Hubbry Logo
TortureTortureMain
Open search
Torture
Community hub
Torture
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Torture
Torture
Torture
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Captured Viet Cong soldier, blindfolded and tied in a stress position by American forces during the Vietnam War, 1967

Torture is the deliberate infliction of severe pain or suffering on a person for reasons including punishment, extracting a confession, interrogation for information, or intimidating third parties.

Some definitions restrict torture to acts carried out by the state, while others include non-state actors. Most victims of torture are poor and marginalized people suspected of crimes, although torture against political prisoners, or during armed conflict, has received disproportionate attention. Judicial corporal punishment and capital punishment are sometimes seen as forms of torture, but this label is internationally controversial. A variety of methods of torture are used, often in combination; the most common form of physical torture is beatings. Beginning in the twentieth century, many torturers have preferred non-scarring or psychological methods to maintain deniability.

Torturers more commonly act out of fear, or due to limited resources, rather than sadism. Although most torturers are thought to learn about torture techniques informally and rarely receive explicit orders, they are enabled by organizations that facilitate and encourage their behavior. Once a torture program begins, it usually escalates beyond what is intended initially and often leads to involved agencies losing effectiveness. Torture aims to break the victim's will, destroy their agency and personality, and is cited as one of the most damaging experiences that a person can undergo. Many victims suffer both physical damage—chronic pain is particularly common—and mental sequelae. Although torture survivors have some of the highest rates of post-traumatic stress disorder, many are psychologically resilient.

Torture has been carried out since ancient times. However, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, many Western countries abolished the official use of torture in the judicial system, although it continued to be used throughout the world. Public opinion research shows general opposition to torture. It is prohibited under international law for all states under all circumstances and is explicitly forbidden by several treaties. Opposition to torture stimulated the formation of the human rights movement after World War II, and it continues to be an important human rights issue. Although prevention efforts have been of mixed effectiveness, institutional reforms and the elimination of incommunicado detention have had positive effects. Despite its decline, torture is still practiced in or by most countries.

Definitions

[edit]
Main article: Definitions of torture
While solitary confinement, life imprisonment without the prospect of parole, and corporal punishment have been challenged, imprisonment itself escapes scrutiny despite evidence it is harmful.[1][2]

Torture[a] is conventionally understood as the deliberate infliction of severe pain or suffering on a helpless person under the control of a perpetrator.[4][5][6] The generally accepted components of the definition of torture are as follows:

  • It is widely accepted that torture must be inflicted deliberately[7] and for a purpose, but this is usually inclusive of any motivation except negligence or justified purposes.[8]
  • While the United Nations Convention against Torture definition requires that torture be perpetrated or enabled by "a public official or other person acting in an official capacity",[9][7][10] some legal systems add non-state armed groups and organized crime. The most expansive definitions encompass anyone as a potential perpetrator.[11][12] Over time, courts have begun to move away from state-centric views of torture by holding the state responsible for failing to prevent and punish torture by third parties.[13]
  • Torture is often described as occurring when the victim is powerless and under the control of the perpetrator, which can help distinguish it from legitimate use of force. The use as a defining characteristic of torture is more controversial because it can be claimed that the victim was not entirely powerless, particularly in non-traditional torture situations occurring outside of detention.[14]
  • The threshold of severity at which treatment can be classified as torture is the most controversial aspect of its definition; the interpretation of torture has broadened over time.[15][9][16] The subjective elements of the definition of torture open room for legal evolution broaden the prohibition of torture, but on the other hand can be used to justify tortuous practices[17] (for example, the United States government argued that waterboarding is not torture).[16]

Depending on the definition used, torture may be distinguished from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (CIDT) by the severity or the purpose.[6][9] The definition of torture excludes and can be seen to legitimize other forms of pain, suffering, and degradation,[17][18] particularly institutionalized, collective, and structural violence,[17] while legal scholar Ergün Cakal argues that violent practices come to be recognized as torture after they no longer serve the purpose of the state.[19]

History

[edit]

Pre-abolition

[edit]
Two Elamite chiefs flayed alive after the Battle of Ulai, Assyrian relief

Torture was legally and morally acceptable in most ancient, medieval, and early modern societies.[20] Societies used torture as part of the judicial process, and painful punishments were distinguished from torture.[21][22][23] Historically, torture was seen as a reliable way to elicit the truth, a suitable punishment, and deterrence against future offenses.[24] When torture was legally regulated, there were restrictions on the allowable methods.[24] In most societies, citizens could be judicially tortured only under exceptional circumstances and for a serious crime such as treason, often only when some evidence already existed. In contrast, non-citizens such as foreigners and slaves were commonly tortured.[25]

There is archaeological evidence of torture in Early Neolithic Europe, about 7,000 years ago.[26] Torture is commonly mentioned in historical sources on Assyria and Achaemenid Persia.[27][28] Torture was rare in early medieval Europe but became more common between 1200 and 1400.[29][30][31] Torture was still a labor-intensive process reserved for the most severe crimes;[32] most torture victims were men accused of murder, treason, or theft.[33] The Ottoman Empire and Qajar Iran used torture in cases where circumstantial evidence tied someone to a crime, although Islamic law has traditionally considered evidence obtained under torture to be inadmissible.[34]

Abolition and continued use

[edit]
"The custody of a criminal does not require torture" by Francisco Goya, c. 1812

Torture remained legal in Europe during the seventeenth century, but its practice declined.[35][36] Torture was already of marginal importance to European criminal justice systems by its formal abolition in the 18th and early 19th centuries.[37][38] Theories for why torture was abolished include Enlightenment ideas about the value of the human person,[39][40] the lowering of the standard of proof in criminal cases, popular views that no longer saw pain as morally redemptive,[35][40] and the expansion of imprisonment as an alternative to executions or painful punishments.[39][41] It is not known if torture also declined in non-Western states or European colonies during the nineteenth century.[42] In China, judicial torture, which had been practiced for more than two millennia,[24] was banned in 1905 along with flogging and lingchi (dismemberment) as a means of execution,[43] although torture in China continued throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.[44][45]

Torture was widely used by colonial powers to subdue resistance and reached a peak during the anti-colonial wars in the twentieth century.[46][47] An estimated 300,000 people were tortured during the Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962),[48] and the United Kingdom and Portugal also used torture in attempts to retain their respective empires.[49] Independent states in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia often used torture in the twentieth century, but it is unknown whether their use of torture increased or decreased compared to nineteenth-century levels.[46] During the first half of the twentieth century, torture became more prevalent in Europe with the advent of secret police,[50] World War I and World War II, and communist and fascist states.[20] Torture was used by both communist and anti-communist governments during the Cold War in Latin America, with an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 victims of torture by United States–backed regimes.[51][52] The only countries in which torture was rare during the twentieth century were the liberal democracies of the West, where torture was used against ethnic minorities or criminal suspects from marginalized classes, and during overseas wars against foreign populations.[46]

Prevalence

[edit]
Tear gas used during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests. The use of tear gas on protestors is sometimes considered a form of torture.[53]

Most countries practice torture, although few acknowledge it.[54][55][56] Despite one of the most unambiguous and absolute prohibitions known to international law, torture continues to be more or less openly practiced in some states;[57] others have changed which techniques are used and denied, covered up, or outsourced torture programs.[58] Measuring the rate at which torture occurs is difficult because it is typically committed in secrecy, and abuses are likelier to come to light in open societies where there is a commitment to protecting human rights.[59] Many torture survivors, especially those from poor or marginalized populations, are unwilling to report.[60][61] Monitoring has focused on police stations and prisons, although torture can also occur in other facilities such as immigration detention and youth detention centers.[62][63] Torture that occurs outside of custody—including extrajudicial punishment, intimidation, and crowd control—has traditionally not been counted, even though some studies have suggested it is more common than torture in places of detention.[64][60][61] There is even less information on the prevalence of torture before the twentieth century.[20] Although it is often assumed that men suffer torture at a higher rate than women, there is a lack of evidence.[65] Some quantitative research has estimated that torture rates are either stagnant or increasing over time, but this may be a measurement effect.[66]

Although liberal democracies are less likely to abuse their citizens, they may practice torture against marginalized citizens and non-citizens to whom they are not democratically accountable.[67][47] Voters may support violence against out-groups seen as threatening; majoritarian institutions are ineffective at preventing torture against minorities or foreigners.[68] Torture is more likely when a society feels threatened because of wars or crises,[67][68] but studies have not found a consistent relationship between the use of torture and terrorist attacks.[69]

Torture is directed against certain segments of the population, who are denied the protection against torture given to others.[70][71][68] Torture of political prisoners and torture during armed conflicts receive more attention compared to torture of the poor or criminal suspects.[72][59] Most victims of torture are suspected of crimes; a disproportionate number of victims are from poor or marginalized communities.[73][59] Groups especially vulnerable to torture include unemployed young men, the urban poor, LGBT people, refugees and migrants, ethnic and racial minorities, indigenous people, and people with disabilities.[74] Relative poverty and the resulting inequality in particular leave poor people vulnerable to torture.[75] Criminalization of the poor, through laws targeting homelessness, sex work, or working in the informal economy, can lead to violent and arbitrary policing.[76] Routine violence against poor and marginalized people is often not seen as torture, and its perpetrators justify the violence as a legitimate policing tactic;[77] victims lack the resources or standing to seek redress.[75]

Perpetrators

[edit]
Charles Graner poses over Manadel al-Jamadi's corpse, after he was tortured to death by CIA personnel.

Since most research has focused on torture victims, less is known about the perpetrators of torture.[78] Many torturers see their actions as serving a higher political or ideological goal that justifies torture as a legitimate means of protecting the state.[79][80][68] Fear is often the motivation for torture, and it is typically not a rational response as it is usually ineffective or even counterproductive at achieving the desired aim.[66] Torture victims are often viewed by the perpetrators as severe threats and enemies of the state.[81] Studies of perpetrators do not support the common assumption that they are psychologically pathological.[66][82] Most perpetrators do not volunteer to be torturers;[66] many have an innate reluctance to employ violence, and rely on coping mechanisms, such as alcohol or drugs.[82] Psychiatrist Pau Pérez-Sales finds that torturers act from a variety of motives such as ideological commitment, personal gain, group belonging, avoiding punishment, or avoiding guilt from previous acts of torture.[83]

In contrast to the assumption that torture is ordered at the highest levels of government,[84] the approval or acquiescence of superiors is a necessary but not sufficient condition for torture to occur, given that a specific order to torture rarely can be identified.[85] In many cases, a combination of dispositional and situational effects lead a person to become a torturer.[83][86] In most cases of systematic torture, the torturers were desensitized to violence by being exposed to physical or psychological abuse during training[87][88][89] which can be a deliberate tactic to create torturers.[66] Even when not explicitly ordered by the government to torture,[90] perpetrators may feel peer pressure due to competitive masculinity.[91] Elite and specialized police units are especially prone to torturing, perhaps because of their tight-knit nature and insulation from oversight.[90] Although some torturers are formally trained, most are thought to learn about torture techniques informally.[92][66]

Torture can be a side effect of a broken criminal justice system in which underfunding, lack of judicial independence, or corruption undermines effective investigations and fair trials.[93][94] In this context, people who cannot afford bribes are likely to become victims of torture.[95][94] Understaffed or poorly trained police are more likely to resort to torture when interrogating suspects.[96][97] In some countries, such as Kyrgyzstan, suspects are more likely to be tortured at the end of the month because of performance quotas.[96]

The contribution of bureaucracy to torture is under-researched and poorly understood.[66] Torturers rely on both active supporters and those who ignore it.[98] Military, intelligence, psychology, medical, and legal professionals can all be complicit in torture.[80] Incentives can favor the use of torture on an institutional or individual level, and some perpetrators are motivated by the prospect of career advancement.[99][100] Bureaucracy can diffuse responsibility for torture and help perpetrators excuse their actions.[87][101] Maintaining secrecy is often essential to maintaining a torture program, which can be accomplished in ways ranging from direct censorship, denial, or mislabeling torture as something else, to offshoring abuses to outside a state's territory.[102][103] Along with official denials, torture is enabled by moral disengagement from the victims and impunity for the perpetrators.[68] Public demand for decisive action against crime or even support for torture against criminals can facilitate its use.[71]

Once a torture program is begun, it is difficult or impossible to prevent it from escalating to more severe techniques and expanding to larger groups of victims, beyond what is originally intended or desired by decision-makers.[104][105][106] Sociologist Christopher J. Einolf argues that "torture can create a vicious cycle in which a fear of internal enemies leads to torture, torture creates false confessions, and false confessions reinforce torturers' fears, leading to a spiral of paranoia and ever-increasing torture"—similar to a witch hunt.[66] Escalation of torture is especially difficult to contain in counterinsurgency operations.[91] Torture and specific techniques spread between different countries, especially by soldiers returning home from overseas wars, although this process is poorly understood.[107][108]

Purpose

[edit]

Punishment

[edit]

Torture for punishment dates back to antiquity and is still employed in the twenty-first century.[21] A common practice in countries with dysfunctional justice systems or overcrowded prisons is for police to apprehend suspects, torture them, and release them without a charge.[109][110] Such torture could be performed in a police station,[111] the victim's home, or a public place.[112] In South Africa, the police have been observed handing suspects over to vigilantes to be tortured.[113] This type of extrajudicial violence is often carried out in public as a form of social control to deter others. It discriminatorily targets minorities and marginalized groups and may be supported by the public, especially if people do not trust the official justice system.[114][115]

Judicial corporal punishment was initially excepted from the UN definition of torture, which "does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions",[116] although it is explicitly prohibited under the Geneva Conventions.[117] From the 1990s, courts increasingly recognized it as a form of torture, although this norm has met opposition from practitioners of Islamic law and other traditional justice practices.[118] Capital punishment is an extreme form of corporal punishment and its use has become increasingly circumscribed.[119][120] Certain methods of execution have been banned as tortuous,[121][120] and the psychological harm of capital punishment has also been recognized as torture.[122] Others do not consider corporal punishment with a fixed penalty to be torture, as it does not seek to break the victim's will.[123]

Deterrence

[edit]
See also: Deterrence (penology)
Russian pro-Navalny protestor injured by riot police

Torture may also be used indiscriminately to terrorize people other than the direct victim or to deter opposition to the government.[124][125] In the United States, torture was used to deter slaves from escaping or rebelling.[126] Some defenders of judicial torture prior to its abolition argued that it deterred crime; reformers contended that because torture was carried out in secret, it could not be an effective deterrent.[127] In the twentieth century, well-known examples include the Khmer Rouge[124] and anti-communist regimes in Latin America, who tortured and murdered their victims as part of forced disappearance.[128] Ba'athist Syria's massive torture program existed to eliminate dissent, although all evidence indicates it was not effective. Its perpetrators tortured to show loyalty to their regime and pointed to their victims as evidence for dangerous subversion, justifying the existence of the torture program.[129] Authoritarian regimes often resort to indiscriminate repression because they cannot accurately identify potential opponents.[130] Many insurgencies lack the necessary infrastructure for a torture program and instead intimidate by killing.[131] Research has found that state torture can extend the lifespan of terrorist organizations, increase incentives for insurgents to use violence, and radicalize the opposition.[132][66] Another form of torture for deterrence is violence against migrants, as has been reported during pushbacks on the European Union's external borders.[133]

Confession

[edit]
Further information: Forced confession

Torture has been used throughout history to extract confessions from detainees. In 1764, Italian reformer Cesare Beccaria denounced torture as "a sure way to acquit robust scoundrels and to condemn weak but innocent people".[24][134] Similar doubts about torture's effectiveness had been voiced for centuries previously, including by Aristotle.[135][136] Despite the abolition of judicial torture, it sees continued use to elicit confessions, especially in judicial systems placing a high value on confessions in criminal matters.[137][138] The use of torture to force suspects to confess is facilitated by laws allowing extensive pre-trial detention.[139] Research has found that coercive interrogation is slightly more effective than cognitive interviewing for extracting a confession from a suspect, but presents a higher risk of false confession.[140] Many torture victims will say whatever the torturer wants to hear to end the torture.[141][142] Others who are guilty refuse to confess,[143] especially if they believe it would only bring more torture or punishment.[138] Medieval justice systems attempted to counteract the risk of false confession under torture by requiring confessors to provide falsifiable details about the crime, and only allowing torture if there was already some evidence against the accused.[144][33] In some countries, political opponents are tortured to force them to confess publicly as a form of state propaganda.[137]

Interrogation

[edit]
Main article: Interrogational torture
Two United States soldiers and one South Vietnamese soldier waterboard a captured North Vietnamese prisoner of war near Da Nang, 1968.

