Recently, our American Studies class has had many
discussions about torture-induced confessions. During a class discussion, Jon
Burge was mentioned and his story really shocked me. Famous for reportedly
torturing more than 200 criminal suspects, Jon Burge is a former Chicago Police Department commander and detective. Throughout
his career working for the Chicago Police Department, Burge tortured suspected
criminals by allegedly hitting, burning, and even slamming large objects, such
as a telephone books, onto their head. According to an article by Opposing
Viewpoints, each man under the supervision of Burge was, “subjected to racially
motivated physical abuse - including electric shock, mock execution,
suffocation with a plastic bag and beating - that caused him to inculpate himself
involuntarily in a crime". However, the men that accused Burge of torture were sent to jail and their claims were not looked in to by courts until recently. There has been recent new evidence showing that," torture and physical coercion was a routine and accepted occurrence under the command and supervision of Jon Burge. Now, after many years in prison, these men who claim Burge tortured them are finally getting their change to speak, and evidence shows that they may not have even committed the crimes they are accused of. I believe that using torture to pressure suspects into falsely confessing should never be allowed and people like Jon Burge should be punished for what they have done. I believe that it is not right for someone with an authoritative power, like Jon Burge as a police officer, to torture suspects into confessing. However, others believe that confessions, even if prompted by torture, is always just.
Do you think that torture-induced confessions be used in court, even if the result in untrue confessions? Why
or why not? Would you rather have guilty criminals walking free or innocent
people in jail? Why?
