Peterkin

Not entirely! A great many movies do question the values, do challenge the status quo, do reveal a dark side of society that makes some of its members uncomfortable enough to educate themselves and take some corrective action. Popular entertainment can influence a society for its improvement as well as contribute to its vices. Most people don't think about (let alone calculate with any accuracy) the cost of lawmaking, lawbreaking, law enforcement and their consequences, both short and long term. They hear on the news, once in a while, about $millions or $billions the government spends on something, but those numbers are meaningless. What they are acutely conscious of is the number at the bottom of their tax return form. Some political candidate promises to reduce that number, through efficiency or private enterprise or whatever, they vote for him and get an even worse standard of crime control. But that same politician has a scapegoat all warmed up and pointed at the wilderness.

The values of the society - or, more accurately, the elite of the society. What's good for the Waltons is good for America. Of course, it gets a lot more complex, not to mention messy, over time, will people acting up, acting out, protesting, legislating, writing books, singing songs, shooting one another, telling one another what to wear, whom to love, what to desire.... No, it's the other way around. The movies reflect a popular mind-set, as well as a much more practical reality: it's way cheaper to punish than to reform a person; it's easier to "throw away the key" and discard 1% of the population than to creat a suitable place in society for them, simply because there are too many people already: that 1% mainly comes from the 20% that's been discounted and relegated to marginal citizenship.

On the beach, nobody cares about it. In a sandcastle, it's expected to keep still and hold its place. In a gear-box, it's destructive and must be flushed out. For me, it's what we're born with (no one is born a bully/racist); original sin is just an expression of a potential bad life... Your personal take is not a consensus. However, I do agree with you that every healthy infant is potentially a fine, upstanding, productive citizen - as well as a potential criminal, maniac or screw-up. But in all that potential, there are already present some inherited traits, tendencies, advantages and disadvantages, capabilities and temperament. If a child is raised with close attention to his particular nature - encouraging the positive aspects of his personality while correcting and teaching him to control the negative (feeding the good wolf), he should be able to reach his best potential, both personally and socially. But if they're treated like mass-produced items, some children will be damaged beyond repair. Original sin is a concept that arises from the recognition of human autonomy: we can choose to disobey - which is a very bad thing to do in a rigid patriarchy.

If nobody here can agree to definitions of "torture" that have already been enshrined in national and international legal codes, you're not likely to have better luck on a definition of "justice". Is there a consensus on the meaning of "good"? From a practical standpoint, that doesn't really matter. The society that drove you to madness or crime still wants you to conform to its norms. Moreover, it will only admit to demanding that you obey its rules; it will never admit to making unreasonable or impossible rules, nor to creating a crazy developmental environment for its children, nor to driving a significant portion of its members to abarrent behaviour. So, if it acknowledges that some antisocial act is the result of mental illness, it will narrow the causes of that illness to some local, particular situation and treat the individual thus acting out as an exception. It will never treat an entire class of mental illness, no matter the number of individuals exhibiting it, as a symptom of its dysfunction. Every society would much rather - vigorously and forcefully - insist that whatever you've done, whatever you've become, it's your fault. On that point, societies differ. Some call it Correction; some call it Rehabilitation; some call it Re-education. How it's actually carried out doesn't always bear a direct relation to its label. I think most Americans have an image in their mind of how a prison should work (counselling, job training, education, behaviour modification through peer support and self-esteem....) while at the same time, secretly or not so secretly relishing the movie image of prisons (bullying, privation, humiliation and violent assault, both plain and sexual, by inmates and guards....) I truly do not believe any modern legal system will take that philosophical tack. A tribal one might - indeed, would be forced to, since in a small group, every individual is a precious resource, and social cohesion is literally a matter of collective life and death. But in a society of millions or hundreds of millions, individuals are mere grains of sand - that had better not get into the economic gear-box!

If you pick a subject like Cats, you can follow that branch down, as Barmaley showed in the example, or follow it upward, to -- Carnivorous mammals -- Mammals -- Vertebrates -- Animals -- Taxonomy -- Biology -- Science. That would probably be Current Events, from which you could go to Sport, Politics, Weather, Persons of Note, Demographics (statistics) Economics, Jurisprudence (civil rights?), News ... Problem there: how long does any item stay new? So maybe you could have, as one of the 8 branches : Today's News, with a function to push it down to the next level (news of the past week, month, year, Europe, Asia, Africa, Americas) every 24 hours. I don't really have that kind of experience. We designed web sites for small business 20 years ago (all obsolete knowledge), and I did help work out the logic from the user's perspective, and the aesthetic. From that limited standpoint, I'll help if I can. Have you worked out the top levels? (My tentative suggestion: Science, Earth & Space, Maths, Current Events, Language, Anthropology, Art, Philosophy. Just a first run at it, not sure.) As I said, you can just make a long list of topics you feel should be included and trace them by association, up to their parent subject. But, um, why do you want to recreate Wykipedia?