The use of torture to obtain information during interrogation accounts for a small percentage of worldwide torture cases; its use for obtaining confessions or intimidation is more common.[145] Although interrogational torture has been used in conventional wars, it is even more common in asymmetric war or civil wars.[137] The ticking time bomb scenario is extremely rare, if not impossible,[59][146] but is cited to justify torture for interrogation. Fictional portrayals of torture as an effective interrogational method have fueled misconceptions that justify the use of torture.[147] Experiments comparing torture with other interrogation methods cannot be performed for ethical and practical reasons.[148][149][150] Most scholars of torture are skeptical about its efficacy in obtaining accurate information, while others hold that it is impossible to know its effectiveness, and in some cases actionable intelligence has been obtained.[151][152][153] Interrogational torture can often shade into confessional torture or simply into entertainment,[154] and some torturers do not distinguish between interrogation and confession.[150] Although skeptical of some criticisms of torture, Ron E. Hassner argues that to be effective torture must be planned and drawn out. "Our society would have to acquiesce to a massive bureaucratized torture campaign, at times of peace or war, that targeted thousands, from all walks of life, regardless of culpability, in order to extract modest intelligence that was, at best, corroborative."[155]

Methods

[edit]
Main article: List of methods of torture
Electroshock weapons are preferred by some torturers because they have legitimate uses and do not leave marks.[156]

A wide variety of techniques have been used for torture.[157] Nevertheless, there are limited ways of inflicting pain while minimizing the risk of death.[158][65] Survivors report that the exact method used is not significant.[159] Most forms of torture include both physical and psychological elements[160][161] and multiple methods are typically used on one person.[162][65] Different methods of torture are popular in different countries.[163][65] Low-tech methods are more commonly used than high-tech ones, and attempts to develop scientifically validated torture technology have failed.[164] The prohibition of torture motivated a shift to methods that do not leave marks to aid in deniability and to deprive victims of legal redress.[165][166] As they faced more pressure and scrutiny, democracies led the innovation in clean torture practices in the early twentieth century; such techniques diffused worldwide by the 1960s.[167][24] Patterns of torture differ based on a torturer's time limits—for example, resulting from legal limits on pre-trial detention.[168] While some methods are considered inherently tortuous, others may contribute to a finding of torture depending on the circumstances and cumulative impact.[169]

Beatings or blunt trauma are the most common form of physical torture[170][171] reported by about two-thirds of survivors.[171] They may be either unsystematic[172] or focused on a specific part of the body, as in falanga (the soles of the feet), repeated strikes against both ears, or shaking the detainee so that their head moves back and forth.[173] Often, people are suspended in painful positions such as strappado or upside-down hanging in combination with beatings.[174] People may also be subjected to stabbings or puncture wounds, have their nails removed, or body parts amputated.[175] Burns are also common, especially cigarette burns, but other instruments are also employed, including hot metal, hot fluids, the sun, or acid.[176] Forced ingestion of water, food, or other substances, or injections are also used as torture.[177] Electric shocks are often used to torture, especially to avoid other methods that are more likely to leave scars.[178] Asphyxiation, of which waterboarding is a form, inflicts torture on the victim by cutting off their air supply.[175]

Psychological torture includes methods that involve no physical element as well as forcing a person to do something and physical attacks that ultimately target the mind.[160] Death threats, mock execution, or being forced to witness the torture of another person are often reported to be subjectively worse than being physically tortured and are associated with severe sequelae.[179] Other torture techniques include sleep deprivation, overcrowding or solitary confinement, withholding of food or water, sensory deprivation (such as hooding), exposure to extremes of light or noise (e.g., musical torture),[180] humiliation (which can be based on sexuality or the victim's religious or national identity),[181] and the use of animals such as dogs to frighten or injure a prisoner.[182][183] Positional torture works by forcing the person to adopt a stance, putting their weight on a few muscles, causing pain without leaving marks, for example standing or squatting for extended periods.[184] Rape and sexual assault are universal torture methods and frequently instill a permanent sense of shame in the victim and in some cultures, humiliate their family and society.[185][186] Cultural and individual differences affect how the victim perceives different torture methods.[187]

Effects

[edit]
Norwegian resistance fighter Lauritz Sand recovering after his release from the Gestapo, May 1945

Torture is one of the most devastating experiences that a person can undergo.[188] Torture aims to break the victim's will[189] and destroy the victim's agency and personality.[190] Torture survivor Jean Améry argued that it was "the most horrible event a human being can retain within himself" and that "whoever was tortured, stays tortured".[191][192] Many torture victims, including Améry, later die by suicide.[193] Survivors often experience social and financial problems.[194] Circumstances such as housing insecurity, family separation, and the uncertainty of applying for asylum in a safe country strongly impact survivors' well-being.[195]

Death is not an uncommon outcome of torture.[196] Understanding of the link between specific torture methods and health consequences is lacking.[65] These consequences can include peripheral neuropathy, damage to teeth, rhabdomyolysis from extensive muscle damage,[170] traumatic brain injury,[197] sexually transmitted infection, and pregnancy from rape.[198] Chronic pain and pain-related disability are commonly reported, but there is scant research into this effect or possible treatments.[199] Common psychological problems affecting survivors include traumatic stress, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbance.[200][194] An average of 40 percent have long-term post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a higher rate than for any other traumatic experience.[188] Not all survivors or rehabilitation experts support using medical categories to define their experience,[201] and many survivors remain psychologically resilient.[202]

Criminal prosecutions for torture are rare[203] and most victims who submit formal complaints are not believed.[204] Despite the efforts for evidence-based evaluation of the scars from torture such as the Istanbul Protocol, most physical examinations are inconclusive.[205] The effects of torture are one of several factors that usually result in inconsistent testimony from survivors, hampering their effort to be believed and secure either refugee status in a foreign country or criminal prosecution of the perpetrators.[206]

Although there is less research on the effects of torture on perpetrators,[207] they can experience moral injury or trauma symptoms similar to the victims, especially when they feel guilty about their actions.[208][209] Torture has corrupting effects on the institutions and societies that perpetrate it. Torturers forget important investigative skills because torture can be an easier way than time-consuming police work to achieve high conviction rates, encouraging the continued and increased use of torture.[210][208][211] Public disapproval of torture can harm the international reputation of countries that use it, strengthen and radicalize violent opposition to those states,[212][213][214] and encourage adversaries to themselves use torture.[215]

Public opinion

[edit]

Studies have found that most people around the world oppose the use of torture in general.[216][217] Some hold definite views on torture; for others, torture's acceptability depends on the victim.[218] Support for torture in specific cases is correlated with the belief that torture is effective and used in ticking time bomb cases.[219] Women are more likely to oppose torture than men.[220] Nonreligious people are less likely to support the use of torture than religious people, although for the latter group, increased religiosity increases opposition to torture.[221] The personality traits of right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and retributivism are correlated with higher support for torture; embrace of democratic values such as liberty and equality reduces support for torture.[221] Public opinion is most favorable to torture, on average, in countries with low per capita income and high levels of state repression.[216] Public opinion[222] and civil society mobilizations are an important constraint on the use of torture by states.[223]

Prohibition

[edit]
Further information: Torture in international law
Proposed United States poster, 1942 or 1943
Parties to the Convention against Torture in dark green, states that have signed the treaty in yellow, and others in gray

The prohibition of torture is generally accepted as intended to protect human dignity and the physical and mental integrity of the victim.[224][225] Torture is criticized based on all major ethical frameworks, including deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics.[226][227] Some contemporary philosophers argue that torture is never morally acceptable; others propose exceptions to the general rule in real-life equivalents of the ticking time-bomb scenario.[228][229] The accusation of torture is often perceived as a more serious stigma than inhuman or degrading treatment that causes similar amounts of human suffering.[230]

The abolition and prohibition of torture was justified by rhetoric classifying it as barbaric and uncivilized.[231][23] By the late nineteenth century, countries began to be condemned internationally for the use of torture.[232] The ban on torture became part of the civilizing mission justifying colonial rule on the pretext of ending torture,[233][234] despite the use of torture by colonial rulers themselves.[235] The condemnation was strengthened during the twentieth century in reaction to the use of torture by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.[236] Shocked by Nazi atrocities during World War II, after which torture featured prominently in the Nuremberg trials,[237][238] the United Nations drew up the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which prohibited torture.[239][240] Torture stimulated the creation of the human rights movement.[241] Beginning with the 1969 Greek case, the definition of torture—left undefined in most treaties—has been fleshed out in case law.[242][243] In the early 1970s, Amnesty International launched a global campaign against torture, exposing its widespread use and leading to the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT) in 1984.[244]

The prohibition of torture is a peremptory norm (jus cogens) in international law, meaning that it is forbidden for all states under all circumstances.[245][246] The CAT and its Optional Protocol focus on the prevention of torture, which was already prohibited in international human rights law (IHRL) under other treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[247][248] The CAT specifies that torture must be a criminal offense under a country's laws,[63] evidence obtained under torture may not be admitted in court, and deporting a person to another country where they are likely to face torture is forbidden.[246] Even when it is illegal under national law, judges in many countries continue to admit evidence obtained under torture or ill treatment.[249][250] It is disputed whether ratification of the CAT decreases, does not affect, or even increases the rate of torture in a country.[66] Torture is prohibited in international criminal law as a war crime and crime against humanity; unlike in IHRL, it may be perpetrated by non-state actors.[245][13] In 1987, Israel became the only country in the world to purportedly legalize torture.[251][252][253][254] More prominently, the prohibition was challenged by the United States government using the same argument of state security deployed by Israel and various colonial powers,[255] as it embarked on an overseas torture program as part of its war on terror.[256]

Prevention

[edit]
Further information: Committee for the Prevention of Torture and World Organisation Against Torture
The Torture Never Again Monument in Brazil features a naked man hanging in the pau de arara position.

There is some evidence that institutionalized torture prevention reduces the rate of torture,[257] although prevention efforts are complicated both by lack of understanding about why torture occurs and by lack of application of what is known.[66] Torture proliferates in situations of incommunicado detention.[258][259] Because the risk of torture is highest directly after an arrest, procedural safeguards such as immediate access to a lawyer and notifying relatives of an arrest are the most effective ways of prevention.[260] Visits by independent monitoring bodies to detention sites can also help reduce torture.[261] Legal changes that are not implemented in practice have little effect on the incidence of torture.[262] Legal changes can be particularly ineffective in places where the law has limited legitimacy or is routinely ignored.[63] Naming and shaming campaigns against torture have shown mixed results; they can be ineffective and even make things worse.[66]

Sociologically torture operates as a subculture, frustrating prevention efforts because torturers can find a way around rules.[263] Safeguards against torture in detention can be evaded by beating suspects during round-ups or on the way to the police station.[264][265] General training of police to improve their ability to investigate crime has been more effective at reducing torture than specific training focused on human rights.[266][267] Institutional police reforms have been effective when abuse is systematic.[268][269] Political scientist Darius Rejali criticizes torture prevention research for not figuring out "what to do when people are bad; institutions broken, understaffed, and corrupt; and habitual serial violence is routine".[270] Malcolm Evans, a longtime participant in United Nations anti-torture efforts, believes that "fundamental shifts and changes in societal attitudes" towards the people at risk of becoming torture victims may be required to put an end to torture.[257]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]

Books

[edit]

Book chapters

[edit]

Journal articles

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Torture

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
![The custody of a criminal does not require torture, by Francisco Goya][float-right] Torture is defined in international law as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for purposes including obtaining information or a confession, punishing for an act committed or suspected, intimidating or coercing the victim or a third party, or based on discrimination, when such acts are perpetrated by or with the acquiescence of public officials or persons acting in an official capacity. This excludes pain inherent to lawful sanctions. The practice distinguishes from other forms of violence by its deliberate intent to break the subject's will through extreme duress, often employing methods like waterboarding, electrocution, or prolonged stress positions. Historically, torture served as a core element of judicial systems in ancient civilizations and medieval , where it was routinely applied to extract confessions under evidentiary rules requiring full proof for serious crimes, only declining with the rise of modern forensic methods and abolition in the 19th century. Its use extended to inquisitorial processes, wartime interrogations, and punitive measures by states across democratic and authoritarian regimes alike. Under contemporary international law, torture is absolutely prohibited as a jus cogens norm, binding all states without derogation even in emergencies, enshrined in treaties like the UN Convention Against Torture, which mandates criminalization and universal jurisdiction. Despite this, documented instances continue in conflicts and detentions, fueling debates over its purported intelligence value—empirical assessments indicate it frequently yields unreliable information due to victims' fabrication to end suffering—versus its role in deterrence or retribution.

