Millions of people were tortured during the Spanish Inquisition, with the most horrific methods reserved for those accused of witchcraft. Akg-images

Why torture? Into the heart of darkness

Torture has long been seen as a reliable means of extracting a confession. In Roman society, testimony from slaves could not be heard unless it had been extracted under torture. In medieval courts, torture in the form of crushing with heavy stones could be used to compel the accused to enter a plea (the so called 'peine forte et dure'). In 'trial by ordeal', what was effectively torture was used as a method of proving guilt. Suspects might be ordered, for example, to plunge one hand into boiling water: doing so without injury demonstrated that God was on their side and hence proved their innocence. Conversely, in the 17th century, suspected witches were tied up and immersed in water. If they survived, this was thought to prove that they were in league with the devil. Matthew Hopkins, Witchfinder General, also used techniques of sleep deprivation and prolonged discomfort to induce suspected witches to confess.

As these examples suggest, the relationship between torture and evidence is not straightforward. In 1605, Guy Fawkes was tortured until he confessed to treason against James I. He and his co-conspirators were then hanged, drawn and quartered. Once Fawkes was arrested, both the confession and the sentence were a foregone conclusion – in effect, Fawkes' torture was the beginning of his punishment.

From the accounts of survivors of torture, Amnesty International has established that repressive regimes do not use torture to extract information; rather, torture is used simply to break people who might pose a threat. Sometimes, it seems, governments use torture simply because they can. Faced with subjects harbouring dangerously independent thoughts, governments have almost limitless power to show them who's boss. Inflicting pain is simply the most direct method. This is the worldview expressed by the character O'Brien in George Orwell's 1984: 'The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.'

Contemporary Western societies are far removed from the brutalities of Orwell's Room 101 and James I's Tower of London. However, in recent years the possibility of torturing captured terrorists has been openly discussed. The usual context is the 'ticking bomb' scenario: if there were a time bomb in an unknown location, would it be justifiable to torture the terrorist who had planted it? This scenario is straightforward, but it is also highly unrealistic. In most cases, interrogators cannot know whether the terrorist they are torturing did plant the bomb, or even whether there is a bomb. Legitimising torture in 'ticking bomb' situations would unavoidably legitimise it much more broadly. History suggests that a blanket prohibition is more appropriate than allowing governments to decide if and when to use torture.

Top