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?
This is a very controversial and interesting post. I agree that it is extremely unjust for people with authority to be able to torture people without consequences. Although a large majority of police officers and soldiers do extremely good things for our country, it needs to be recognized that there are a few out there, like Burge, that abuse their power.
ReplyDeleteI am completely against torture-induced confessions, largely because they are proven to often be false. It is ineffective and goes against the values our country stands for. In my opinion, it makes more sense for a few criminals to get away, rather than having a large amount of innocent civilians sitting in jail.
I completely agree with Tom. Torture in no means should be used to get confessions out of people because it is violating our civil liberties. Also, like what we talked about in class, the best way to get a confession is to form a relationship with the convict, not torturing them.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard for any morally sane human to say torture is justified. I agree that torture is wrong because of the comments above, however I'm going to play devil's advocate, and just SEE the other sides' point. Many believe that torture is justified only in extreme situations, for example: If they can save American lives then torture is justified. Professor of Law from Harvard, Alan Dershowitz says that "Everybody says they're opposed to torture. But everyone would do it personally if they knew it could save the life of a kidnapped child who had only two hours of oxygen left before death. And it would be the right thing to do." Furthermore, I can also see the argument made that terrorists have been torturing American troops for decades. This is a perilous time, as the War on Terror is still our number one threat to national security, so why play by different rules? Not saying these are what I believe in but those are some opposing views...
ReplyDelete