Definitions

The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and entering into force on June 26, 1987, establishes the cornerstone international legal definition of torture in Article 1. This provision defines torture as "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." It explicitly excludes pain or suffering "arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." The definition requires four core elements: severity of harm, intentionality, prohibited purposes, and state or official involvement, distinguishing torture from lesser forms of mistreatment. Under , reflected in instruments like the of , torture is absolutely prohibited without exceptions, including during conflicts. Common Article 3 of the bans "cruel treatment and torture" against persons not actively participating in hostilities, while the of the () in Article 7(2)(e) defines it as "the intentional infliction of severe or , whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused," excluding only inherent to lawful sanctions but not requiring purposes or state . These definitions align closely with CAT but apply in distinct contexts: humanitarian law emphasizes protection in war, while the ICC focuses on individual criminal liability for crimes against humanity. The prohibition is non-derogable, meaning no circumstances, including national emergencies or counterterrorism, justify it. Nationally, many states incorporate CAT's definition into domestic legislation, though variations exist; for instance, the codified a similar standard in 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340–2340A (enacted 1994), defining torture as an act "committed by a acting under the " specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental or , but with reservations upon ratifying CAT in 1994 limiting its scope to officials and excluding certain defensive actions. As of 2023, CAT has been ratified or acceded to by 173 states parties, obligating them to criminalize torture and establish jurisdiction over offenses. Discrepancies arise in interpreting "severe" , with some jurisdictions requiring objective medical evidence of harm, while others rely on subjective victim testimony.

Functional and Psychological Definitions

Torture functions as a coercive mechanism by deliberately inflicting severe physical or mental to override an individual's volition, compelling actions such as confessions or disclosure through the disruption of integrated neurocognitive processes. This operational dynamic exploits the brain's response to extreme stress, which impairs , rational , and resistance, often yielding unreliable outcomes to confabulation or suppression of accurate under duress. From a psychological standpoint, torture entails targeted assaults on mental faculties to engender intense suffering, encompassing techniques like , enforced isolation, or threats that foster helplessness and perceptual distortion without necessitating bodily injury. These methods, frequently classified as "clean" or "no-touch" torture, prioritize of the victim's psychological by amplifying responses and undermining , with effects persisting as chronic trauma. Psychological evaluations define it as the application of cognitive, emotional, or sensory manipulations directed at to provoke equivalent to physical torment, distinguishable by its emphasis on intangible yet verifiable mental sequelae. Clinical observations of survivors reveal that psychological torture triggers elevated incidences of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at rates exceeding 50% in some cohorts, alongside depression and somatic complaints, evidencing causal pathways from acute coercion to enduring neural alterations in stress-regulation circuits. Neuroimaging correlates include reduced hippocampal volume and prefrontal dysregulation, mechanisms that parallel those in prolonged trauma models, confirming the functional equivalence of mental and physical pain in eliciting breakdown.

Historical Context

Ancient and Classical Eras

In ancient Mesopotamia, particularly under the Assyrians from the 9th to 7th centuries BCE, torture was systematically employed as a tool of warfare, retribution, and psychological terror to subdue enemies and deter rebellion. Assyrian inscriptions and palace reliefs from kings like Ashurnasirpal II (r. 883–859 BCE) and Ashurbanipal (r. 668–627 BCE) detail practices such as flaying captives alive, impaling bodies on stakes, decapitating and piling severed heads into towers, and burning entire villages while impaling survivors. These methods were not merely punitive but served to instill fear, as evidenced by Ashurnasirpal's banquet inscription boasting of draping city walls with flayed skins and filling plains with impaled corpses to coerce submission from neighboring states. Earlier Mesopotamian codes, such as the (c. 1750 BCE), prescribed punishments including of limbs or for specific crimes like or , reflecting a retributive framework where physical mirrored the offense's , though systematic under torture was less emphasized than in later Assyrian practice. In ancient , torture featured in judicial and punitive contexts from the (c. 2686–2181 BCE) onward, with methods including beatings with rods, limb-twisting, by cutting off noses or ears, impalement, and burning for crimes against the state or . records, such as the (c. 2350 BCE), document investigations involving flogging to elicit confessions from suspects in tomb robberies, indicating torture's role in truth extraction under scribal oversight, though free elites were often exempt. Biblical accounts corroborate Near Eastern practices, describing Assyrian tortures like and during conquests of and Judah in the 8th–7th centuries BCE, as in the sieges of (722 BCE) and Lachish (701 BCE), where reliefs show heaps of mutilated bodies to terrorize populations. In (c. 5th–4th centuries BCE), torture (basanos) was legally restricted primarily to slaves and foreigners for extracting testimony in courts, as free male citizens were deemed above such coercion to preserve civic equality; ' plays and orators like reference its use on or metics, involving whipping or the rack, but philosophical critiques by and questioned its reliability for truth. Ancient Rome institutionalized torture (quaestio) from the (c. 509–27 BCE), mandating it for slaves' testimony to presumed unreliability without pain, escalating under the to include free provincials and lower classes via tools like the rack, hot irons, or scourging; , reserved for non-citizens and , combined prolonged agony with , as in the execution of 6,000 slaves after ' revolt in 71 BCE. Roman jurists like (d. 223 CE) noted its fallibility, yet emperors like and expanded it for political interrogations, often yielding coerced confessions rather than accurate .

Medieval to Enlightenment Periods

Judicial torture emerged in medieval Europe as a mechanism to secure confessions in inquisitorial criminal trials, particularly after the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 prohibited clerical participation in trial by ordeal, necessitating alternative proofs for serious crimes like felony where testimony alone was insufficient. This practice, influenced by revived Roman and canon law, required "half-proof" such as strong suspicion or circumstantial evidence before torture could be applied, with the goal of eliciting full confessions to meet evidentiary thresholds for conviction. Regulations limited sessions to one per accused initially, though repeats occurred under repeated suspicions, and torture was not to cause permanent injury or death, reflecting a procedural rather than purely punitive intent. In the context of ecclesiastical courts, the medieval Inquisition, established to combat heresy, employed torture sparingly and skeptically after papal authorization in 1252 by Innocent IV's bull Ad extirpanda, which permitted it for obstinate suspects but emphasized corroboration beyond tortured confessions. Historical records from the Spanish Inquisition, active from 1478, indicate that while methods like the water torture (garrote) or strappado were used, inquisitors often discounted unreliable statements obtained under duress, with torture applied in fewer than 2% of cases based on archival evidence, countering exaggerated narratives of systemic brutality. Secular courts across continental Europe, including France and the Holy Roman Empire, integrated similar procedures by the 13th century, using devices such as the rack or thumbscrews to extract admissions, though efficacy was debated even then due to risks of false confessions from pain-induced fabrication. By the late medieval and early modern periods, evidentiary advancements like witness corroboration and forensic developments began eroding reliance on torture, with largely abandoning it by the 17th century except in exceptional treason cases, as common law favored trials over inquisitorial methods. The Enlightenment accelerated this shift through philosophical critiques; Cesare Beccaria's 1764 treatise On Crimes and Punishments argued that torture fails to distinguish guilty from innocent, as the weak confess falsely while the strong endure, rendering it causally ineffective for truth-finding and morally arbitrary. Voltaire echoed these views, decrying torture in works like his campaigns against judicial errors, such as the Calas (1762), where he highlighted how coerced confessions perpetuated miscarriages of under arbitrary sovereign power. These ideas influenced legal reforms, leading to abolition in Prussia (1754), (1722 earlier), and during the Revolution (1789), as rationalist principles prioritized proportionate over confessional , though informal or punitive torture lingered in some penal practices into the 19th century. Empirical assessments of torture's outcomes, informed by trial , revealed high rates of recantation post-torture and inconsistencies, underscoring its unreliability absent independent verification, a realization that aligned with broader Enlightenment emphasis on evidence-based over absolutist traditions.

Modern Era: Industrial Age to World Wars

In the 19th century, judicial torture was formally abolished across much of and , a process accelerated by Enlightenment critiques emphasizing its ineffectiveness for eliciting reliable confessions and its moral incompatibility with emerging penal reforms. Cesare Beccaria's 1764 treatise influentially argued that torture produced false admissions under duress and violated principles of proportionality in , contributing to bans in nations like (abolished 1789, reaffirmed post-Revolution) and Britain (judicial torture ended 1640s but corporal forms lingered). Despite these reforms, penal systems shifted toward institutional punishments that inflicted severe physical and psychological , often blurring into torture. In Britain, the treadmill—introduced in 1817 as a "reformative" labor device—forced prisoners to step on a rotating wheel for hours daily, causing muscle fatigue, joint damage, and deaths from exhaustion in facilities like London's Coldbath Fields Prison, where over 12 hours of use was standard until its decline by the 1890s. United States prisons adopted similar mechanisms, with solitary confinement at Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia from 1829 intended as moral rehabilitation but resulting in documented insanity and self-harm among inmates isolated for 23 hours daily without sensory stimulation, a practice later criticized as psychologically destructive. Corporal punishments like flogging persisted in military and naval contexts; the U.S. Navy authorized up to 39 lashes until 1850, while chain gangs in Southern states compelled convicts—disproportionately Black laborers post-Civil War—to perform forced labor under threat of whipping, with annual reports from Georgia's convict lease system in the 1880s recording hundreds of lashings for minor infractions. Colonial empires extended harsher practices abroad: British forces in India employed strappado (suspension by wrists) and bastinado (foot whipping) against rebels during the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny, while American troops in the Philippine-American War (1899–1902) routinely applied the "water cure"—forcing water down suspects' throats to simulate drowning—on over 2,000 insurgents, as testified by U.S. officers like Major Edwin Glenn, who justified 100+ applications in a single operation to extract intelligence. These methods, often rationalized as necessary for pacification, highlighted a disconnect between metropolitan abolition and imperial coercion, where empirical accounts from colonial records indicate higher tolerance for pain-infliction to maintain control over subject populations. The World Wars marked a resurgence of systematic torture in military and intelligence operations, driven by demands for and retribution. During , both sides committed atrocities involving torture; Ottoman forces tortured Armenian intellectuals in 1915–1916 with beatings, nail-pulling, and burning before mass deportations, while German troops in occupied used electrical shocks and on suspected saboteurs, as documented in reports from 1919. Interwar periods saw precursors in authoritarian regimes: Soviet from 1937 extracted confessions via , beatings, and "conveyor" —relentless questioning by rotating teams—resulting in over 600,000 fabricated admissions during the Great Purge, per declassified archives. World War II escalated torture to industrial scale, particularly under Axis powers. Nazi Germany's Gestapo and SS operated over 1,000 interrogation centers by 1942, employing methods like standing in stress positions for days, submersion in ice water, and phalange crushing, with Auschwitz camp records from 1943–1945 detailing 20–50 daily floggings and "post" punishments (arms bound behind back and hoisted), applied to prisoners for alleged infractions. Japanese military police (Kempeitai) tortured Allied POWs and civilians with waterboarding, bamboo slivers under nails, and vivisection, as in the 1942–1945 Burma-Thailand railway camps where 12,000 Allied prisoners died amid routine brutality, including forced labor under threat of bayoneting. In Poland, German occupation forces tortured on an unprecedented scale, with Gestapo chambers in Warsaw processing thousands via electrocution and bone-breaking, contributing to estimates of 3 million non-Jewish Polish deaths from systematic violence. Allied forces largely adhered to Geneva Conventions, though isolated cases occurred, such as Soviet NKVD's continued use of medieval-derived techniques on German captives; U.S. and British intelligence occasionally authorized stress positions but avoided extremes, reflecting doctrinal emphasis on Geneva compliance amid empirical evidence of torture's unreliability for accurate intelligence. These practices underscored torture's role in terrorizing populations and coercing compliance, often yielding coerced but low-value information, as post-war trials like Nuremberg (1945–1946) established through victim testimonies and perpetrator confessions.

Post-World War II Developments

The , comprising four treaties ratified by 196 states as of 2023, explicitly prohibit torture and cruel treatment in international and non-international conflicts, building on the Convention's protections for prisoners of . Common Article 3 bans to and , including torture, while specific conventions safeguards against inhumane interrogations. These developments responded to atrocities, including systematic torture by , with the and trials (1945-1948) prosecuting such acts as and , establishing under . Postwar human rights frameworks further codified bans, with Article 7 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declaring no one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman treatment, ratified by 173 states. Amnesty International's 1973 global campaign documented torture in over 50 countries, including beatings, electric shocks, and psychological coercion, galvanizing UN action; its 1975 report evidenced systematic use by governments for confessions and suppression. This pressure culminated in the 1975 UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Torture and the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture (CAT), ratified by 173 parties, obliging states to criminalize torture, prevent it in custody, and enable universal jurisdiction for prosecution. Despite these norms, state practices persisted during the Cold War. The CIA's MKUltra program (1953-1973) conducted over 150 subprojects involving non-consensual LSD administration, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, and electroshock on unwitting subjects, including prisoners and mental patients, to develop mind-control techniques amid fears of Soviet brainwashing; declassified documents reveal at least one death and long-term psychological harm. In the Vietnam War (1955-1975), North Vietnamese forces systematically tortured approximately 600 U.S. POWs at sites like the "Hanoi Hilton," employing rope restraints ("stocks"), beatings, and prolonged solitary confinement to extract propaganda statements, with some prisoners enduring over 12 sessions. U.S. forces also applied coercive methods, such as waterboarding and stress positions, against Viet Cong suspects, often overlooking allied South Vietnamese abuses. In the post-9/11 era, the U.S. implemented "enhanced interrogation techniques" authorized by Justice Department memos in 2002, including waterboarding (applied 183 times to one detainee), sleep deprivation up to 180 hours, and confinement in small boxes at CIA black sites and Guantanamo Bay, which opened in January 2002 for 779 detainees; a 2014 Senate report concluded these methods yielded no unique intelligence and constituted torture under international definitions. The 2003-2004 Abu Ghraib abuses involved U.S. military personnel subjecting Iraqi detainees to sexual humiliation, dog attacks, electrocution threats, and pyramid stacking, documented in leaked photographs published in April 2004, leading to 11 convictions but no high-level prosecutions; a Taguba Report identified 44 abuse instances, some equating to torture. These events, amid conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, underscored enforcement gaps, with CAT committees repeatedly criticizing non-compliant states, though compliance varies due to sovereignty and security claims.

