choose your favorite torture

Glenn Reynolds quoted Megan McArdle as saying (in part) that she'd "rather be waterboarded than put in the general population of a high security prison," and that:

"it is entirely possible that life at Guantanamo is more bearable than life at San Quentin, and no, that is not a defense of Guantanamo.
I'd take the waterboarding too -- even if I thought I was drowning and nearly gagged myself to death.

Reading McArdle's post, I found this earlier post, which reflects on criminal offenses of people as diverse as Rush Limbaugh (facing charges that he removed money from his own bank account) and Cory Maye (sent to death row for defending himself against police he thought were armed criminal invaders):

To take an example I've been harping on recently, there are all sorts of appalling violations of power by local police and prosecutors, as Radley Balko has recently exposed with his superb work on the Cory Maye case. Taking cash out of your bank account is not in any moral sense a crime. Nor is having a house where some developer would like to build a shopping mall. Or owning a tree where a woodpecker likes to nest. The fact that people can be put in jail for these non-crimes horrifies me to the depth of my soul.
No wonder we're so close to having hate crime legislation. I mean, why not? If it's a crime to take your money out of the bank, or offend some environmental bureaucrat's idea of what's best for a woodpecker, surely thought crimes should qualify.

I'd be horrified to the depth of my soul too, except it's tough to be horrified by things that are no longer surprising.

What a lot of people who routinely advocate imprisonment for things they dislike forget (at least I like to hope they forget) is that prison is an awful place. To drive the point home, McCardle compares prison to torture, and says she would prefer the latter:

Many prisoners endure such brutalization that if I had to choose between going to a high-security prison and being interrogated by the Bush administration's favoured methods, I'd pick the waterboarding. This is a stain on our national honour, an outrage, an abomination. But does it mean that our society is not worth living in? Are we not free? Have we no liberty? Do we live in a police state because some peoples' liberties are thusly threatened? Are we close to a police state? Were we under the Democrats, when such abuses were equally likely to occur?

The other problem with the Democrats is that not all of their liberties abuses are economic. My understanding is that many of the abuses of the WOT result from expanding the Clinton's innovations in the execrable War on Drugs to terror suspects. It was, after all, the Clinton administration that sent tanks and SWAT teams in to deal with what were, at least allegedly, child custody disputes. Likewise, the innovations pushed by Democrats to shake more tax revenue out of the rich . . . like retroactive prosecution, special opaque courts for tax cases, spying on people's cash flows, asset seizure laws, and so forth . . . strike me as major civil liberties violations by any standard, which have trickled down the food chain quite rapidly. Democrats are pushing card check, which strikes me as a license for union organisers to terrorise uncooperative workers. They favour "hate crimes" legislation, which is the closest thing to a thought crime our society has. I could go on, but you're already asleep, aren't you?

No, I'm not asleep at all! In fact, I'm reminded of a painful post I wrote in 2004:
.....try going to a cocktail party today and advocating a return to the lash. You'll get one of those looks usually reserved for cranks who like to talk about the death of Vincent Foster. Why? Because times have changed, and the law -- even part of the constitution unchanged since the founding -- has changed with them. Social conventions simply do not countenance tying a man to a post and scourging him with the cat-o'nine tails -- for any reason.

But just because times have changed, does that mean logic has changed with them? I have asked a number of people whether they'd rather be sentenced to five years in prison or receive 100 lashes. The answer is almost always the lash. That's because, even though 100 lashes would be very painful and would leave heavy, permanent scars, the suffering would be mostly over in a month, whereas five years is five years, and worse things can happen in prison than a scarred back. Logic, however, is lost where it comes to prevailing social conventions.

People who advocate prison for things they don't like need to ask themselves whether they'd rather be tied up and scourged than imprisoned, then ask again whether either are appropriate things to do to people who medicate themselves with unapproved medication. Would they have these things done to their own children? Or just someone else's?

