages of justice). I don't think that an Enlightenment-influenced culture can continue thinking it moral, even if it never stops condoning corporal punishment.

 

[carlton_bach]

Were Victorian prisons that good at that anyway? Just curious here.

No. Of course, Victorian prisons were run along pretty scary lines sometimes. but if you wanted to rehabilitate an offender, the better option was to stick him in the Army. A released prisoner more often than not would come out with nothing but anger and a few new contact addresses. All of his social contacts would most likely be criminals. Even if he wanted to reform (many did), it wasn't made easy for him: the respectable world wouldn't want him, while the underworld was ready to welcome him back.