Purposes and Applications

Retribution and Punishment

Retributive theories posit that is morally obligatory because offenders deserve to suffer proportionate to the wrong they have committed, independent of any deterrent or rehabilitative effects. In this framework, torture functions as an extreme form of such retribution by deliberately inflicting severe physical or mental agony to mirror the suffering caused by the , thereby satisfying the principle of and restoring equilibrium disrupted by the offense. Philosophers like argued that punishment must equate to the crime's intrinsic wrongness, potentially endorsing equivalent suffering—though modern retributivists typically limit this to non-torturous penalties like , viewing torture as disproportionate or degrading to . Historically, torture was codified as retributive in numerous legal systems, often from lex talionis, which prescribed retaliatory such as or execution by ordeal to avenge victims and affirm societal norms. In ancient and medieval contexts, it targeted serious offenses like or , with methods including floggings, breaking on the , or and quartering designed to prolong agony as visible recompense, thereby channeling communal vengeance. Such practices peaked in before the 18th century, when spectacles of tortured executions served dual roles of and exemplification, though they were gradually abolished by the mid-19th century amid shifts toward evidentiary reforms and perceptions of torture as unreliable or counterproductive. Empirical assessments of torture's retributive reveal mixed outcomes: while it may provide psychological closure for victims or publics seeking "just deserts," as evidenced by heightened support for harsh measures following atrocities, it often fails to achieve lasting rectification and can perpetuate cycles of rather than resolution. indicates retributive motives drive endorsement of torture-like punishments even absent , yet historical records show frequent false confessions under duress undermined judicial legitimacy, contributing to its decline in favor of proportionate, non-degrading sanctions. Critics from consequentialist perspectives argue that such methods social trust and invite excess, as unchecked retribution risks devolving into vengeance disproportionate to the original .

Deterrence Against Crime or Rebellion

Historically, torture has been utilized as an exemplary punishment to deter crime by publicly demonstrating severe consequences and instilling widespread fear among potential offenders. In medieval Europe, authorities frequently subjected criminals to prolonged torture—such as drawing and quartering or breaking on the wheel—prior to execution, with the spectacle intended to reinforce social order and discourage recidivism or imitation. As urban crime rates escalated in the later Middle Ages, responses included expanding capital offenses amenable to torture, from theft to vagrancy, reflecting a belief in severity's deterrent power despite no observable decline in offenses. Eighteenth-century reformers like critiqued this approach, arguing that torture's unreliability in ascertaining guilt undermined its punitive credibility and that milder, certain penalties better deterred through rational calculation of risks rather than terror. Empirical historical patterns support this: despite intensified torturous punishments, crime persisted or increased in regions like and from the 13th to 18th centuries, prompting shifts toward over spectacle by the 19th century as torture's deterrent value proved illusory. Modern criminological analyses, drawing on , affirm that punishment severity correlates weakly with crime reduction when certainty of apprehension remains low, a factor exacerbated by torture's or perceived illegitimacy in post-Enlightenment legal systems. Regarding rebellion, authoritarian regimes have applied torture to captured insurgents to signal resolve and discourage sympathizers, as in Roman crucifixions of Spartacus's followers in 71 BCE, which aimed to prevent slave revolts through deterrence. Proponents like have extended this logic to contemporary terrorism, positing judicially sanctioned torture as a deterrent against attacks by punishing plotters harshly. However, quantitative studies of civil wars and insurgencies, examining from over 100 conflicts between 1989 and 2010, find no statistically significant reduction in rebel-perpetrated killings following state torture; instead, it correlates with heightened , likely due to radicalization, revenge cycles, and eroded regime legitimacy. Cross-national evidence reinforces inefficacy: countries ratifying anti-torture treaties like the Convention Against Torture experienced no surge in domestic rebellions, while torture's deployment in counterinsurgencies—such as during the (–)—failed to suppress FLN resistance and prolonged conflict. Causal mechanisms suggest torture undermines deterrence by fostering narratives of martyrdom among rebels, boosting , and alienating populations whose compliance hinges more on perceived fairness than brutality. Thus, while invoked historically for both and rebellion control, torture's deterrent effects lack empirical substantiation and often yield counterproductive escalation.

Eliciting Confessions

Torture employed historically to compel confessions in judicial proceedings, particularly in systems where evidentiary standards prioritized over external proof. In , codified under emperors like Constantine in the 4th century CE, torture was permitted for slaves and lower classes to extract admissions in capital cases, with confessions required to be voluntary upon repetition without duress to mitigate falsity, though was inconsistent. During the European witch hunts of the 15th to 17th centuries, inquisitorial procedures routinely incorporated torture devices such as the rack, thumbscrews, and to elicit admissions of pact with the , resulting in thousands of confessions that fueled executions; for instance, in the Würzburg trials of 1626–1629, over 900 individuals confessed under torment, many implicating others in a cascading effect of fabricated networks. Psychologically, torture induces false confessions through mechanisms of compliance and cognitive overload rather than truthful recall. Acute pain and fear activate the brain's stress response, impairing prefrontal cortex functions responsible for accurate memory retrieval and executive control, leading subjects to produce whatever narrative terminates the suffering—often aligning with interrogators' expectations or suggestions. Peer-reviewed analyses indicate that this yields high rates of fabricated admissions; for example, studies of coerced interrogations show that physical agony prioritizes short-term relief over veracity, with victims internalizing suggested guilt to escape further harm, as evidenced in historical recantations post-torture and modern experimental analogs using stress induction. Empirical evaluations consistently demonstrate torture's unreliability for verifiable confessions. A review of interrogation outcomes across contexts, including post-9/11 U.S. programs, finds no robust link between coercive methods and accurate self-incriminations, with false positives predominating due to the ease of inventing compliant stories over genuine admissions, which require sustained volition absent duress. Historical precedents, such as the Spanish Inquisition's 1492–1834 records, reveal voluminous confessions under torture but frequent later disavowals or inconsistencies upon independent verification, underscoring systemic over-reliance on coerced that propagated errors like mass accusations. Neuroscientific critiques, drawing on of states, affirm that torture degrades informational , producing "confessions" more akin to survival-driven fabrications than factual disclosures. While proponents historically claimed utility in closing cases without witnesses, causal analysis reveals such successes as artifacts of , where unverified admissions were accepted despite incentives for deceit.

Intelligence Extraction and Interrogation

Torture has been applied in interrogations to compel disclosure of strategic, operational, or tactical from captured adversaries, combatants, or suspected informants. This practice posits that inflicting severe physical or overrides resistance, prompting of concealed . Historically, such methods trace to ancient , where Roman legions reportedly used scourging and crucifixion threats on prisoners to extract battlefield plans, though verifiable outcomes remain scarce. In modern contexts, interrogational torture distinguishes from punitive or confessional aims by targeting actionable , often under time-sensitive scenarios like operations. During the post-9/11 era, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) implemented an enhanced interrogation program authorized in August 2002, applying techniques including waterboarding, sleep deprivation exceeding 180 hours, and stress positions to at least 119 detainees held in secret facilities. Proponents, including CIA officials, asserted these yielded critical leads, such as information from detainee Abu Zubaydah purportedly facilitating the capture of Jose Padilla and Ramzi bin al-Shibh. However, the 2014 U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report, drawing from over 6 million pages of CIA documents, determined that key intelligence attributed to torture was obtained prior to its application or through non-coercive means, with no unique actionable intelligence derived solely from enhanced techniques. Empirical assessments torture's unreliability for extraction. indicates that acute stress from torture disrupts hippocampal function, impairing accurate retrieval while elevating suggestibility and fabrication to terminate , thus inflating false positives over verifiable data. A meta-analysis of interrogation found coercive methods, including torture, lower validity rates compared to rapport-building approaches, with coerced yielding at rates below 20% accuracy in controlled analogs. Military studies, such as those from U.S. training, corroborate that tortured captives prioritize compliance over truth, often reciting fabricated that consume investigative resources without advancing objectives. Counterproductive effects further diminish . Declassified assessments reveal torture correlates with increased rather than reduction, as alienated populations radicalize in response, per econometric analyses of post-invasion Iraq data showing a 15-30% spike in attacks following reported abuses. Institutional biases in academic and media reporting may understate occasional tactical gains claimed by practitioners, yet peer-reviewed syntheses consistently affirm no causal link between torture and sustained breakthroughs. Alternatives like the U.S. Field Manual's non-coercive protocols, emphasizing psychological leverage and verification, demonstrate higher yields in historical cases, such as FBI interrogations yielding 80% of post-9/11 convictions without physical .

Coercive Control and Terror

Torture serves as a mechanism of coercive control when wielded by states or groups to dominate populations through systematic infliction of fear, compelling submission without direct confrontation. By targeting individuals publicly or through widespread knowledge of atrocities, perpetrators amplify psychological terror, fostering self-censorship, denunciations, and compliance to avert personal victimization. This application transcends interrogation, aiming at societal-level deterrence where the mere threat suffices to erode collective resistance, as regimes exploit human aversion to extreme suffering to enforce ideological or political hegemony. In Stalin's Soviet Union, torture underpinned the Great Terror of 1936–1938, where the NKVD extracted coerced confessions via beatings, sleep deprivation, and threats to families, purging an estimated 1.5 million perceived enemies including party officials, intellectuals, and ordinary citizens. This terror apparatus, formalized under Article 58 of the penal code, resulted in roughly 700,000 executions and millions dispatched to Gulag labor camps, engendering pervasive paranoia that stifled dissent and bolstered Stalin's absolute rule by incentivizing informants to preemptively betray others. The regime's internal memos, later declassified, reveal torture's role not merely in evidence-gathering but in manufacturing narratives of conspiracy to justify mass repression, sustaining control through a cycle of fear where citizens policed themselves to avoid arbitrary arrest. Nazi Germany's and SS mirrored this strategy, employing torture in sites like Prinz-Albrecht-Straße prisons to dismantle opposition networks, with techniques including whipping, , and designed to break prisoners while publicizing fates to terrorize the populace into . By , over Germans had been detained in "protective custody," many tortured to extract names, fueling a state that deterred resistance movements through anticipated reprisals against kin. This coercive terror extended to occupied territories, where exemplary punishments like mass hangings amplified dread, temporarily quelling uprisings but sowing seeds of unified postwar backlash. Historical analyses indicate such methods yielded short-term acquiescence by exploiting survival instincts, yet empirical patterns from regime collapses suggest they eroded legitimacy, as suppressed grievances fueled insurgencies absent the terror's sustaining apparatus. In contemporary authoritarian contexts, such as under , torture in facilities like Saydnaya prison has functioned similarly, with documenting over 13,000 hangings and routine floggings from 2011 onward to coerce amid , perpetuating via familial and societal atomization. While these tactics demonstrably suppress overt —evidenced by opposition advances—they often provoke asymmetric responses, as transmutes into when escape proves impossible, underscoring torture's brittle foundation for enduring control. Peer-reviewed examinations of totalitarian affirm that terror-induced compliance hinges on unchecked power, faltering under external pressures or internal defections, as victims' coerced testimonies frequently fabricated threats that destabilized even the torturers' hierarchies.

Methods and Techniques

Physical Infliction

Physical infliction refers to torture techniques that directly apply mechanical force, pressure, or trauma to the body, aiming to cause acute pain, tissue damage, and long-term injury through verifiable physiological mechanisms such as muscle tears, fractures, or nerve compression. These methods predate modern conventions and persist globally despite prohibitions under the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture. Pain is subjective, but historical accounts frequently cite Scaphism (ancient Persia), the Brazen Bull (ancient Greece), and breaking on the wheel (medieval Europe) as among the most excruciating torture methods due to prolonged suffering, intense physical trauma, or slow death. Scaphism involved trapping a victim between boats, force-feeding milk and honey to attract insects, and allowing maggots to devour them alive over days or weeks. The Brazen Bull enclosed a victim in a bronze bull statue heated by fire, roasting them alive while screams were amplified like bellows. Breaking on the wheel involved smashing limbs with an iron bar, then tying the body to a wheel for exposure and slow death. Beatings with blunt objects like batons, fists, or rods represent the most common physical method, documented in 208 studies across 59 countries involving 103,604 survivors, with a mean prevalence of 62.4% (95% CI: 57.7%-67.1%). Such trauma often the head, , or limbs, leading to contusions, fractures, and ; empirical forensic analyses confirm these as primary causes of morbidity in detained populations. Falanga, or bastinado, involves repeated strikes to the soles of the feet using rods or cables, reported in 65 studies from 23 countries at 12.6% frequency (95% CI: 11.6%-13.6%). This technique damages plantar fascia and nerves, resulting in chronic hyperpigmentation, neuropathy, and gait impairment persisting 9 months to 10 years post-infliction, as observed in clinical examinations of 10 survivors. Suspension by limbs, including variants where arms are bound behind the back and hoisted via ropes—sometimes with sudden drops or weights—occurs in 75 studies across 21 at 11.0% (95% CI: 8.3%-13.7%). Mechanically, it hyperextends shoulders, causing dislocations and rotator cuff tears; historical from European judicial practices detail its use to extract confessions through shoulder joint stress. Stretching devices like the rack, which secure ankles and wrists to rollers that are cranked to elongate the body, induce vertebral separation and rupture. Employed in 16th-century for high-profile interrogations, such as those under , the method's parallel modern traction injuries, with risks of . Waterboarding applies and water flow over a bound victim's covered face on an inclined board, forcing involuntary inhalation and simulating drowning via laryngospasm and hypoxia. Documented in conflicts including the Vietnam War, it produces measurable physiological effects like elevated cortisol and bradycardia, distinct from mere psychological fear. Electrical application to genitals or mucosa, using low-voltage devices, generates neuromuscular contractions and burns, prevalent in 114 studies from 28 countries at 17.2% (95% CI: 15.0%-19.4%). Tissue pathology reveals charring and scarring, with higher incidence in Middle Eastern and Latin American cases.

Sensory and Psychological Manipulation

Sensory and psychological manipulation refers to torture techniques that inflict severe mental pain or suffering, as delineated in the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which defines torture as any intentional act causing such effects, whether physical or mental, for purposes including obtaining information or confessions. These methods target the victim's perceptual and emotional faculties to induce disorientation, dependency, and breakdown without primary reliance on physical injury. Key sensory techniques encompass deprivation, such as prolonged in darkened, sound-isolated cells or hooding to block , which can precipitate anxiety, hallucinations, and within 24 to 48 hours due to disrupted . Conversely, sensory overload employs incessant loud noises—often white noise at 90-100 decibels—or glaring lights to prevent rest and heighten stress, compounding effects like and exhaustion. , frequently integrated via enforced standing or noise, induces psychosis-like symptoms after 72 hours, as evidenced in judicial precedents like Ashcraft Tennessee (1944). Psychological manipulation includes threats against members, executions, sexual , and enforced witnessing of abuses to exploit and shame, eroding the subject's resistance and . The CIA's 1963 KUBARK Counterintelligence manual systematized such approaches under "regression," fostering debility through isolation, dependency via controlled interactions, and dread via unpredictable threats, from behavioral to facilitate compliance. Notable historical instances feature the British military's 1971 application of the "five techniques" on 14 Irish detainees in —hooding, subjection to disorienting , stress positions, , and reduced diet—intended to precede deeper interrogations and rooted in psychophysiological disruption. The in Ireland v. (1978) deemed these inhuman and degrading but stopped short of torture , a determination later challenged by survivors and bodies citing enduring trauma. Similar tactics influenced U.S. post-9/11 "enhanced interrogations," incorporating and auditory assault, as documented in declassified reviews.

