Content area
Full text
The authors explain the prevalence of torture by modeling its institutional structure as a game of incomplete information involving the state, the torturer, and the victim. Once the state endorses torture as a mechanism for extracting information, its will is carried out with positive probability. This is because (a) even a "soft" and "sensitive" state agent might torture the victim to test his or her ability to resist and (b) a weak victim might hold out momentarily to find out whether the torturer is sensitive or "sadistic." When the state uses torture to intimidate political opposition, all types of torturers will behave sadistically. As a result, torture becomes more widespread and more cruel. The authors explain why a "culture" of individual resistance is the only effective solution to torture.
Emotions dominate the discussion of torture. The appalling practice of torture is contrary to the foundations of human dignity and naturally clouds judgment with anger. Finding solutions to seemingly intractable problems requires objective reasoning. This, unfortunately (if understandably), has been missing from the discourse on torture. When we achieve sufficient distance from the subject of torture, the reasons for which the practice has persisted for centuries reveal themselves. Torture can be a rational choice for both the endorsing state and the individual torturer. Even the most gentle torturer will choose to exert some amount of force to achieve a long- or shortterm goal such as extracting valuable information from a political opponent or intimidating a subversive population. Only with this dispassionate comprehension can we begin to propose solutions to torture.
Remedies are increasingly necessary due to the seeming permanence of the institution of torture. Despite Hugo's predictions 125 years ago that torture gradually would decline into oblivion with economic development and the spread of democratic ideals (quoted in Millett 1994, 16), a recent Amnesty International (1996) report concludes that 96 of the world's governments, including those of the United States and France, either practice or tolerate torture. In this report, Amnesty International dismisses the notion that the persistence of the practice can be traced to sadistic torturers acting on behalf of an oppressive government. Indeed, an individual torturer can be sadistic. But common sense dictates that this scenario does not compose the majority of incidents...