Would the crime rate in the US drop if convicts were systematically beaten and tortured?
Has there ever been a study, obviously not funded by the US government?
…
Probably not. A punishment is most effective when it’s administered immediately after the offense. That way, the subject being punished links the punishment with the offense: “When I (insert criminal behavior here), I get (insert torture method of choice here). Me not want (torture method of choice), so me won’t (criminal behavior) anymore.” Unfortunately, the criminal justice system isn’t exactly known for being speedy. I think it’s far more likely that the offender would associate the torture punishment with the system, rather than his crime. And that’s not what you want.
I think it would deter some people, just as the current system deters some people. There are many crimes I would commit if there was no punishment, or if the only punishment was a fine or something else I’m not as afraid of as imprisonment. I would definitely deal drugs, as it’s an excellent way to make money and I probably have the connects to be good at it, but I know that if I deal them my chances of going to jail are a lot higher than if I simply buy and possess small quantities, which would only get me fines and probation for a first offense. I also refrain from exacting physical revenge on certain people who have wronged me in the past because it’s not worth the chance of me going to jail. Now, if possession of drugs meant that I might get tortured if caught and convicted, I would stay away from them forever - as is the risks are worth it to me.
I’m sure that there are some people who aren’t particularly afraid of going to jail who would clean up their acts if punishments were worse. Not all of them, but some.
If I were on a jury, I’d be unlikely to convict anyone of anything if I knew they were going to be tortured. I think a lot of other people feel the same way. Convictions would drop dramatically.
BTW, I do believe in the death penalty, but only if it’s carried out as humanely as possible.
So torture as a punishment could lead to fewer people being convicted which could lead to a decrease in the perceived effectiveness/power* of the system which could lead to an increase in crime rates.
Definitely not what they (or at least the OP) had in mind.
[sub]* There’s a better word for what I’m trying to say, but I suck at thinking after 2am.[/sub]
The OP is asking for results of a study about the deterrence effect of torture (which may be a valid GQ, if such a study has been done). However, I don’t see much hope for preventing a debate on this issue. I’ll leave this thread here for now. As long as this thread remains in GQ, let’s try to concentrate on finding facts and statistics.
bibliophage
moderator, GQ
Probably not. Consequences, no matter how severe (or in this case barbaric), are rarely considered prior to committing a particular crime. Torture as a deterrent does not seem to have been directly studied, but we can safely examine studies done on execution as a deterrent and draw conclusions.
http://www.amnesty-usa.org/abolish/deterrence.html
Amnesty may be biased on the subject, but they do cite several legitimate studies in this article.
Other studies:[ul]- Authors John Sorenson, Robert Wrinkle, Victoria Brewer, and James Marquart examined executions in Texas between 1984 and 1997. They speculated that if a deterrent effect were to exist, it would be found in Texas because of the high number of death sentences and executions within the state. Using patterns in executions across the study period and the relatively steady rate of murders in Texas, the authors found no evidence of a deterrent effect.
-
Effects of an Execution on Homicides in California. Author Ernie Thompson examined criminal homicides in Los Angeles before and after California’s execution of Robert Harris in 1992, the state’s first execution after a 25-year moratorium. Thompson found slight increases in homicides during the eight months following the execution.
-
Keith Harries and Derral Cheatwood studied differences in homicides and violent crime in 293 pairs of counties. Counties were matched in pairs based on geographic location, regional context, historical development, demographic and economic variables. The pairs shared a contiguous border, but differed on use of capital punishment. The authors found no support for a deterrent effect of capital punishment at the county level comparing matched counties inside and outside states with capital punishment, with and without a death row population, and with and without executions. The authors did find higher violent crime rates in death penalty counties. (Rowman and Littlefiled Publishers, Lanham, MD (1997))[/ul]Note that I am not arguing against the death penalty, nor am I stating that execution is torture. I am merely citing studies that support the conclusion that no matter how severe, the possibility of punishment is not normally considered prior to the commission of a violent crime.
Bingo: Well, think of rats. By using an electric shock, you can condition a rat to do or not do certain things. Presumably, you could use torture to condition humans this way, a bit like A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. However, I’m with AudreyK on this. The principle of due process means that there will be substantial delays between the act and the punishment, and this may destroy the conditioning effect.