I'm not sure Humanity is one subject - or even that it should be a top level subject: too ambiguous. What were the other five top-level subjects being considered? Religion can go under Philosophy or Anthropology - both of which should probably be top headings. Or Psychology, which is a branch of Medical Science, but you'd get some flak about it. You'll need a good cross-reference system. (Helluvan ambitious project!! Wait till you have to figure out what myths and legends and superstitious rituals should be placed under. ) Philosophy! Ask any discipline whether it belongs in the top level and it will volunteer. You have to decide how to section this pie. Don't worry too much about where you start, as long as it makes intuitive sense, because everything is related to everything else at some level.

That would be nice, but consensus appears unattainable. Partly because of subjective perception of what hurts, partly because of bias about justice, but most significantly due to language. Viscerally, we all - or nearly all - understand what torture is; legal articulation is a whole other order of difficulty. While courts have to negotiate that difficulty every day, individuals are able to avoid it indefinitely. As has been amply demonstrated. You read the Stanford prison experiment, and you can comprehend it, but then it's challenged on the grounds of fakery , of unsound scientific method, ?dismissed.... And yet, and yet.... Read that second article carefully. This bit gave me a longish pause

Torture as punishment is the topic. The objective existence or non-existence of evil, conundrums, paradoxes, and other abstract ideas is a debate I had rather relegate to its own thread, since I've contributed quite enough lumber to this one.

no, none of them (evil, conundrum, paradox) can; concepts have no physical reality but that's another topic....

[Guantanamo justified?] Well, I agree with those who do not see it justified. Yet it continues in operation, because enough - and powerful enough - others insist that it's necessary. No justice reform takes place until there is general consensus on some aspect of it - and there can be no comprehensive reform in some countries, even if the majority of citizens agree in principle, as long as one or more influential faction(s) reject it. But that proves my point, because it's justifiable; almost every other prison on the planet is used as an excuse to punish. That was a reply to your question: "What prison isn't?" [a place of detention and torture as depicted in the OP] I don't quite get your point about justification. One is meant to be a correctional facility, while almost every other prison is a place of punishment. Though British and Canadian, and no doubt modern Australian prisons are intended to rehabilitate lawbreakers, there is that segment of the population which insists on retribution - and the two functions in a single institution are in constant disharmony. So the revenge faction always wins, simply because punishment is cheaper and the average voter won't do the math; doesn't realize how much more it costs society in the long term to grow naughty boys into hardened felons then it would be to turn them around at the earliest opportunity. It's relatively easy for the Scandinavian countries to be progressive and united: they haven't had any major social upheavals since... even the Roman empire barely touched their shores. Recent influx of refugees from the Middle East, and the natives' reaction to their presence has been causing ructions - the Scandinavian Paradise may well be in decline. That's rather simplistic, since not all crime is criminal and not all criminal's are guilty. Of course it's simplistic. It was in response to this: In the countries I mentioned, it doesn't make any difference to your treatment whether you're guilty of anything. Perhaps I should have advised him, rather, to get caught breaking a law in Sweden, then Italy, then Turkey and finally Saudi Arabia in order to form an appreciation of what degrees of punishment meet the criteria for the UN jurists' definition of torture. I would not, however, recommend doing it in reverse order. Now, there is a conundrum! (PS I don't care how many mistakes I find, I'm not editing this!)

Best guess: c 150,000,000 years ago. Would you believe termites?

Then you should either refrain from crime (especially in Turkey or Saudi Arabia - assuming you know what's considered a crime there) or be clever enough to avoid capture.

He rejected every proffered definition of "torture'" included those used by big, serious jurists on world courts. That is his prerogative, not my guide. As far as I know, "justice" hasn't been defined at all, let alone measured, though it has been discussed. It was justified up and down a purple streak by its owners. I wasn't convinced. I don't understand what this refers to - the prison or my comment. In the present context, I'm not even sure I answered the question you asked last time. I have trouble placing the references. What prison isn't? Halden Fengsel.

No, the real ones, outside. It's summer.

crickets

All copacetic here, mate!

Was that justified? How do you mean? The OP question was torture of prisoners in detention as used by law-enforcement as punishment or deterrent to criminals. Guantanamo - to the best of my information - is a place of detention and torture. It has also been a contentious issue in the US for two decades. It seemed relevant in the context. The matters of forgiveness and peace, or revenge, or punishment, go no way at all toward resolving that problem. Your answer hasn't helped; my answer hasn't helped, Beecee's answer hasn't helped. I conclude that whatever we, even all three put together, understand about justice cannot solve such a problem. And it's not a unique problem, globally.

