There is a reason why torture must include the following: 1. A restriction of autonomy, 2. The desire to break the recipient's will, and 3. the use of extreme physical or mental pain/anguish. To remove any or two of the three breaks the definition of torture, and the act simply becomes another instance entirely.
Cases involving only certain criteria:
#1: This is simply restricting a person's ability to do things on their own, such as a parent holding back their child from crossing the street when cars are coming, to putting a prisoner in jail or a rehabilitation center to, in the former, make society safer, and, in the latter, make the criminal a better person. This is not torture, it is simply confinement.
#2: A person's will can be broken through coercion, and torture is a form of extreme coercion. However, offering a person a large sum of money in return for information is not torture, though tempting their greed can be seen as a way of breaking their will. Whether or not what the person then reveals is true is not important; an attempt has been made to break their will, and it could work, given proper circumstances. This is simply coercion.
#3: Hurting a person without the intent to gain information from their or without restricting their autonomy is one of two cases: either it is malicious, and is just violence, or it is abuse, and abuse, by it's own definition, is a separate case from torture.
#1 and #2: A person who is restricted who's will is made to be broken results in a number of cases that are not actually torture. A prisoner wants to be free, but they are held in jail. They also may hold a desire to harm others, but, in the ideal prison scenario, then punishment they are undergoing is an attempt to deter them from doing such. However, a prisoner rarely undergoes mental or physical pain; in that case, it would be torture. A prisoner who is simply kept in his cell and prohibited from committing the violent or illegal acts that landed him/her there is not torture, then.
#1 and #3: A person who is restricted and is undergoing extreme physical or mental pain is not being tortured, they are being radically abused. If there is no desire to break their will, then the case becomes one of maliciousness on the part of the propagator; they are hurting another with no desired outcome, and it is not clear when they will stop, or if they will stop before the recipient has died due to their condition.
#2 and #3: Holding a gun to a person on the street is not a restriction of autonomy. It is, however, an attempt to break the person's will, whether they are being robbed or questioned for information, and it can become a case of extreme physical or mental pain, e.g., shooting the victim in non-vital places so as to break their will, or turning the gun on a family member or loved one so as to cause anguish on the part of the victim. It is possible to harm someone for a reason without breaking their autonomy, and as long as the person has a way to escape or fight back, and is aware that they have this choice, then it is not torture, it is simply violence.
It is the meshing of these three criteria, then, that defines torture. A person must be restrained, they must be undergoing extreme physical or mental distress, and the torturer must have some objective in mind that involves breaking the person's will.
No comments:
Post a Comment