Torture and Retributive Punishment
Mia Fe Morey
eleutheriaaa@gmail.com
Tamler Sommers, Department of Philosophy, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204
Introduction
Exceptionally violent crime (i.e. rape and torture) poses a
unique problem for retributive punishment in the United
States.
Prison sentencing is not adequately satisfying the
proportionality tenet of retributive justice .
The U.S. judicial system must _______ in order to fulfill
the lex tallionis requirement of retributive justice.
Sentencing for Violent Crime:
Murder v Rape & Torture Murder
Criticism & Response
Analysis & Discussion
What is lex talionis?
Les talionis (latin for “law of retaliation”) is a tenet of
retributivist theory which requiries punishment to be
proportionate to the offense committed.
Punishment must attend to the severity of the crime.
Although punishment must be proportionate to the crime, it
is generally understood that the punishment need not be
equivalent to satisfy lex talionis.
How does current sentencing
fail to fulfill lex talionis?
Violent criminal offenders are most often sentenced to
prison in the U.S. judicial system.
The severity of the offense committed determines the
amount of time an offender must serve.
Time served becomes the sole variable for a broad range of
criminal acts.
This is a major limitation in the U.S. judicial system
because we give the maximum punishment (life in prison)
for crimes relatively less malicious than those of torture and
rape.
Thus, two separate crimes ranging in severity are given the
same exact punishment: life in prison.
Take for example, the murderers of Channon Christian and
Christopher Newsom. Christian and Newsome suffered one
of the most horrific rape and torture cases imaginable.
Their captors raped and tortured them for four days before
killing them. The couple was raped, mutilated, and tortured
with bleach, knives, and broken chair legs, among other
things. One of the 4 offenders, Letalvis Cobbins, was
sentenced to life in prison for his crimes.
dysfunctional and unjustifiably affect the “torturer.”
The best option might be to develop machines to carry out
the punishment. This may psychologically affect the
inventors or factory workers who contribute to its creation,
but no more than those who assist in the creation of electric
chairs, nuclear weapons, and guns.
Their captors raped and tortured them for four days
before killing them. The couple was raped, mutilated, and
tortured with bleach, knives, and broken chair legs, among
other things. One of the 4 offenders, Letalvis Cobbins, was
sentenced to life in prison for his crimes.
Now compare this to the case of 17-yr old Lonny Bassett
who shot and killed two people with a shotgun during a
robbery and received life in prison.
Two people were needlessly murdered in both cases, but
no doubt Christian and Newsome suffered significantly
more and Cobbins’ acts were more malicious, calculated,
and severe.
Yet both Cobbins and Bassett received identical
punishments. Offenders who commit more severe crimes
deserve more severe punishments.
So, what can we do to better meet
the requirements of lex talionis?
We must endorse an equivalency-based system of
punishment that embraces “eye –for-an-eye” consequences
rather than settling for proportional punishment. Only
“eye-for-an-eye” punishment will justice in a retributive
system.
Proportional punishment is subjective and vulnerable to
change according to decision makers choices of which
consequences best fit the crime. Life-sentences in prison
are now considered proportional for a ranging severity of
murder cases.
Equivalent punishment is the only way to ensure fair,
unbiased consequences .We must acknowledge the
differences between the actions of Letalvis Cobbins and
Lonny Bassett before the law.
Institutionalizing Eye for an Eye
Prison sentencing has reached a limitation and a new
system must be developed to punish offenders such as
Letalvis Cobbins. One possibility might be to employ
“torturers” to carry out due punishment using the original
tools and weapons, or perhaps give surviving victims the
opportunity. But this would be unworkable: cruel,
Texas Learning and Computation Center
Many would object to this extreme form of retributivism as
cruel and unusual punishment,
Human rights advocates may insist that such brute
retributivism is barbaric and unnecessary or a violation of
human rights.
But maybe that makes it all the more fitting for cruel and
unusual crime. Equivalent punishment is the only way to
deal with especially heinous crimes of rape and torture.
It is important to remember this is punishment for convicted
criminals alone and could never be justified in a Guantanamo
Bay setting.
The justification for punishment should not rely upon our
feelings, the victims' wishes, possible outcome, or effects, but o
based only on the offense committed. Retributivism is not
concerned for such utilitarian goals or motives.
Emotional responses against such institutionalized torture are
natural and understandable but are a naturalistic fallacy. Such
feelings are due to our moral conditioning and cultural values,
which change across time and place. The “rightness” of such a
system is independent of the “ew” factor critics may experience.
The only fair way to punish in a retributive judicial system is to
implement “eye for an eye” theory. The barbarity of the
offender's actions call for seemingly barbaric punishment upon
them.
Implications
Implementing torture sentencing has far reaching
implications for the power of the state. It could possibly
necessitate a change in the Constitution, although it’s
difficult to see how it would be different from capital
punishment.
Questions remain about the effectiveness of such a system:
what if a sadistic offender enjoys the punishment? But the
same can be said about the current practice of the death
penalty and prison sentencing. Many prefer death to life in
prison, and others prefer prison to managing on their own
in the outside world.
There are concerns about the psychological state of these
especially violent offenders, but these are problems that we
are also managing in the current judicial system.
Logistical problems about how to carry out the punishments
can easily be tackled by modern technology and creative
thinking
Perhaps the biggest impact is the possibility of a society that
places higher value on justice than human life or suffering.
But, it would not exist if the victim did not have to suffer
first.