Harsh Realities of War: The Issue of Prison Torture

The recent prison torture that occurred at Abu Ghraib in Iraq has brought to light the harsh reality of war. Although this scandal should not be used to define the whole of US military operations in Iraq, the situation does bring to light an important issue: that of prison torture. While it is quite evident that prison torture is a violation of basic human rights, the conditions under which this situation occurs must be fully understood before judgment about this issue can be made. With this in mind, this brief investigation considers the issue of prison torture and its antecedents. Through a careful consideration of what has been written on this subject, it will be possible to demonstrate that while prison torture should not be condoned, it is more than just the brutal treatment of one human being at the hands of another.

Prison Torture-An Overview

In order to begin this investigation, it is first helpful to consider what has been written about the overall scope and extent of the issue. Burkhalter (1995) in her examination of prison torture notes that a Human Rights Watch investigation of prisons in several US states revealed notable abuses of prisoners. These abuses included extensive beatings, psychological abuse and the use of isolation as a means to punish prisoners. For women behind bars, the realities of prison life are even worse. In a class action suite brought against the Georgia Women's Correctional Institution the allegations of "rape, sexual assault, coerced sexual activist, involuntary abortions and retaliation" were made (p. 18). The female prisoners that had filed the suit eventually won their case; however, during the trial many more suffered at the hands of the prison guards.

What is perhaps most distressing about the overall extent of prison torture is the outcome that this situation fosters. Burkhalter goes on to note almost 98 percent of all individuals in prison will serve their sentence and be released back into society. For those that have been abused, the end result could be quite disastrous. "From society's long term perspective, there are sound reasons for prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. People who are abused and treated with violence are those most likely to treat others abusively and violently" (p. 18). What this effectively suggests is that the cycle of prison torture can eventually have a detrimental impact on society. Prison should serve as a place for correctional action to be taken. When correction does not occur and abuse does, the prison systems fails to rehabilitate the prisoner and can further prohibit the inmate from living a full life upon release.

When the issue of prison torture is examined in this perspective, it becomes evident that this process has a significant impact on the prisoner. However, what is not elucidated in this contest is why prison torture takes place. Wilks (2005) in his examination of the reasons behind prison torture argues that torture is an abuse of power which stems from corruption. Using this as a basis for argument, Wilks goes on to note that, "corruption is a disease, with a documented etiology that has so far defied treatment" (p. 429). This author goes on to argue that in most cases of prison torture, those involved have become somewhat desensitized to the harsh reality of the acts that they are committing.

In an effort to better understand how this process occurs Wilks makes the following observations. For most prison guards, inmates represent the ills of society. As such, when prison torture begins, these individuals are often viewed as scapegoats, who essentially deserve their fates. Even though prison officials may know that torture is wrong, it becomes justified in the context in which it is occurring. Once the torture begins, it becomes difficult to stop. Further, those who might not otherwise involve themselves in this type of activity are coerced into participation. Some may feel social pressure to participate while others may face a fear of reprisal for not participating.

Other scholars have also considered the psychology of prison torture. According to Vedantam (2004), "Torturers usually believe they are carrying out the will of their societies-and feel betrayed when the public professes outrage after the abuses come to light" (The psychology...). When prison guards are given the opportunity to abuse inmates the end result is not that these prison officials feel badly about their actions. Rather most prison officials feel justified in their efforts to improve society by teaching criminals a lesson.

The issue of prison torture as it relates to crimes committed in the United States is one that clearly demonstrates a violation of human rights. However, many individuals believe that when the issue of prison torture becomes an issue of national defense-i.e. the capture of terrorists for example-many believe that this type of prison torture is acceptable. As noted by Vedantam "Significant portions of the public in opinion polls, military strategists, law experts, and even ethicists and the clergy have endorsed using torture to gain information that could avert terrorist attacks" (The psychology...). What this effectively suggests is that there are situations in which the American pubic will support and even defend prison torture.

The realization that Americans will defend some types of prison torture is notably problematic. In particular, the decision of the US government to use torture as an effective means to coerce information from prisoners creates a slippery slope for changing policy on this issue. Vedantam argues that, "Once captors are given license to torture, the abuse of large numbers of prisoners usually becomes standard operating procedure" (The psychology...). Thus, if military personnel are given the right to engage in the abuse of prisoners for the purposes of securing intelligence information, there is no method to predict where the abuse of prisoners will end. With a clear precedent set, individuals accused of domestic crimes will find it more difficult to protect their rights.

In addition to the fact that any support of prison torture creates a slippery slope for debate on the extent of the issue, Vedantam also notes that even a small breech in protecting the human rights of prisoners can have a detrimental impact on human rights. To illustrate this point, Vedantam notes the case of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. In this case, high ranking military officials told American soldiers to "loosen this guy up for us" and "get these people to talk" (The psychology...). Even though these high ranking officials did not specify how military personnel were to accomplish this task, the end result was the torture and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners. Unfortunately, many of the prisoners housed at Abu Ghraib had not been officially charged with a crime.

Conclusion

When the specific issues involved in prison torture are brought to light, it becomes evident that this issue is one that is notably difficult to address. While Americans support some types of prison torture, there are others that are fully rejected. However, the process of prison torture does not appear as if it can be a compromise. In other words, prison torture cannot be justified in some instances and condemned in others. This process clearly sends mixed messages to both the public and officials charged with the responsibility of overseeing prisoners. In order to ensure that the basic human rights of the individual are protected-not just for prisoners but also for law abiding citizens-protections must be put in place to ensure that these right are upheld. While some may believe that torture is justified and even warranted, taking away the individual's right to freedom has been judged by the state to be suitable punishment. By engaging in prison torture of inmates that are already being punished for their crimes, the process appears to do nothing more than add insult to injury and erode the basic fabric of civil society that is needed for the protection of human rights.

References

Burkhalter, H.J. (1995). Torture in US prisons. Nation, 261(1), 17-18.

Vedantam, S. (2004). The psychology of torture. Washington Post. Accessed July 17, 2006 at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15861-2004May10.html.

Wilks, M. (2005). A stain on medical ethics. Lancet, 366(9484), 429-431.