Advanced and Technological Approaches

Electrical methods represent a significant advancement in torture techniques, utilizing controlled application of electric current to induce pain without necessarily causing visible external injuries. Devices such as the picana eléctrica, originating in Argentina during the 1950s and involving electrodes attached to sensitive body areas, deliver variable shocks to elicit compliance or information. Modern iterations include stun guns and tasers, which proliferated globally from the 1970s onward, often marketed as non-lethal but documented in torture by regimes in over 20 countries by the 1990s.30017-8/abstract) These portable devices allow precise dosing of electricity, typically 50,000 volts at low amperage, targeting muscles to cause involuntary contractions and severe discomfort. The graduated electronic decelerator (GED), developed in the early 2000s for behavioral modification in facilities like the Judge Rotenberg Center, exemplifies institutional use, administering escalating shocks up to 90 milliamps for perceived misbehavior. Pharmacological approaches involve administering psychoactive substances to impair resistance and extract statements, often termed "truth serums" despite . Barbiturates like sodium amytal and benzodiazepines such as Versed were by the CIA in the mid-20th century under programs like MKUltra, aiming to lower inhibitions and induce . Post-9/11, the agency explored drugs like Versed for interrogations, documenting administration to detainees in to facilitate disclosures, though internal reviews noted risks of false confessions and physical including . , historically used in since the early , causes disorientation and , with reports of its injection during interrogations leading to coerced admissions without . These methods rely on intravenous or oral delivery, calibrated to achieve without , but peer-reviewed analyses indicate they more reliably produce compliance through than verifiable truth. Technological enhancements to sensory and psychological manipulation include apparatus for prolonged deprivation, such as hoods blocking vision and earphones delivering continuous at 100-110 decibels. Employed in British "five techniques" during the 1970s Northern Ireland conflict, these combined with stress positions to induce hallucinations within 48 hours. CIA programs post-2001 integrated similar tech, using darkened cells with constant auditory stimuli and extremes controlled via HVAC systems to exacerbate disorientation. Emerging neurotechnologies, including devices explored in military since the 2010s, aim to disrupt cognitive functions remotely, though documented applications remain limited to experimental contexts with ethical constraints. These approaches leverage electronics for sustained, invisible coercion, minimizing physical traces while targeting neural pathways for maximal psychological impact.

Efficacy Evaluation

Empirical Studies on Interrogation Outcomes

Empirical research from indicates that torture-induced stress severely impairs retrieval and cognitive , rendering obtained unreliable. High levels of and other disrupt hippocampal function, leading to deficits in recall and an elevated of false or fabricated statements as confabulate to alleviate . A 2015 analysis of psychological and neuroscientific literature concluded that no supports torture's to produce veridical , as coercive methods systematically degrade the neural mechanisms required for accurate reporting. Meta-analytic reviews of human intelligence gathering techniques, encompassing over 60 studies, demonstrate that rapport-based approaches yield superior outcomes in both information quantity and quality compared to coercive methods. Rapport-building exhibits small positive effects on information volume (r = 0.20, based on 22 studies, N=2,624) and accuracy (r = 0.17, based on 6 studies, N=720), while confrontational and competitive tactics show no significant benefits (r ≈ 0.07 for quantity; r = -0.04 for quality). Physical coercion and torture, excluded from such taxonomies due to ethical constraints, lack methodological validation in controlled research and are associated with flawed anecdotal claims prone to confirmation bias. Experimental investigations using mock suspect paradigms further reveal coercive interrogation's drawbacks. A systematic review of 29 studies (1996–2023) found that accusatorial methods, characterized by confrontation and pressure, triple the odds of false confessions relative to neutral questioning (OR = 3.03, 95% CI 1.83–5.02) and quadruple them versus information-gathering approaches (OR = 4.41, 95% CI 1.77–10.97). In contrast, rapport-oriented information-gathering elevates true confession rates (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.29–4.59) by promoting cooperation without inducing compliance-driven errors. Field-based empirical work with high-stakes populations corroborates these patterns. of 181 interviews with 49 convicted terrorist suspects showed that rapport-based techniques, including and , significantly reduced counter-interrogation tactics—such as or evasion—and increased disclosure rates compared to coercive styles. The Observing Rapport-Based Interpersonal Techniques () framework, applied to these cases, prioritized interpersonal dynamics over dominance, yielding higher volumes of actionable while minimizing resistance. A comprehensive 2016 review by the U.S. synthesized over 100 studies, affirming rapport-building's across cultural contexts, including terrorism-related interrogations. Techniques like the Scharff method (feigned with friendly ) elicited more from resistant than direct or coercive questioning, with meta-analyses showing enhanced completeness (e.g., truth-teller ratios of 0.57 vs. 0.49 for deceivers). Coercive alternatives, by contrast, provoked defensiveness and false positives, as evidenced in studies of accusatorial paradigms reducing deceit cues and reliability. Overall, these findings underscore torture's causal inefficacy: it incentivizes short-term compliance over truthful , often amplifying in without verifiable gains over ethical alternatives.

Historical Instances of Apparent Successes

In the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, Guy Fawkes, a key conspirator aiming to assassinate King James I by blowing up the Houses of , was arrested on and subjected to torture, including the rack, starting . After enduring the device, which stretched his body, Fawkes confessed on , providing details of the plot, co-conspirators' names, and locations of gunpowder stores, which facilitated the capture of remaining plotters like Robert Catesby and Thomas Percy by . Contemporary records, including Fawkes' own signed statements preserved in British archives, indicate the confession aligned with independently verified evidence such as the discovery of 36 barrels of gunpowder, suggesting the torture prompted disclosure of accurate operational details rather than fabrication. During the Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962), French forces under officers like General Paul Aussaresses employed systematic torture, including electrocution and simulated drownings, against captured FLN insurgents. Aussaresses later documented in his memoir that such methods elicited immediate identifications of bomb-making sites and ambush plans, enabling preemptive raids that reportedly neutralized several attacks in Algiers in 1957, including the disruption of a plot targeting French paratroopers. French military logs from the period, declassified in part, corroborate instances where tortured detainees' revelations led to verifiable arrests and seizures of explosives within hours, though broader strategic outcomes remained contested due to the war's ultimate failure. In the U.S. CIA's post-9/11 enhanced interrogation program, officials asserted that waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the architect of the , 183 times between 2003 and early 2004, yielded intelligence on al-Qaeda networks. CIA Director and interrogator claimed this broke KSM's resistance, leading to disclosures about the Jose Padilla "dirty bomb" plot (arrested May 2002, with details allegedly confirmed post-torture) and the Heathrow liquid explosives scheme (foiled 2006). Internal CIA cables from 2003 described KSM providing "high-value" leads on figures like , whose subsequent capture Tenet attributed partly to this information, though subsequent Senate investigations disputed the techniques' unique causality, attributing much data to prior non-coercive sources. These claims, echoed in Bush administration briefings, represented perceived operational successes at the time, influencing decisions to expand the program.

Documented Failures and Counterproductive Effects

The 2014 U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the CIA's detention and program concluded that , including and stress positions, failed to unique that disrupted specific plots or aided in capturing high-value like , despite agency claims to the contrary. Internal CIA assessments post-2004 acknowledged these methods as "counterproductive" and yielding "ineffective" results, with detainees providing fabricated under duress rather than actionable . corroborates this unreliability, demonstrating that coercive induces compliance through and fabrication, leading to false confessions that contaminate investigations; for instance, empirical analyses of dynamics show prioritize ending immediate over truthfulness, resulting in a high rate of erroneous . Beyond inaccuracy, torture has provoked backlash that undermines strategic objectives. The 2004 Abu Ghraib scandal, where U.S. personnel subjected Iraqi detainees to sexual , beatings, and —documented in photographs released that April—spurred a surge in insurgent attacks, with coalition forces reporting heightened and recruitment for groups like Al-Qaeda in Iraq following global media exposure. U.S. interrogators, such as Air Force Matthew , who oversaw 1,300 interrogations in Iraq without , testified that at facilities like Abu Ghraib alienated local populations and provided propaganda victories to adversaries, fostering radicalization rather than cooperation. Historical precedents echo these effects; during the Vietnam War's Phoenix Program (1967–1972), CIA-backed torture of suspected Viet Cong yielded widespread false accusations, inflating civilian casualties—estimated at over 20,000 targeted individuals—and eroding South Vietnamese support, contributing to operational setbacks amid fabricated intelligence. Institutionally, reliance on torture has led to resource misallocation and legal vulnerabilities. The CIA program, costing $40 million annually by , diverted assets from non-coercive methods proven more effective, such as rapport-building, while exposing personnel to prosecution risks under ; no prosecutions ensued for false intelligence dissemination, but the practices breached U.S. treaty obligations, prompting diplomatic isolation. Studies on interrogation , including those by the , affirm that adversarial approaches harden resistance and yield , with subjects withholding critical post-abuse due to . These patterns indicate torture not only fails causally to extract veridical but amplifies adversarial resolve through perceived , perpetuating cycles of conflict.

Impacts and Consequences

Effects on Victims

Torture inflicts profound and often irreversible physical harm on victims, including chronic musculoskeletal pain, fractures, nerve damage, and sensory impairments such as hearing loss or vision deficits from methods like beatings or electrical shocks. Over 80% of torture survivors experience persistent pain, leading to restricted mobility and long-term disability that impairs daily functioning. Neurological sequelae are common, encompassing headaches, vertigo, dizziness, and episodes of loss of consciousness persisting beyond the acute phase. Psychological consequences dominate survivor outcomes, with (PTSD), major depression, and generalized anxiety affecting a substantial , often co-occurring and resistant to treatment. Empirical assessments of torture-exposed populations reveal PTSD prevalence rates around 10-30%, depression up to 28%, and anxiety up to 23%, alongside symptoms like nightmares, , hypervigilance, dissociation, and profound disruptions in sense of agency and self-perception. These effects stem from the overwhelming stress response, which suppresses adaptive coping and embeds traumatic memories, frequently resulting in elevated suicide risk and social withdrawal. Neurological alterations underpin many enduring impacts, including structural changes in the and reduced functional connectivity in regions governing and . Functional neuroimaging of survivors shows impaired neural processing of and , correlating with persistent cognitive deficits like concentration difficulties and loss. Such brain-level disruptions explain the high of somatic with disorders, where physical symptoms exacerbate psychological distress in a bidirectional cycle. Long-term recovery is hindered by these intertwined effects, with many survivors facing lifelong dependency on and rehabilitative support.

Ramifications for Perpetrators and Institutions

Perpetrators of torture, particularly low-ranking military or intelligence personnel, have faced legal accountability primarily through domestic military courts-martial or civilian trials, though convictions and sentences are often limited and disproportionately target subordinates rather than commanders or policymakers. In the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, which surfaced in April 2004, eleven U.S. soldiers from the 372nd Military Police Company were charged with abuses including beatings, sexual humiliation, and mock executions of Iraqi detainees; Specialist Jeremy Sivits received the maximum one-year sentence in a May 2004 court-martial for dereliction of duty and maltreatment, while Private Lynndie England was convicted in 2005 on charges of conspiracy and maltreatment, resulting in a three-year sentence reduced to 1,287 days served. Higher-ranking officers, such as Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, saw convictions overturned or avoided, with the U.S. Army rejecting a court-martial recommendation for the facility commander in January 2008, highlighting a pattern of scapegoating enlisted personnel. In the CIA's post-9/11 enhanced interrogation program, initiated in 2002 and involving techniques like waterboarding on at least 119 detainees across black sites, individual accountability has been minimal despite internal reviews documenting overstepping legal boundaries; no CIA officers or contractors faced criminal prosecution under the Obama administration, which in 2009 declined referrals from a special prosecutor citing potential harm to intelligence operations, though psychologists James Mitchell and , who designed the methods, settled a 2017 civil lawsuit for $5 million without admitting liability. The program's architects, including senior Bush administration officials, evaded charges, underscoring prosecutorial reluctance in cases tied to national security claims, even as a 2014 U.S. Senate Select Committee report detailed false efficacy claims and ethical violations by agency leadership. Internationally, the United Nations Convention Against Torture (ratified by over 160 states since 1984) mandates criminalization of torture and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators, yet enforcement remains inconsistent, with rare successful cases against state agents from powerful nations; for instance, while Pinochet faced arrest attempts in 1998 under universal jurisdiction principles, U.S. personnel from Iraq and CIA programs have not been extradited or tried abroad, reflecting geopolitical immunities. Non-state or mid-level actors in weaker regimes, such as Argentine junta members convicted in the 1985 Trial of the Juntas for systematic torture during 1976-1983, demonstrate higher accountability when domestic political shifts enable it, but even then, amnesties often follow. For institutions, exposure of torture programs triggers internal investigations, policy reforms, and reputational costs that can undermine operational legitimacy and strategic goals. The U.S. Department of Defense's 2004 Taguba on Abu Ghraib recommended disciplinary actions and procedural overhauls, contributing to the closure of the facility in 2006 and revised detainee treatment doctrines, while the CIA program prompted 13491 in January 2009, banning enhanced techniques and establishing the for non-coercive methods compliant with . These changes, however, have not eradicated practices, as evidenced by ongoing allegations in allied programs, and institutional fallout includes eroded —polls post-2004 showed a 20-point drop in U.S. global favorability—and boosted insurgent recruitment, with al-Qaeda citing abuses to garner over 3,000 foreign fighters in Iraq by 2006. Broader ramifications involve professional complicity risks, as seen in lawsuits against medical personnel enabling CIA interrogations, fostering internal resistance and ethical reforms in agencies like the American Psychological Association, which in 2015 banned member involvement in national security interrogations.

Broader Societal and Strategic Outcomes

The of in state-sponsored programs, such as the CIA's post-9/11 from to , incurred significant financial and operational costs exceeding $80 million paid to contractors James Mitchell and , while yielding no unique actionable that advanced efforts, according to the U.S. Select on 's of over six million CIA documents. Strategically, these programs complicated diplomatic relations by alienating allies unwilling to share to concerns and providing adversaries with that undermined cohesion in conflicts like the . The 2004 Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, involving documented humiliations and physical mistreatment of Iraqi detainees by U.S. military personnel, directly energized the Iraqi insurgency by fueling anti-American sentiment and eroding domestic and international support for U.S. operations, as evidenced by subsequent spikes in attacks and recruitment for groups like al-Qaeda in Iraq. This event, amplified through leaked photographs, demonstrated how exposure of torture practices can shift battlefield dynamics, converting potential neutrals into active opponents and prolonging conflicts by validating enemy narratives of Western barbarism. On a societal level, state use of torture fosters and terrorist recruitment by traumatizing populations and creating grievances that extremists exploit, as seen in cases like Ayman al-Zawahiri's hardening against regimes following his torture in Egyptian prisons during the 1980s, which contributed to his in . Empirical analyses indicate that such practices generate blowback, with survivors and witnesses serving as vectors for ideological , thereby increasing the pool of potential insurgents rather than diminishing threats. Within perpetrator societies, revelations of institutionalized torture in security institutions and provoke legal reckonings, as illustrated by ongoing civil suits against U.S. actors from the post-9/11 era, which highlight persistent gaps and cultural divisions over norms. Internationally, reliance on torture diminishes a state's and invites reciprocal escalations, as adversaries justify their own abuses by citing precedents like U.S. sites holding 119 detainees across multiple , which strained partnerships and facilitated narratives portraying democratic powers as hypocritical. Over the long term, these outcomes perpetuate cycles of , where short-term tactical pursuits yield enduring strategic deficits, including heightened global perceptions of vulnerability to violations as a norm rather than an aberration.