Waverly: A small but important nitpick here. The studies you cite show that the imposition of a very particular form of capital punishment has no marginal effect on crime rates. This is not at all the same as saying, “the possibility of punishment is not normally considered prior to the commission of a violent crime.”
If that were literally true, then logically we shouldn’t go to the trouble and expense of punishing violent criminals at all. If we let them walk, we save the cost of jails, a justice system, etc. And, by hypothesis, there will be no effect at all on the violent crime rate. Needless to say, most people don’t believe this (and it can be proved to ve false.) Most people who say “deterrence is bunk” really mean “small changes to the deterrence system produce little or no effect,” which is a very different thing.
It’s called the Death Penalty for a reason. If it keeps people from committing murder, well all the better.
I would say that punishments meted out by Sharia courts in Saudi Arabia come as close to torture within a judicial context as is current.
Whipping, amputation are both possible and I believe there has been provision for other punishments such as loss of an eye or a tongue in the past.
Is Saudi Arabia free of crime - nope.
Mind you, looking at the Taliban, it would depend on what you define crime to be.
Wumpus: You have a good point regarding my quoted statement. The vast majority of people would never consider committing a capital offense regardless of penalty. There is probably also a segment of society that don’t have their moral compasses set to true north who are only deterred by the fact that there are legal repercussions. And then we apparently have a tiny fraction of the populace that will commit the crime regardless of the consequences, and those studies cited support this conclusion. Since I presume we are talking about torture as a deterrent for these most serious crimes, I maintain that there will be no effect, since we have already seen that not even death is a deterrent. However, if the OP was suggesting torture of say shoplifters, then yes, there would be an effect. Those that considered the possible punishment lenient enough to warrant the risk will now reconsider.
Your hypothesis that under circumstances where punishment is not acting as a deterrent, we could presumably save costs by foregoing trial is flawed. Now not only have you turned the opportunist with the faulty moral compass into a potential murderer, but you have opted to allow offenders to remain in society rather than remove them to a place where they could do no further harm.
I think the problem with any punishment as deterrent is that the mental equation is not
If (I commit a crime) then (bad things happen to me)
but rather
If (I commit a crime) AND (I get caught/convicted) then (bad things happen to me)
IIRC an increase in closure rate for crimes has historically been more effective than an increase in severity of punishment. (Although I can’t remember where I read this.)
And I think Ariadne has a point as well. I seem to recall that in England in late medieval times, the death penalty was the punishment for such a wide variety of crimes that it was impossible to get a jury to convict on a relatively minor offense. (again, no cite)
If they’re not worried about getting shot by the cops whilst being arrested, they’re not worried about whatever other punishment might be involved, whether it’s jail time, community service, torture, or death.
I think the time has come to move this to Great Debates.
bibliophage
moderator, GQ
Waverly: We’re drifting off topic, but it seems overly simple to me to say that “The vast majority of people would never consider committing a capital offense regardless of penalty [or, presumably, reward].” This just ain’t so. It is not true that most people have absolutely fixed, context-free moral compasses that absolutely prevent them from committing specific acts. Large numbers of otherwise kind, moral, conflict-avoiding people can be turned into premeditated killers given the proper enviroment. If you doubt this, just ask any army.
Again, you’re talking about small changes to the judcial system, wheras the original post contemplated a large one. Changing the penalty for first degree murder from life to twenty years is not going to induce the Average Joe to become a killer. Removing the deterrence system entirely might. (If not immediately, then over the course of the years.)
Wupus: gasp Now we have turned this into a debate. Ah, C’est la vie. Starting with your second paragraph, I agreed with you, though I didn’t state it so clearly. Assuming that the current penalties have already discouraged opportunists, altering punishment to include torture is unlikely to have an effect. I believe this is within your definition of “small changes to the judicial system.” That being said, the reason that there would be no effect, is because there is not a strong enough relationship in the criminal’s mind between the crime and the consequences. Please see the following well cited article: http://www.fcc.state.fl.us/fcc/reports/rates/rate.html , which offers the same explanation for this that MMI gives.
Re: your first paragraph: you have placed words in my mouth. I never stated a moral compass is context free. Placed in proper context, soldiers in wartime [per your example] are not committing a crime, nor would one expect these soldiers to assume that killing was acceptable in peacetime. Yes, you can place the emphasis on nature or nurture as you wish but “the vast majority of people would never consider committing a capital offense regardless of penalty.”
apologies…WuMpus.