Prison as a Torturous Institution

Abstract

Philosophers working on torture have largely failed to address the widespread use of torture in the U.S. prison system. Drawing on a victim-focused definition of torture, I argue that the U.S. prison system is a torturous institution in which direct torture occurs (the use of solitary confinement) and in which torture is allowed to occur through the toleration of sexual assault of inmates and the conditions of mass incarceration. The use and toleration of torture expresses and reinforces the moral exclusion of those subjected to it, particularly African Americans. Importantly, this moral exclusion and the experience of torture may be created and reinforced through institutional practices independently of the intentions of individuals acting within those institutions. By prioritizing torture victims' experiences and severing the link between torture and intention, my account forces a recognition that, far from being inconsistent with U.S. values, torture is deeply embedded within U.S. institutions.The torture debate in philosophy has focused almost exclusively on the use of torture in the context of terrorism. Authors defending the possibility of justified torture, such as Jeff McMahan (2018), Fritz Allhof (2012, and Uwe Steinhoff (2013), often make use of hypothetical cases such as 'ticking bomb' scenarios to defend the view that torture could in rare cases be justified. Other authors have critiqued the use of these hypotheticals for being unrealistic, misleading, and irrelevant to the realities of torture. 1 This back-and-forth between defenders of torture in ticking bomb cases and critics of such cases has effectively defined the contours of the torture debate in America since 9/11. This debate is characterized by an individualized narrative of torture that renders torture simultaneously hypervisible by asking us to consider whether torturing this person (whether real or hypothetical) is permissible yet makes the reality and true scope of torture invisible.

Inside Out and Think Tank Participation in Australia: Can Engaging with Lived Experience of Incarceration Promote Desistance?

“…In contrast to this, both Inside Out and Think Tanks are voluntary programs that members are not obligated to partake in or attend. This voluntary nature supports self-determination as it allows for environments in which the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness can be nurtured (Ryan & Deci, 2017;2020). This can be seen in how members lead discussions, propose relevant solutions and strategies, and actively participate in the development of the projects, all of which demonstrate an 'autonomous motivation approach' (Ryan & Deci, 2017;2020).…”

“…Additionally, the institutionalisation of prison and the harsh experiences of stigma faced by previously incarcerated people re-entering the community often make secondary and tertiary desistance a difficult prospect (Feingold, 2021;Haney, 2002;Moran, 2012;Reed, 2015). Research also indicates prison environments, which can utilise extreme, 'torturous' measures to ensure compliance and supposed safety (Wolfendale, 2020), are actively counterproductive to the establishment of positive selfconcept (Feingold, 2021;Kamoyo, 2018;Umamaheswar, 2021), likely impeding individuals further on their journey toward prosocial identity development and community belonging.…”

“…This voluntary nature supports self-determination as it allows for environments in which the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness can be nurtured (Ryan & Deci, 2017;2020). This can be seen in how members lead discussions, propose relevant solutions and strategies, and actively participate in the development of the projects, all of which demonstrate an 'autonomous motivation approach' (Ryan & Deci, 2017;2020). Through promoting self-determination, this engagement can enable incarcerated members to re-establish a sense of self-efficacy, as well as remind them of their potential for prosocial contribution and foster hope for a future in social justice advocacy.…”

Not Justice: Prison as a Moral Failure

“… See Miller (2005) for example.4 But seeWolfendale (2020) for an exception.5 One might think there is another argument that puts prison morally ahead of torture: torture is necessarily degrading, but prison could be humane, at least in principle. I am not making that argument for two reasons.…”