On this related issue, M. Simon has a brilliant essay on the nature of drug addiction, which he (rightly IMO) calls "self treatment of undiagnosed pain":

This is a truly revolutionary idea. If it is in fact true then the whole notion of a drug war to save the children is a lie from beginning to end. Those of you who have read my article on heroin have a window into this new idea. What I tried to show in that article was that medical research shows that victims of sexual abuse and severe physical abuse (PTSD) are many times more likely to get addicted to heroin than the general public.
M. Simon also has a very interesting (abridged) quote from one of this nation's founders, Declaration signer Dr. Benjamin Rush:
"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize an undercover dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to one class of men, and deny equal privilege to others, will be to constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic, and have no place in a Republic. The Constitution of this Republic should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom."
I'm sure at the time it wasn't considered necessary to put such a thing into the Constitution. After all, there's no specific power to regulate medicine (or drugs), just as there was no power to regulate alcohol. Hence the wonderful 18th Amendment -- which I like so much that I have called it the "telltale amendment." It stands as a reminder that this country once took its Constitution literally. If the country wanted to prohibit alcohol today, there'd be no need for an amendment.

If only the Constitution had prohibited torturing the Constitution!

I think this calls for a poll:

Would you rather spend six months in prison or receive two dozen lashes?
Six months in prison
Two dozen lashes
  
pollcode.com free polls

I'm thinking that might have been too easy a choice for some people, so I'll make it harder:

Would you rather spend six months in prison or receive 100 lashes?
Six months in prison
100 lashes
  
pollcode.com free polls


Once again, I'm not advocating a return to the lash. I'm just wondering about what people think about serving time in places where unofficial torture -- in the form of prison rape -- is routine.

UPDATE: Thank you, Glenn Reynolds, for the link, and welcome all! Thanks to all commenters too; I'm particularly fascinated by the differing opinions about prison versus the lash.

A local sheriff once told me that some people will commit suicide rather than face prison, and while that's doubtless an outlier, I'm sure that a lot of people would prefer a short and certain (even if horribly severe) punishment to a lengthy stay in an unknown hell. I suspect that the kind of guy who doesn't like traveling or going out would rather take the lashes than have to live in a crowded criminal environment.

posted by Eric on 04.03.07 at 10:43 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4844






Comments

I've actually been saying for about five years that the average American prison is probably much worse than Gitmo. Which is, of course, one of the reasons I like the idea of transferring detainees to an American prison.

Jon Thompson   ·  April 3, 2007 11:54 AM

I think your 'prison vs. the lash' thought experiment reveals a much more prevalent attitude in our culture, namely, the preference given to shifting blame over actually doing what's right. The difference between prison and the lash, at its heart, is a question of who carries out the violence. Since the lash would be administered by the authorities, people would view it as unforgiveable government brutality. But since prison rape and violence is the responsibility of other inmates, people look the other way because that's what criminals do, and in fact, it only reinforces our idea that 'those kinds of people' belong in prison to begin with.

P. Aeneas   ·  April 3, 2007 06:47 PM

Aeneas, exactly, even if they are non-violent drug offenders.

Jon Thompson   ·  April 3, 2007 08:49 PM

This would be an easier experiment if 100 lashes wouldn't be fatal. By historical standards, 50 was a death sentance.

Matthew Hooper   ·  April 3, 2007 10:25 PM

This would be an easier thought experiment if 100 lashes wouldn't be fatal. Jesus recieved 29 lashes becuase 30 was a death sentance, if my Catholic school days haven't failed me.

Matthew Hooper   ·  April 3, 2007 10:30 PM

...or if my internet connection doesn't make me double post. Grr.

Anonymous   ·  April 3, 2007 10:31 PM

Great point Hooper. Water-boarding is safe, you know you'll recover, at least physically. Compare that to what one used to picture when they thought of torture: burnt fee that would never heal, splintered or severed fingers, burnt out eyes, etc.
And I wonder if a person who has actually received even 10 lashes would choose that over 5 years. Back when such punishment was common they decided it was cruel. Maybe we just don't understand how severe it is.
Having said all that, I agree with the points of your essay. People are going to jail for things which aren't criminal in any moral sense. And our prisons apparently ARE a form of cruel and unusual punishment.

Harkonnendog   ·  April 3, 2007 10:39 PM

Not all in prison are monsters who rape and victomize other prisoners. It's a horrible place to be and the only way to survive (not being raped, but to stay alive) is to make yourself ugly as possible and act tough 24/7.

