You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
I assume you want the suffering to be an "equal" to the crime committed, by suggesting torture.
but what if the criminal is a masochist?
In those extremely rare instances, we can make an exception.
Besides being outlawed under international law, torture contributes nothing to rehabilitation efforts (attempting to make prisoners less liable to commit crimes is arguably the entire purpose of the correctional system, to correct) and is widely viewed as unethical.
Any torture could lead a person into insanity and could cause them to commit another crime.
Even though they are criminals, they are human too.
This is assuming rehabilitation is the goal. If the goal is deterrence or justice, selective use of torture in clear cases of wrongdoing makes sense.
Torturing someone falsely found guilty is in no way just.
Using it in rare cases where the crime is both heinous and the suspect is clearly guilty, it can be just. After all imprisoning or executing wrongly convicted people is also unjust.
Any form of punishment for innocents is unjust, but even criminals have human rights, and there is no scenario in which the state has the right to violate those rights.
Freedom from detention is a human right. Freedom of speech is a human right. Freedom of movement is a human right. And yet we limit and deprive criminals of those rights because they forfeited them when they committed the crime.
our justice system has imperfections that allow for innocent people to be subject to punishment, and torture of an innocent person is an injustice in itself
The United States Constitution forbids the use of cruel and unusual punishment; it is likely that torture was the specific target of this clause.
In some clear-cut cases, egregious wrongdoing deserves comparable punishment. Also harsher punishments deter crime (both reasons are why we punish rape worse than shoplifting).
If a person is mistakenly found innocent, the price they must pay is higher and therefore less fair.