Actors and Prevalence

Governmental and State Perpetrators

Governments and state actors have systematically employed torture throughout to extract confessions, gather , suppress , and maintain control. In , the and SS routinely subjected prisoners to severe physical and in concentration camps and Gestapo facilities, including beatings, electrocution, and prolonged stress positions, as documented in survivor testimonies and postwar trials. Similarly, during the Soviet Union's Great Purge from 1936 to 1938, the NKVD secret police used methods such as sleep deprivation, threats to family members, and physical beatings to coerce false confessions from millions, contributing to the execution or imprisonment of approximately 700,000 individuals. In the post-World War II era, state-sponsored torture persisted across various regimes. The Assad government in Syria operated an extensive network of detention facilities where security forces applied at least 72 documented forms of torture, including crushing detainees with heavy objects, electric shocks, and sexual violence, resulting in over 14,000 deaths in custody between 2011 and 2019 according to analysis of the "Caesar" photographs smuggled out by a military defector. Israel's Shin Bet security agency has been implicated in using "moderate physical pressure" techniques authorized by the 1989 Landau Commission, such as painful binding and hooding, during interrogations of Palestinian suspects, with subsequent reports documenting excessive applications leading to injuries or deaths in isolated cases. Contemporary examples include the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) detention and interrogation program initiated after the September 11, 2001 attacks. From 2002 to 2009, the CIA subjected at least 119 detainees to enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding (applied to at least three individuals, with one session lasting 19.5 minutes), stress positions, and rectal hydration, as detailed in the declassified executive summary of the 2014 U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report. In China, authorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region have detained over one million Uyghurs and other Muslims in internment camps since 2017, where credible reports describe systematic torture such as beatings, electric shocks, and forced medication, potentially amounting to crimes against humanity according to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The U.S. Department of State's 2024 Country Reports on Practices identifies torture by forces in numerous nations, including arbitrary killings combined with cruel treatment in , enforced disappearances and physical abuse in , and security force torture in 's Papua , underscoring the despite international prohibitions under the UN Convention Against Torture ratified by 173 states. These practices often occur in operations, , or efforts, with derived from accounts, forensic , and defectors' leaks, though assessments from sources like the State Department may reflect geopolitical priorities in highlighting violations.

Non-State and Insurgent Groups

Non-state , including terrorist organizations, insurgent militias, and transnational criminal syndicates, have employed torture as a mechanism for extracting , enforcing , punishing , and terrorizing populations to consolidate territorial control or advance ideological goals. Unlike state perpetrators bound by international treaties, these groups operate outside formal legal constraints, often amplifying torture's brutality for purposes, such as disseminating videos of executions and mutilations to demoralize opponents and attract recruits. Empirical from organizations and conflict analyses reveals patterns of systematic in and , where torture compensates for resources in gathering or deterrence. The (ISIS) exemplified industrialized torture during its self-declared from 2014 to 2019, detaining thousands in makeshift prisons across and for and ideological purification. interviewed over 50 Sunni who described ISIS fighters subjecting them to prolonged beatings with cables, electric shocks to genitals, and forced stress positions, often to coerce confessions of or extract family ransom payments. Children as young as nine faced similar torments, including whippings and suspension by wrists, with judges in reporting frequent torture allegations from ISIS suspects in 2018-2019 trials. corroborated these accounts through survivor testimonies, noting ISIS's use of , beheading, and immolation—publicly filmed for —as both punitive measures and tools, resulting in thousands of documented executions by 2016. In Sinai, Egypt, ISIS affiliate Wilayat Sina' kidnapped and tortured locals suspected of collaboration with Egyptian forces, employing drowning in cages and explosive belt detonations from 2013 onward. Mexican drug cartels, functioning as de facto insurgent-like entities in regions of weak state presence, have integrated torture into territorial since the escalation of the narcotics in 2006. Groups like and Nueva Generación routinely dismember victims alive, dissolve bodies in (known as "stewing"), or employ the "" beheading method, with over 100 such public displays recorded in 2011 alone to signal dominance over smuggling routes. In 2021, authorities uncovered 12 tortured bodies in state, bearing cartel placards warning informants, amid broader patterns where cartels extort and migrants—kidnapping 20,000 annually for or forced labor, often involving and . These acts, ritualized in "narcocultos" ceremonies blending with narco-saint , serve causal roles in cartel cohesion and deterrence, though they provoke retaliatory cycles exacerbating homicide rates exceeding 30,000 yearly since 2018. Other insurgent groups, such as the in , have sustained torture practices amid guerrilla campaigns and governance vacuums. From to , Taliban fighters flogged, amputated limbs, and electrocuted captives for alleged , with post-August 2021 takeover reports documenting arbitrary detentions involving beatings and summary executions in facilities like Kabul's . affiliates, including in and , mirrored these tactics, using and nail-pulling on prisoners to extract operational , as evidenced in declassified interrogations from 2002-2010 raids. Legal analyses indicate that while non-state torture evades direct Convention Against Torture enforcement—lacking the "official capacity" clause—these actors' prevalence in 21st-century conflicts underscores gaps in international norms, with over 50 armed non-state groups implicated in systematic abuses by 2020. Such practices, while yielding short-term compliance, often backfire by alienating local support and fueling insurgencies' isolation, per conflict escalation studies.

Current Global Patterns and Hotspots

As of 2025, torture remains prevalent in state-run detention facilities, police custody, and conflict zones worldwide, often employed to extract confessions, suppress dissent, or punish perceived enemies, despite universal legal prohibitions under international law. Reports indicate systemic use by security forces in over 80 countries, with patterns including beatings, electric shocks, waterboarding, and sexual violence, frequently accompanied by impunity due to weak accountability mechanisms. The OMCT Global Torture Index, launched in June 2025, categorizes 27 countries into risk levels based on data from civil society networks, highlighting very high risks in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Belarus, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Libya, and Russia, where state agents routinely apply torture in interrogations and prisons. High-risk nations include Cameroon, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Tunisia, and Turkey, driven by police brutality and custodial deaths. In active conflict areas, torture escalates as a tool of war, with documented cases of systematic abuse against prisoners of war and civilians. In Syria, government forces continue widespread torture in detention centers, including mass deaths and enforced disappearances, as reported by UN investigators in December 2024, affecting thousands post-Islamic State defeat. Russian forces in Ukraine have perpetrated torture on a massive scale since 2022, including executions and sexual violence against POWs, with UN evidence from September 2024 confirming patterns in occupied territories. Libya and Ethiopia exhibit very high risks amid civil strife, with militias and state actors using torture to control populations. Non-state actors, such as drug cartels in Mexico and insurgents in Myanmar, also inflict torture, though state involvement predominates in reported hotspots. Authoritarian regimes feature entrenched torture practices, often targeting political opponents and minorities. North Korea maintains one of the world's most severe systems, enforcing obedience through torture and executions in political prisons, as noted in 2024 assessments. In Iran, security forces extract confessions via torture leading to executions, with hundreds affected annually. Egypt and Eritrea report ongoing state-sanctioned torture as of 2023, including in secret facilities. Emerging patterns in Asia include high risks in India from police misuse of laws like UAPA for custodial torture, and in Cambodia's scam compounds involving forced labor and beatings. These hotspots reflect a global trend where torture persists due to institutional tolerance, with the UN noting over 175 states parties to the Convention Against Torture yet persistent non-compliance.

Ethical and Normative Debates

Consequentialist Justifications

Consequentialist justifications for torture evaluate the practice based on its outcomes rather than intrinsic moral prohibitions, positing that it may be permissible if the expected benefits—such as averting mass casualties through extracted intelligence—outweigh the harms inflicted. Under utilitarianism, the moral calculus prioritizes aggregate welfare, allowing torture in scenarios where non-coercive methods fail and time-sensitive threats loom, as the suffering of one individual could prevent widespread death or destruction. This framework, advanced by philosophers like Michael Levin, argues that withholding torture from a detainee with knowledge of an impending attack equates to complicity in the ensuing harm, rendering opposition indefensible if reliable information can be obtained promptly. Proponents extend this to real-world counterterrorism, claiming that "enhanced interrogation techniques" (EIT)—including waterboarding and stress positions—yielded actionable intelligence post-9/11, such as details on networks that disrupted plots. For instance, CIA officials asserted that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's interrogation under EIT provided leads on figures like Jose Padilla, averting potential attacks, though these claims rely on agency assessments rather than independently verified outcomes. Similarly, defenders like psychologist James Mitchell, who designed CIA EIT protocols, testified that the methods broke resistant detainees, producing information unattainable through rapport-building alone, thereby justifying their use as a net positive for . Empirical scrutiny, however, reveals significant limitations to these justifications. The 2014 U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report, drawing from over 6 million pages of CIA documents, determined that EIT did not produce unique, high-value intelligence; much claimed success stemmed from prior non-coercive interrogations or foreign sources, while coercion often generated fabricated confessions that diverted resources and misled operations. Psychological studies corroborate that torture impairs memory recall and incentivizes deceit to end suffering, reducing reliability compared to evidence-based techniques like building trust, which military interrogators report as more effective for sustained cooperation. In the archetypal "—hypothetically torturing a captive to defuse an imminent device—consequentialists maintain a of justification absent better alternatives, yet no documented historical cases confirm torture's decisive in such averting disasters, with analyses deeming the construct unrealistic to gaps and logistical improbabilities. While CIA internal reviews acknowledged some tactical gains from EIT, broader strategic costs—including and loss of international alliances—erode net utility, as evidenced by detainee mistreatment fueling insurgent recruitment in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, though consequentialism theoretically permits torture under stringent conditions, prevailing data indicate it frequently fails the outcome test, yielding counterproductive effects that undermine security objectives.

Absolutist Moral Objections

Absolutist objections to torture assert that is inherently immoral and impermissible under any circumstances, irrespective of potential benefits or contextual justifications such as threats. This deontological perspective holds that torture violates fundamental by deliberately inflicting severe physical or mental to extract or coerce compliance, treating the victim as a mere instrument rather than an end in itself. In Kantian ethics, torture is absolutely prohibited because it contravenes the , which demands that individuals be treated as autonomous agents with inherent worth, not as means to utilitarian ends. Philosophers argue that even in hypothetical scenarios like the "ticking ," where torture might avert greater , the act remains wrong due to its intrinsic degradation of the , potentially eroding moral constraints on state power and fostering a of brutality. Deontologists further contend that permitting exceptions undermines the absolute right against torture, as recognized in frameworks like international human rights law, where non-derogability reflects this moral intuition. Religious traditions, particularly within , reinforce absolutism by deeming torture an intrinsic evil that offends and the Dei in every person. The , in its Catechism and post-Vatican II teachings, explicitly condemns torture as gravely immoral, prohibiting it outright regardless of intentions or outcomes, as it assaults and echoes the of Christ without justification for reciprocal . This stance aligns with early like Tertullian, who any Christian involvement in torture, viewing it as incompatible with discipleship, though historical deviations such as inquisitorial practices are acknowledged as aberrations from core .

Exceptional Scenarios like Ticking Bombs

The "ticking bomb" scenario posits a hypothetical situation in which authorities possess a captured suspect believed to have knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack that could kill thousands, with insufficient time for non-coercive interrogation methods to extract the necessary information. Proponents of limited torture authorization, such as legal scholar Alan Dershowitz, argue that in such extreme cases, regulated torture—potentially via judicial "torture warrants"—could be morally permissible under consequentialist ethics if it reliably prevents greater harm, emphasizing the moral asymmetry between torturing one individual versus allowing mass casualties. However, this framework assumes both the scenario's frequent occurrence and torture's efficacy in producing verifiable intelligence, assumptions undermined by empirical analysis. In reality, no verified historical instances exist where torture definitively averted a ticking bomb-style attack, rendering the scenario more a philosophical construct than a practical guide for policy. Intelligence professionals, including former interrogators of high-value al-Qaeda detainees, have testified that coercive methods yield fabricated confessions designed to end suffering rather than accurate details, often delaying actionable intelligence and complicating subsequent rapport-based questioning. A 2014 U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report, reviewing CIA enhanced interrogation techniques (which included waterboarding and stress positions), concluded that claims of thwarting specific plots—such as alleged disruptions of attacks in 2002—relied on unverified detainee statements obtained under duress, with no unique, timely information attributable solely to torture; instead, much intelligence predated or derived from non-coercive sources. From a causal perspective, torture's physiological and psychological effects—such as heightened levels impairing and inducing compliance through desperation—systematically reliability in time-sensitive scenarios, where distinguishing truth from lies requires cross-verification incompatible with urgency. Even in purported real-world approximations, like French interrogations during the (–), anecdotal claims of thwarted attacks via torture, such as those cited by , remain contested and lack independent corroboration, with broader evidence indicating torture fueled insurgent recruitment and prolonged conflict rather than resolving acute threats. Israeli security officials, after employing "moderate physical pressure" in the –, discontinued such practices by 1999 following rulings, citing inefficacy and ethical , with no documented ticking successes attributed to . Critics, including ethicists like Bob Brecher, contend the scenario's invocation serves as a rhetorical device to erode absolute prohibitions, ignoring how institutionalizing exceptions invites abuse in non-exceptional cases, as seen in post-9/11 U.S. programs where initial "high-value" justifications expanded to lower-level detainees without imminent threats. Empirical data from global torture rehabilitation centers further reveals that coerced information rarely withstands scrutiny, often leading to miscarriages of justice or wasted resources on false leads, while non-torturous techniques—like building trust and using incentives—have proven superior for urgent extractions in documented counterterrorism operations. Thus, even granting the scenario's premise, torture's track record precludes its justification, prioritizing instead evidence-based interrogation protocols that mitigate risks without compromising veracity.