I had a small ad agency in the 1980s. A man ordered cartoon character designs he could paint on childrens' bedroom walls, similar to Disney characters. He was out of prison and trying to get started in some kind of business. All the other agencies in town had refused his request. I did the work and he paid in cash.

As he was leaving he asked if we could talk, saying he needed someone to talk to, not wanting to talk with his wife about the topic.

It was close to quitting time so I locked the door and we sat at a conference table. He told me about being in the three worst US prisons and one in Mexico, for possesion, since he was 14-years-old. He was a big guy, arms covered with tatoos. If he approached you on the street you'd wet your pants, he was that mean-looking.

Then he told me about all the really bad stuff that goes on and as he related the details his eyes filled with tears -- suddenly he started crying like a baby sobbing for 30 minutes letting all the pain out from the past 15 years. Recovering his composure he said, "You can't cry in prison the others will kill you!" Adding, "All of them would like to cry and if any prisoner did they would lose control, lose their toughness, and cry too."

He thanked me for listening and said he had wanted to do that for a long, long time. Later I heard he was doing well and other job opportunities had come his way. All it takes is a helping-hand when others turn their backs.

JimboNC   ·  April 3, 2007 11:12 PM

100 lashes?

I have to ask here -- what kind of lashes are we talking about? Are we talking about a cat o' nine tails? The rattan cane? It's worth noting that in Singapore, a maximum of 24 strokes may be administered, strongly suggesting to me that figures as high as 100 were deemed excessive for some reason.

I'm not sure this is because of the 50 = death sentence or 30 = death sentence reasons adduced above (it surely depends on the nature of the cane/whip being used, whether and how quickly it breaks the skin, dangers of infection, etc.). But whatever the reason, 24 seems like a proper stopping point.

12 strokes seems imaginable, by analogy to past physical pain. 24 perhaps imaginable, though rather more horrible. 100 -- I can't really imagine that any more than I can imagine being raped and brutalised in an American prison. It's just got no analogy in my experience.

Taeyoung   ·  April 3, 2007 11:37 PM

These tyrannical results are predictable outcomes of substituting democracy for individual liberty as the basis of the U.S. polity. One of the neatest tricks of the governing classes was convincing the people that such is the case.

Solution? Fire them all. They have proved that government is not a legitimate vehicle for social reform. Most professional intellectuals would contribute more to society in new and productive careers, such as cooking and policing up cigarette butts.

Brett   ·  April 4, 2007 08:00 AM

here is a picture of a lashing recipient..
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-discipline/colonial.htm

And a biblical history of flagellation.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06092a.htm

stephen   ·  April 4, 2007 08:40 AM

I think your 'prison vs. the lash' thought experiment reveals a much more prevalent attitude in our culture, namely, the preference given to shifting blame over actually doing what's right.

Great comment! The root problem is a prevailing moral cowardice that is so unsure of its own principles it cannot even muster the confidence to meet out justice.

Anonymous   ·  April 4, 2007 09:59 AM

In Roman times 40 lashes pretty much always killed a man.

James   ·  April 4, 2007 11:11 AM

The Judaic law was "no more than 40 lashes", and the tradition was to stop at 39 in case of a miscount.
As for 40 or 50 or 100 being fatal...I'd want to see sources on that. The British Army and Royal Navy ordered floggings for quite a long time so there ought to be data available. I believe the Army required a physician to be on hand, with the power to stop the flogging if he deemed it unsafe; the remaining lashes would be delivered on another occasion.

Cdeboe   ·  April 4, 2007 02:48 PM

Cdeboe...I thought the physician was on hand to make sure the recipient was awake the whole time and didn't pass out. Also, Roman lashings were brutal, as the lash would sometimes have metal spikes tied to the end of each lash in order to rip the flesh from the body with each stroke. I think the Royal Navy had the cat o' nine tails with a stiff leather with the end of each lash tied in a knot.

Still, I think it would be nice to have a choice between 12 lashes and a year in prison.

stephen   ·  April 5, 2007 03:35 AM

I've posted about alternative punishments before, and I don't think you should limit your thinking to only two possibilities, prison or lashings. I think public humiliation of all sorts could be used to correct a multitude of bad behaviors.

Michael Williams   ·  April 5, 2007 02:55 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



April 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits