• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does The U.S. Constitution prohibit torture?

Does the U.S. Constitution prohibit torture?


  • Total voters
    34
Seems like the wrong question since the question addressed by the Justice Department on this was whether the EIT were legally torture. Based on the lawyers, everyone moved ahead on the basis that what they were doing was legal.
 
Scalia says the Constitution doesn't prohibit it. He knows more about the document than I do. So I'll go with him on this one.
 
Scalia says the Constitution doesn't prohibit it. He knows more about the document than I do. So I'll go with him on this one.
Sorry, that made me chuckle.

Ok, he may actually know more about it than you (and me, too), in a scholarly and/or technical sense, but he is also is one of the worst at playing fast-and-loose with interpretations. Anytime he says anything regarding the Constitution I'm skeptical.
 
Sorry, that made me chuckle.

Ok, he may actually know more about it than you (and me, too), in a scholarly and/or technical sense, but he is also is one of the worst at playing fast-and-loose with interpretations. Anytime he says anything regarding the Constitution I'm skeptical.

All of the SCOTUS judges interpret it.
 
That's why I believe it is prohibited by the Constitution, cruel and unusual punishment. Do we really need to attach a thesaurus to the document? Sheesh.

While I think torture is completely unacceptable, one thing we have to realize is the Constitution is pretty vague in a lot of areas, leaving it open to interpretation. It never defines what constitutes "cruel and unusual". If torture became the norm, it certainly wouldn't be unusual and cruel is entirely subjective. Lots of liberals think the very existence of prisons at all is cruel. Therefore you are going to get people whose interpretation of the terms will be all over the board.
 
Couldn't solitary confinement be considered "torture" under many people's definition?
 
While I think torture is completely unacceptable, one thing we have to realize is the Constitution is pretty vague in a lot of areas, leaving it open to interpretation. It never defines what constitutes "cruel and unusual". If torture became the norm, it certainly wouldn't be unusual and cruel is entirely subjective. Lots of liberals think the very existence of prisons at all is cruel. Therefore you are going to get people whose interpretation of the terms will be all over the board.
I agree with this. Yes, it is vague, and there will always be some interpretation. What I was getting at, though, is that some will be more aggressive about it than others, to the point of sometimes outright ignoring it if it doesn't suit their needs.


Couldn't solitary confinement be considered "torture" under many people's definition?
Some would. Personally, I wouldn't find 30 days of solitary to be cruel and unusual, but 30 years I would. For some things it's a matter of degree.

On the flip side, I would consider extracting finger nails with pliers to be cruel and unusual, and it wouldn't matter if it were one nail or 10.
 
Couldn't solitary confinement be considered "torture" under many people's definition?

Extended periods of solitary confinement is torture, which is the same as cruel and unusual punishment. Read up on what it does to people. Many people end up hitting their heads on the wall, smearing feces all over and start fights with guards just to have some human interaction. Many never recover psychologically from the experience. Some prisoners are confined just for refusing to be a snitch.
 
While I think torture is completely unacceptable, one thing we have to realize is the Constitution is pretty vague in a lot of areas, leaving it open to interpretation. It never defines what constitutes "cruel and unusual". If torture became the norm, it certainly wouldn't be unusual and cruel is entirely subjective. Lots of liberals think the very existence of prisons at all is cruel. Therefore you are going to get people whose interpretation of the terms will be all over the board.

I think cruel and unusual punishment is clearly meant to ban torture. The USA also ratified the Geneva conventions which bans torture. Very few people consider all prisons unconstitutionally cruel.
 
I agree with this. Yes, it is vague, and there will always be some interpretation. What I was getting at, though, is that some will be more aggressive about it than others, to the point of sometimes outright ignoring it if it doesn't suit their needs.



Some would. Personally, I wouldn't find 30 days of solitary to be cruel and unusual, but 30 years I would. For some things it's a matter of degree.

On the flip side, I would consider extracting finger nails with pliers to be cruel and unusual, and it wouldn't matter if it were one nail or 10.

The finger nail extraction is most definitely torture a la Dr. Mengele. A lot of people would say solitary is as well since it's a psychological form of punishment.
 
Yes

No

Other

Plain facts approach yields us the answer.

The U.S. Constitution asserts due process.

Part of due process is that people are innocent until proven guilty.

People cannot be punished until they are proven guilty.

Torture constitutes punishment that presumes knowledge of one's own guilt.

Furthermore, torture is a punishment that is cruel and unusual.

Therefore, torture is unconstitutional before a guilty verdict (because it is punishment) and after a guilty verdict (because it is cruel and unusual).

All plain facts, well established through the centuries. Nothing exciting or revolutionary going on here. Never used to have a problem with this.

It's also federal law that people can't be forced to incriminate themselves.
 
Last edited:
If it isn't, it bloody well should be.
 
Extended periods of solitary confinement is torture, which is the same as cruel and unusual punishment. Read up on what it does to people. Many people end up hitting their heads on the wall, smearing feces all over and start fights with guards just to have some human interaction. Many never recover psychologically from the experience. Some prisoners are confined just for refusing to be a snitch.

True, yet we still do it in prisons today, especially the supermaxes.
 
While I think torture is completely unacceptable, one thing we have to realize is the Constitution is pretty vague in a lot of areas, leaving it open to interpretation. It never defines what constitutes "cruel and unusual". If torture became the norm, it certainly wouldn't be unusual and cruel is entirely subjective. Lots of liberals think the very existence of prisons at all is cruel. Therefore you are going to get people whose interpretation of the terms will be all over the board.

This tendency of presuming the most arcane about the U.S. Constitution precepts needs to go. Very little about what was written in the U.S. Constitution is mysterious when you look at in context.

The Western world during the onset of U.S. republicanism was a highly reactionary time period where the last vestiges of the medieval period (those that persisted past the Renaissance) were being swept away due to their association with aristocratic and monarchical privilege -- often in the fires of revolution. "Cruel and unusual punishment" means any of the classic torture devices and methods associated with the Old Order, including ripping off finger nails, inquisitorial style psychological harassment and manipulation techniques, and water boarding. Anything that runs contrary to the "enlightenment" in the Age of Enlightenment.

Only thing mentioned in the report that might not pass as "cruel and unusual punishment" in the reckoning of the Founding Fathers would be solitary confinement, since forcing prisoners to live away from society like monks silently contemplating their sins was considered an ideal prison reform by the educated men of that time period.
 
Back
Top Bottom