I don't think so. I have no idea what your version of justice is. I have some idea of Beecee's and disagree with at least some of it. However, I didn't articulate "my version" of justice. I don't have a comprehensive, universal philosophy of justice - only examples of how some societies have handled some aspects of it, well or badly. I answered the question about torture-as-justice in the negative on Page 1; since then, all I've done was respond to various comments, on and off topic. You could say so. It didn't solve the problem of Guantanamo. No-one has.

Oh well, I've tried my best. Carry on!

I read the OP question as: on criminals, not by criminals. There are many instances of miscarriage of justice when "we" didn't go by the evidence. However, as previously stated, I'm prepared to discuss the efficacy of the prison system at some other time. Some wrongfully convicted prisoners are compensated... well, that is to say, given some money, in lieu of what-all has been taken from them. Some are executed, some are abused by guards and/or other inmates; some have their appeal denied. It's not my agenda; it's Alex Mercer's. If you want to start a thread on any of those other subjects, please do. Then I will abide by your agenda.

Because that wasn't the question and i don't have the answer. Sorry I can't devise a simple blanket solution to a hugely complicated, multi-faceted problem. I'm asking how your bringing up these examples relates to the topic. Sure, what's a few thousand here or there, as long as it's a minority? Because that's the information I proceeded to provide. I honestly thought it was the relevant bit and didn't want to clutter up the post with repetition. I don't know about smart. Criminal justice, prison sentences, rehabilitation, reform and paroles are all very interesting topics and I'm happy to talk about them - in the appropriate venue. Particular cases, I'm always reluctant to talk about in the absence of an opportunity (or, frankly, inclination) to study them in depth.

Probably because it wasn't a question about a fence. There is plenty of wrongdoing all over the place, but acknowledging that doesn't express my "thoughts on physical torture". For the reasons I've already given. To some degree and with reservations and conditions. But that's not the issue under consideration. Not uninteresting - distasteful and unhelpful. If you want those boys tortured, say why. If you think torture will reform them, explain how. And that is a pity. https://www.nealdavislaw.com/criminal-defense-guides/exonerations-by-state-2019.html https://www.law.ac.uk/about/press-releases/wrongful-convictions/ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011128719833355 https://www.thelocal.it/20160425/7000-italians-are-unjustly-imprisoned-each-year/ That's just a sample of the countries we tend to think of having sound criminal justice systems. It doesn't take into account all the theocracies and autocracies that still imprison people for having the wrong sexual orientation or speaking up against the government or belonging to an ethnic minority. And if you want to keep it that way, I would advise you not to support giving more leeway and power to the police than they need to carry out their constitutional duties - so that abuse of power remains an exception, rather than the rule.

What I said, in an addendum to the comment regarding beating of prisoners, not yet convicted of any crime, by Italian police, was: Not those particular cases, no, other than to reiterate that I have insufficient information on the particulars. Nor your position, either, since you have elaborated more than adequately. In addressing the OP question, I prefer to concentrate on statistics rather than hand-picked crimes. You are. I'm not. Agreed. Trying to stay on topic. The question was: should torture be part of the punishment for incarcerated persons? (I know the question was regarding "criminals" but I'm acutely aware that not everyone in prison is a criminal.) I am certainly critical of persons in authority abusing it and terrified of persons in authority, with the power to abuse it, being given legal permission to do so. I've lived in a police state and have no desire to repeat the experience.

demolished to make room for improved version Only, I wasn't referring to them, but to all arrestees, anywhere in the world. Subdued, handcuffed, caged prisoners - however you characterize them - pose no physical threat to their captors and therefore beating them is not justifiable police procedure. You did. You have. In this, you align with the UN committee. This is a question that courts and legislatures all over the world must grapple with every day - which doesn't reflect all that favourably on our modern civilization. No final, definitive, comprehensive answer can be given, even in theory, since the circumstances and particulars vary so greatly that only an intimate case-by-case examination could produce even the most fragmented remedy. I see no profit in chewing over the most sensational ones in giant font.

It's in the Guardian article I linked. https://www.wantedinrome.com/news/italy-shock-video-of-violence-against-prisoners.html Whether this beating of one by many rises from the definition of assault to the definition of torture depends on how often it's repeated. Each legal code has its level of tolerance for police violence. (Unless they're secret police, in which case they have an all-season license.) The police there, as elsewhere, don't always make the distinctions you make between citizens in custody. In any case, once subdued, handcuffed and caged, neither the innocent protestor nor the violent criminal is dangerous to their captors. Yes. Sure, but that's not counted, because they put in a clause allowing for conventional methods of punishment. Torture is considered cruel treatment in addition to the usual. Are prisoners forced to do shift work? In that case, it's probably considered part of the usual punishment. Yes, it's very often used by interrogators as part of the sleep-deprivation routine. So can the Mukhabarat, which is why no legal definitions lists all the methods and degrees of cruel treatment that constitute torture. I concur.