Global Prohibitions and Treaties

The prohibition of torture is recognized as (jus cogens) , binding on all states irrespective of and permitting no , even in states of or armed conflict. This status stems from widespread state , opinio juris, and consistent affirmation in judicial decisions, rendering treaties or agreements permitting torture void ab initio. Early codifications include Article 5 of Declaration of (UDHR), adopted by the UN General Assembly on , , which states: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to or ." In the context of armed conflicts, the four of , —ratified by 196 states—explicitly ban torture across their provisions: Common Article 3 prohibits violence to life and person, including cruel treatment and torture, in non-international armed conflicts; while grave breaches under Articles 50, 51, 130, and 147 of Conventions I–IV respectively cover torture or inhuman treatment in international conflicts, obligating states to prosecute or extradite perpetrators. Additional Protocols I (1977, Article 75) and II (1977, Article 4) extend these protections, ratified by over 170 and 160 states, respectively. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted on December 16, 1966, and entering into force on March 23, 1976 with 173 state parties, reinforces the absolute ban in Article 7: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," interpreted by the Human Rights Committee as prohibiting distinctions based on conduct or status. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), adopted on July 17, 1998, and in force since July 1, 2002 with 124 state parties, classifies torture as a crime against humanity (Article 7(1)(f)) and war crime (Article 8(2)(a)(ii) for international conflicts and Article 8(2)(c)(i) for non-international), enabling individual prosecutions. The primary dedicated instrument is the UN Convention against Torture and Other or (), adopted by the UN on December 10, 1984, and entering into on June 26, 1987, following by 20 states. Ratified by 174 states as of 2024, CAT obligates parties to criminalize torture (Article 4), prevent it within their (Article 2), from refoulement to torture risks (Article 3), and victim redress (Article 14). Its Optional Protocol (OPCAT), adopted in 2002 and ratified by 91 states, establishes national preventive mechanisms and a Subcommittee on Prevention for unannounced visits to detention sites. Despite broad adherence, some ratifications include reservations, such as non-self-executing status or exceptions for superior orders, though these do not alter the underlying jus cogens prohibition.

Domestic Regulations and Loopholes

In the , torture is prohibited under through 18 U.S.C. § 2340A, which criminalizes acts by officials under color of that inflict severe physical or mental or on persons outside U.S. , with penalties 20 years or if resulting in fatality. This implements aspects of the (), ratified by the U.S. in with reservations limiting its scope to acts outside U.S. jurisdiction and requiring specific intent to cause severe . Domestically, the Eighth to the bars cruel and unusual punishments, interpreted by courts to include torture, though primarily applied to convicted prisoners rather than pretrial detainees or foreign captives. Post-9/11, the U.S. (OLC) issued memos in August 2002, authored by and , that narrowed torture to require prolonged mental harm or physical pain equivalent to organ failure, death, or impairment of bodily functions, thereby authorizing CIA techniques such as , stress positions, and as non-torturous if conducted with medical oversight and without intent to cause prohibited levels of suffering. These memos, later withdrawn in 2004 by successor amid legal scrutiny, effectively created a loophole by reinterpreting statutory and constitutional prohibitions to permit "enhanced interrogation" in national security contexts, influencing operations at sites like Guantanamo Bay and CIA black sites until their partial repudiation in 2009 executive orders. Extraordinary rendition programs, expanded after 2001, exemplified another by transferring suspects to third like , , and —known for employing torture—bypassing U.S. domestic bans on coercive interrogations while avoiding liability under CAT Article 3's non-refoulement provision through claims of diplomatic assurances against mistreatment, assurances later documented as unreliable in cases like that of Maher Arar, renditioned to in 2002 and subjected to beatings and confinement in a tire-like apparatus. U.S. courts have invoked to dismiss related lawsuits, shielding operational details and perpetuating impunity for officials. In other democracies, domestic implementations of UNCAT similarly feature loopholes. The United Kingdom's incorporates the ' absolute torture ban (Article 3), yet intelligence guidelines have permitted techniques like and in exceptional cases, as seen in inquiries revealing persistent use despite formal prohibitions. , as of 2023, lacks a specific provision defining and punishing torture, relying on general assault and mistreatment statutes, prompting calls for explicit UNCAT-aligned legislation to close definitional gaps. Across , national security exceptions and prosecutorial discretion often undermine enforcement, with data from the Council of Europe indicating low conviction rates for official torture despite reporting mechanisms. Authoritarian states frequently enact anti-torture laws compliant with UNCAT on —such as Russia's Article 117 defining torture as a grave offense punishable by up to 12 years—but loopholes arise through systemic , where investigations are rare and convictions near zero, as reported in UN Committee Against Torture reviews citing deliberate obstruction and denial. In , the penalizes torture by officials with up to seven years imprisonment, yet favors over , with documenting thousands of cases annually evading prosecution via reclassification as "extortion" or administrative sanctions. These patterns highlight how domestic regulations, while formally prohibiting torture, often incorporate evidentiary hurdles, requirements, or jurisdictional limits that enable circumvention, particularly in and domains where of remains contested.

Challenges in Enforcement and Compliance

Enforcement of global prohibitions on torture, such as those under the (UNCAT), faces significant obstacles due to the reliance on state self-reporting and independent verification mechanisms. As of , while 156 states had ratified UNCAT, many continued to obstruct efforts to prevent, monitor, and investigate torture through inadequate reporting or of access to sites of detention. The UN Against Torture (CAT) depends on periodic state reviews, but backlogs—exacerbated by like the —have delayed examinations, reducing . Proving cases remains challenging in international forums, where evidentiary burdens and jurisdictional limits prosecutions, particularly for extraterritorial acts. Domestic compliance is undermined by widespread for perpetrators, especially within and apparatus. In Ethiopia, decades of unpunished torture by officials have entrenched a systemic tolerance, as to prosecute encourages repeated use during interrogations. Similarly, in Egypt as of 2011, victims rarely filed complaints to fear of reprisals, with investigations often stalled or dismissed, perpetuating a cycle of unaccountability. Recent examples include Bangladesh in 2024, where forces tortured detainees without subsequent trials for the offenders, and Ukraine in 2024, where Russian authorities conducted open torture with apparent impunity during occupation. These patterns reflect institutional weaknesses, including prosecutorial reluctance to pursue state agents and inadequate victim protections, which erode treaty obligations. State sovereignty further complicates , as lacks coercive mechanisms to override national control over internal security practices. Principles like non-intervention and the sovereign acts, including torture by officials, from foreign judicial , even when jus cogens status elevates the to a . Reservations to treaties, such as those allowing interpretations that dilute absolute bans during crises, enable non-compliance without formal breach. Political incentives, particularly in counter-terrorism contexts, prioritize short-term gains over adherence, as seen in historical U.S. marginalization of norms post-9/11, underscoring how sovereignty intersects with strategic interests to frustrate universal .

Attitudes and Perceptions

Evolution of Public Views

Public opposition to torture in Western societies intensified during the Enlightenment and 19th century, coinciding with legal abolitions across Europe, such as in 1849 and the broader shift away from judicial torture as a routine evidentiary tool. This evolution reflected growing emphasis on and evidentiary standards derived from rational , reducing public tolerance for practices once normalized in ancient and medieval contexts where torture was endorsed for confessions or . Post-World War II, revelations of systematic torture by further entrenched normative revulsion in and , fostering near-universal endorsement of bans under frameworks like the and UN Convention Against Torture. Polls from the early indicated low baseline support; for instance, pre-9/11 surveys in the showed minimal endorsement of torture for purposes. The , attacks prompted a sharp uptick in public support for torture against suspected terrorists, rising from 36% willing to allow it for known threats in 2004 (Gallup) to peaks around 47-53% by 2007-2011 deeming it often or sometimes justified (). This shift correlated with heightened and consequentialist rationales prioritizing over absolutist prohibitions, though support remained divided along partisan lines, with Republicans consistently more favorable. By the mid-2010s, US attitudes stabilized in a polarized equilibrium, with 48% in accepting it under some anti-terror circumstances (Pew) and 49% in viewing post-9/11 CIA methods as justified despite scandals like (Washington Post-ABC). In , support stayed lower, with only 29% in the UK in believing torture sometimes necessary (), compared to 72% opposing it outright in ( global poll). Globally, views exhibit persistent variation tied to contexts and cultural norms, with 2016 Pew showing medians of 45% rejecting torture of terrorists across surveyed nations, but higher in the (73% justified sometimes/often) versus stronger opposition in Western Europe. In regions like South or sub-Saharan , support often exceeds Western levels amid ongoing insurgencies, though comprehensive longitudinal remains . No major reversals occurred in the 2020s amid declining salience in the West, with attitudes appearing anchored by episodic threats rather than secular decline.

Influences from Media and Polls

Media portrayals of torture have significantly shaped attitudes, often presenting it as an effective tool in high-stakes scenarios while coverage emphasizes its abuses. The television series 24 (2001–2010), which frequently depicted torture yielding critical against ticking threats, correlated with increased support among viewers; experimental studies found that exposure to such content primed audiences, particularly conservatives, to endorse torture more readily than general violence depictions. media's normalization of torture as heroic—evident in films and shows post-9/11—has sustained pragmatic justifications, overriding qualms by associating it with successes, though academic analyses caution that these fictions inflate perceived without empirical backing. In contrast, investigative journalism on real-world cases like the 2004 Abu Ghraib scandal, where U.S. military personnel abused Iraqi detainees, triggered a temporary decline in support; Gallup polls post-scandal showed only 38% of Americans deeming torture of terrorism suspects acceptable in 2005, down from higher pre-exposure levels, though support rebounded amid ongoing threats. Mainstream media's emphasis on humanitarian violations in such reporting, often aligned with institutional critiques, has amplified absolutist objections, yet partisan divides persist, with Republican-leaning outlets framing torture as necessary counterterrorism. Public polls reflect these media-driven fluctuations, with post-9/11 support peaking at 53% in a 2011 Pew survey deeming torture "often or sometimes justified" against suspected terrorists, influenced by heightened threat perceptions amplified in news cycles. By 2016, a Reuters/Ipsos poll indicated 63% believed torture justifiable for extracting terrorism information, buoyed by entertainment's efficacy narrative despite inefficacy evidence. A 2017 Pew poll showed 48% accepting it under some anti-terror circumstances, with stability into the 2020s per analyses tying enduring support to media priming rather than policy shifts. These attitudes vary by demographics—higher among men, whites, and conservatives—and wane with explicit inefficacy framings, underscoring media's role in sustaining conditional endorsement over ethical absolutes.

Cultural Variations and Shifts

In ancient and medieval societies, torture was widely accepted as a judicial tool across diverse cultures, including , where it was used to extract testimony from slaves and lower classes, and in Islamic caliphates under , where punishments like flogging were prescribed offenses as retributive justice rather than arbitrary . Similarly, in feudal and , methods such as the "" by a thousand cuts served both punitive and deterrent roles, reflecting Confucian emphases on hierarchical order and over . These practices contrasted with sporadic taboos in some indigenous cultures, such as certain Native American tribes that avoided prolonged physical suffering in warfare captives, prioritizing ritualistic or swift execution. The Enlightenment marked a pivotal shift in , driven by rationalist critiques of torture's unreliability and inhumanity; Cesare Beccaria's On Crimes and Punishments influenced reforms, leading to bans in Denmark (1753), Prussia (1754), and (), as absolutist monarchies yielded to emerging humanitarian ideals rooted in . This Western accelerated post-World War II, with the and UN Convention Against Torture establishing global absolutist norms, though lagged in non-Western contexts where colonial legacies and imperatives fostered resistance. By contrast, in parts of the Middle East and Africa, acceptance persisted amid decolonization conflicts, with practices like those in Saddam Hussein's Iraq (pre-2003) blending Ba'athist authoritarianism and tribal retribution norms. Contemporary variations reflect geopolitical and ideological divides: surveys from 2015-2016 across 35 showed support for torture to obtain terrorist at 40%, with highs in (66%), (62%), and (54%)—attributable to prevalent insecurity and weaker rule-of-law traditions—versus lows in , such as (11%) and (25%), where post-Holocaust memory and supranational enforcement prevail. In the , support hovered around 48-49% in 2017 polls, higher than European peers but lower than in (36% acceptance per related ICRC ), influenced by post-9/11 framing and cultural prioritizing over . indicate Muslim-majority and African societies often exhibit the lowest support for torturing terrorists (under 30% in aggregated WVS ), countering , while English-speaking and Confucian cultures show middling tolerance linked to pragmatic perceptions. Shifts since 2000 highlight reactive fluctuations: Gallup polls tracked support rising from 38% in 2004 to 53% in 2006 amid Iraq War fears, then declining to 36% by 2014 following Senate Intelligence Committee revelations on enhanced interrogation inefficacy, reflecting media-driven reassessments. Globally, authoritarian regimes like and maintain institutional tolerance, with state media framing it as counter-subversion necessity, while democratic transitions in (e.g., post-dictatorship ) have entrenched opposition via truth commissions. These patterns underscore causal drivers: acceptance correlates with perceived existential threats and institutional trust deficits, eroding under empirical exposure to torture's low intelligence yield (e.g., CIA admissions of fabricated confessions).

References

  1. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-against-torture-and-other-cruel-inhuman-or-degrading
  2. https://academic.oup.com/book/50725/chapter/420946037
  3. https://www.asanet.org/wp-content/uploads/savvy/images/journals/docs/pdf/st/June07STFeature.pdf
  4. https://www.publicinternationallawandpolicygroup.org/lawyering-justice-blog/2023/6/9/the-prohibition-against-torture-and-its-pragmatic-effects
  5. https://cti2024.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/CTI-UNCAT-ARTICLE-BY-ARTICLE-1.pdf
  6. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule90
  7. https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/document/file_list/prohibition-and-punishment-of-torture-icrc-eng.pdf
  8. https://www.justice.gov/file/145681/dl?inline=
  9. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-9&chapter=4&clang=_en
  10. https://academic.oup.com/book/57891/chapter/471977458
  11. https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article/111/2/73/4793224
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4890253/
  13. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37646554/
  14. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-22348-000
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4590125/
  16. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-022-01795-3
  17. https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irrc-867-5.pdf
  18. https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/grisly-assyrian-record-of-torture-and-death/
  19. https://www.thecollector.com/assyrian-torture-methods/
  20. https://faculty.uml.edu/ethan_spanier/teaching/documents/cp6.0assyriantorture.pdf
  21. https://africame.factsanddetails.com/article/entry-1187.html
  22. https://lifelong-learning.ox.ac.uk/courses/samples/ancient-egypt-an-introduction-online/index.html
  23. https://bible-history.com/sketches/ancient-torture
  24. https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/roman-constitution/roman-law/torture-used-by-ancient-romans/
  25. https://www.forbes.com/sites/drsarahbond/2017/01/28/torture-has-never-been-an-effective-means-of-information-gathering-just-ask-the-romans/
  26. https://www.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.7208/chicago/9780226529554.001.0001/upso-9780226529387-chapter-006
  27. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=rmmra
  28. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4154&context=uclrev
  29. https://spark.parkland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=ah
  30. https://gwern.net/doc/history/2020-hassner.pdf
  31. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09636412.2020.1761441
  32. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/0a46b21e-7948-46cb-a9b8-d6a09fabecb6/content
  33. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8145&context=penn_law_review
  34. https://www.exurbe.com/on-crimes-and-punishments-and-beccaria/
  35. https://shs.cairn.info/article/E_RHMC_633_0088?lang=en
  36. https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/S0020860400079912a.pdf
  37. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstreams/0a46b21e-7948-46cb-a9b8-d6a09fabecb6/download
  38. https://sourcebooks.web.fordham.edu/mod/18beccaria.asp
  39. https://listverse.com/2019/04/22/10-ghastly-prison-practices-of-the-19th-century/
  40. https://daily.jstor.org/were-early-american-prisons-similar-to-todays/
  41. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/discipline-and-punish-birth-prison
  42. https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1149&context=mlr
  43. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2801%2905725-7/fulltext
  44. https://www.auschwitz.org/en/history/punishments-and-executions/
  45. https://anzacportal.dva.gov.au/wars-and-missions/burma-thailand-railway-and-hellfire-pass-1942-1943/enemy/treatment-prisoners
  46. https://www.nps.gov/ande/learn/historyculture/pow_synopsis.htm
  47. https://www.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.7208/chicago/9780226529554.001.0001/upso-9780226529387-chapter-007
  48. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/crimes-against-humanity-international-law
  49. https://www.asser.nl/nexus/international-criminal-law/international-crimes-introduction/torture/
  50. https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/S002086040007217Xa.pdf
  51. https://www.amnesty.org/es/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/act400011975eng.pdf
  52. https://www.npr.org/2019/09/09/758989641/the-cias-secret-quest-for-mind-control-torture-lsd-and-a-poisoner-in-chief
  53. https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/197501/brutality-and-endurance/
  54. https://academic.oup.com/book/38998/chapter/338247616
  55. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51201558
  56. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/10/torture-at-abu-ghraib
  57. https://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/middleeast/iraq-prison-abuse-scandal-fast-facts
  58. https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-torture-at-guantanamo-bay-detention-camp/
  59. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-retributive/
  60. https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/how-can-punishment-be-justified-on-kants-retributivism/
  61. https://www.oxfordreference.com/abstract/10.1093/acref/9780197583104.001.0001/acref-9780197583104-e-1345
  62. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=hilltopreview
  63. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022002712445970
  64. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0022002712445970?download=true
  65. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/punishment-and-prevention-crime
  66. https://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=infolit_usra
  67. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/crimes-and-punishments
  68. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2593&context=mlr
  69. https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2016/04/Hajjar_Does-Torture-Work.pdf
  70. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/4/1/1
  71. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24557487
  72. https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/does-torture-work-research-says-no/
  73. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3606304
  74. https://rmc.library.cornell.edu/witchcraft/exhibition/dueprocess/torture.html
  75. https://medievaltorturemuseum.com/blog/the-role-of-torture-in-witch-hunts-and-trials/
  76. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/josp.12494
  77. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/EffectsofPsychologicalTorturepaper%28Final%2911June10.pdf
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5198758/
  79. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17467586.2023.2280865
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11849930/
  81. http://pfiffner.schar.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Pfiffner_Torture_Efficacy_Ch-6_ET.pdf
  82. https://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-library/2009_report_special_task_force_interrogation_and_transfer_policies/dl
  83. https://mediarep.org/bitstreams/b4310c92-8ea4-44a0-bf82-39eee795db80/download
  84. https://www.johndclare.net/Russ12.htm
  85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/totalitarian-regime
  86. https://fee.org/articles/communisms-legacy-tyranny-terror-and-torture/
  87. https://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2022/03/28/stop-trying-to-convince-americans-that-torture-doesnt-work/
  88. https://research.aber.ac.uk/files/74586734/Hopkins_Joanne.pdf
  89. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3631&context=facpub
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10548313/
  91. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002934320307890
  92. https://pages.uoregon.edu/dluebke/301ModernEurope/301Week07--Torture.html
  93. https://www.history.com/articles/7-famous-torture-devices-medieval-iron
  94. https://www.freedomfromtorture.org/news-and-stories/waterboarding-the-fact-of-torture-cannot-be-denied
  95. https://time.com/archive/6914406/waterboarding-a-mental-and-physical-trauma/
  96. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Torture/UNVFVT/Interpretation_torture_2011_EN.pdf
  97. https://dignity.dk/wp-content/uploads/sensory-deprivation-factsheet-english.pdf
  98. https://phr.org/wp-content/uploads/2005/05/break-them-down.pdf
  99. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/index.htm
  100. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0010027772900042
  101. https://eachother.org.uk/stories/the-five-techniques/
  102. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/11/ukireland-landmark-hooded-men-torture-case-should-be-re-opened/
  103. https://www.reed.edu/poli_sci/faculty/rejali/articles/History_of_Electric_Torture.html
  104. https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/31/time/weapons.html
  105. https://ethnomed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Electrical-Injury-Torture.pdf
  106. https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/drugs-history-you-asked/what-truth-serum
  107. https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/13/politics/cia-documents-truth-serum-drug-interrogations
  108. https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/stranger-than-fiction/
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2900002/
  110. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-methods-waterboarding-sleep-deprivation
  111. https://tidsskrift.dk/torture-journal/article/download/132846/178028/284025
  112. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361291898_The_future_is_here_Mind_control_and_torture_in_the_digital_era
  113. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11465838/
  114. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/hig-report-interrogation-a-review-of-the-science-september-2016.pdf
  115. https://hrp.org.uk/tower-of-london/history-and-stories/guy-fawkes-and-the-gunpowder-plot/
  116. https://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/11/agent.tapes/
  117. https://www.congress.gov/113/crpt/srpt288/CRPT-113srpt288.pdf
  118. https://jaapl.org/content/37/3/332
  119. https://theintercept.com/2018/02/12/torture-terrorists-guantanamo-abu-ghraib/
  120. https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/torture-is-counterproductive/
  121. https://greydynamics.com/the-cias-phoenix-program-mercy-of-the-wicked/
  122. https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/12/10/us-senate-report-slams-cia-torture-lies
  123. https://appcoglab.psych.iastate.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/209/2021/05/Principles.pdf
  124. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/371911
  125. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8339948/
  126. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11987003/
  127. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-advances/article/psychiatric-assessment-and-treatment-of-survivors-of-torture/66255DE798339DA52DF1ABECE0715176
  128. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002919
  129. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00941/full
  130. https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-025-02507-4
  131. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8791936/
  132. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/210410
  133. https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343%2822%2900808-7/abstract
  134. https://ethnomed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/AshleyMcCulley_Dec2013_final.pdf
  135. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/court-martial-of-spc-jeremy-sivits
  136. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jan/11/iraq.usa
  137. https://www.aclu.org/accountability-for-torture
  138. https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/12/01/no-more-excuses/roadmap-justice-cia-torture
  139. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/KnowlesEssay_y1z1kog5.pdf
  140. https://www.cvt.org/what-we-do/advocating-for-change/legacy-of-us-torture/
  141. https://humanrightsclinic.law.harvard.edu/american-torture-and-institutional-corruption-psychology-law-and-the-power-of-professional-complicity-and-resistance/
  142. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/strategic-costs-torture
  143. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/defensehorizon/DH-064.pdf
  144. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2005/september/learning-abu-ghraib-joint-commander-and-force-discipline
  145. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/128781/2011_05_trans_terr_final.pdf
  146. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/27/the-abu-ghraib-abuse-scandal-20-years-on-what-redress-for-victims
  147. https://www.cvt.org/what-we-do/advocating-for-change/legacy-of-us-torture/cia-torture-program/
  148. https://academic.oup.com/book/40539/chapter/347873695
  149. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-camps
  150. https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/pas15m/what_interrogation_methods_were_employed_by_the/
  151. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/23/syrian-regime-inflicts-72-forms-of-torture-on-prisoners-report-finds
  152. https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/12/16/syria-stories-behind-photos-killed-detainees
  153. https://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/i/israel/israel946.pdf
  154. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30401025
  155. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf
  156. https://www.state.gov/reports/2024-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/china
  157. https://www.state.gov/reports/2024-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices
  158. https://www.state.gov/reports/2024-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/indonesia
  159. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/20/iraq-sunni-women-tell-isis-detention-torture
  160. https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/03/06/everyone-must-confess/abuses-against-children-suspected-isis-affiliation-iraq
  161. https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/05/28/if-you-are-afraid-your-lives-leave-sinai/egyptian-security-forces-and-isis
  162. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgu_fac_pub/180/
  163. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bodies-torture-found-cartel-messages-guanajuato-mexico/
  164. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/are-cartels-capture-extort-torture-migrants-8-mexican-states-rcna2454
  165. https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia-pacific/afghanistan/326-afghanistans-security-challenges-under-taliban
  166. https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1138&context=faculty-publications
  167. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09546553.2021.1967935
  168. https://www.omct.org/en/global-torture-index
  169. https://www.omct.org/en/resources/news-releases/omct-global-torture-index-alarming-patterns-of-police-violence-and-systemic-impunity-worldwide
  170. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/12/1157931
  171. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/09/un-commission-inquiry-ukraine-finds-additional-evidence-common-patterns
  172. https://www.hrw.org/the-day-in-human-rights/2024/04/24
  173. https://www.state.gov/reports/2024-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/iran
  174. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-where-torture-is-legal
  175. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004215818/Bej.9789004195998.i-476_010.pdf
  176. https://abcnews.go.com/International/psychologist-devised-enhanced-interrogation-technique-cia-testifies-911/story?id=68445973
  177. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/senate-committee-cia-torture-does-not-work
  178. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/enhanced-interrogation-techniques-ineffective
  179. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5325643/
  180. https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/torture/ethics/tickingbomb_1.shtml
  181. https://www.freedomfromtorture.org/news-and-stories/the-fallacy-of-the-ticking-time-bomb
  182. https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2841&context=parameters
  183. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/kantian-case-against-torture/27C88DCEE878BBAFEDF8811F725EEC06
  184. https://annalsphilosophy-ub.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Alexandru-Mircea-Fiosoiu.pdf
  185. https://www.usccb.org/resources/torture-intrinsic-evil-catholic-study-guide-one-session-workshop
  186. https://www.ibj.org/global-impact/interfaith/interfaith-statements-against-torture/
  187. http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html
  188. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/prohibition-of-torture-in-exceptional-circumstances/ticking-bomb-scenario-origins-usages-and-the-contemporary-discourse/0B186F68C4D5E081DA2D48BAC1CA40DF
  189. https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2017/10/torture-during-interrogations-illegal-immoral-and-ineffective
  190. https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/ir/documents/hahn-sophia-thesis.pdf
  191. https://www.apt.ch/sites/default/files/publications/tickingbombscenario.pdf
  192. https://www.ovid.com/journals/psycc/fulltext/10.1037/a0011758~the-ticking-bomb-scenario-immoral-excuse-legal-ruse-and
  193. https://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2019/english/chp5.pdf
  194. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e880
  195. https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2023/06/un-experts-call-states-uphold-absolute-prohibition-torture-armed
  196. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-32
  197. https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=ind&mtdsg_no=iv-9&chapter=4&clang=_en
  198. https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?Treaty=CAT-OP&Lang=en
  199. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-20-torture-18-usc-2340a
  200. https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/100296.pdf
  201. https://humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Issue-Brief-Laws-Against-Torture.pdf
  202. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/legacy/2010/08/05/memo-bybee2002.pdf
  203. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/torturingdemocracy/documents/
  204. https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwilj/vol37/iss1/4/
  205. https://academic.oup.com/book/57696/chapter/470275562
  206. https://historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/torture-and-intelligence-gathering-in-western-democracies/
  207. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/no-safe-haven-for-torturers-calls-mount-for-switzerland-to-outlaw-torture-explicitly/3724826
  208. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2410&context=law_and_economics
  209. https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/cat
  210. https://press.un.org/en/2021/gashc4322.doc.htm
  211. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/12/years-torture-convention-states-still-failing-obligations/
  212. https://www.omct.org/en/resources/blog/the-international-community-is-facing-one-of-the-most-critical-periods-in-recent-decades
  213. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1891&context=hrbrief
  214. https://www.omct.org/en/resources/reports/ethiopia-decades-of-impunity-for-perpetrators-have-created-a-torture-prone-system
  215. https://www.hrw.org/report/2011/01/30/work-him-until-he-confesses/impunity-torture-egypt
  216. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/06/bangladesh-end-impunity-for-torture-and-uphold-victims-right-to-reparation/
  217. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/10/ukraine-torture-russian-authorities-amounts-crimes-against-humanity-says-0
  218. https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/18/5/903/398675
  219. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/hrj/wp-content/uploads/sites/83/2020/06/20HHRJ89-Mayerfeld.pdf
  220. https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/International_Law_of_Torture.pdf
  221. https://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/10_october/19/poll.shtml
  222. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/us-public-opinion-on-torture-20012009/D2F34C40D2945A2547A4F0664118E0FB
  223. https://news.gallup.com/poll/4909/terrorism-united-states.aspx
  224. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/12/09/americans-views-on-use-of-torture-in-fighting-terrorism-have-been-mixed/
  225. https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1617704/FULLTEXT02.pdf
  226. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/01/26/americans-divided-in-views-of-use-of-torture-in-u-s-anti-terror-efforts/
  227. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-poll-finds-majority-of-americans-believe-torture-justified-after-911-attacks/2014/12/16/f6ee1208-847c-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html
  228. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27387040
  229. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/02/09/global-opinion-use-of-torture/
  230. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1119&context=criminaljusticefacpub
  231. https://www.npr.org/2014/12/12/370264893/even-if-torture-doesnt-work-in-the-real-world-tv-has-us-convinced
  232. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1057610X.2021.1983211
  233. https://encompass.eku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1674&context=honors_theses
  234. https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/180008/retrospective-look-americans-view-torture.aspx
  235. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/12/10/americans-have-no-idea-what-they-really-think-about-torture/
  236. https://barefield.ua.edu/2020/09/02/media-and-the-public-opinion-of-torture/
  237. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/exclusive-most-americans-support-torture-against-terror-suspects-reutersipso-idUSKCN0WW0Y1/
  238. https://oxfordre.com/criminology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-105
  239. https://ethnomed.org/wp-content/uploads/2005/01/westjmed00085-0091.pdf
  240. https://tidsskrift.dk/torture-journal/article/download/105480/154269/216502
  241. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1057610X.2016.1235352
  242. https://retroreport.org/education-category/the-public-debate-over-torture/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.