25 Jun World Attitudes Toward Torture
WorldPublicOpinion.org has released an interesting survey of world attitudes toward torture. Here is the summary of their findings:
A WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 19 nations finds that in 14 of them most people favor an unequivocal rule against torture, even in the case of terrorists who have information that could save innocent lives. Four nations lean toward favoring an exception in the case of terrorists.
However, large majorities in all 19 nations favor a general prohibition against torture. In all nations polled, the number saying that the government should generally be able to use torture is less than one in five.
On average across all nations polled, 57 percent opt for unequivocal rules against torture. Thirty-five percent favor an exception when innocent lives are at risk. Just 9 percent favor the government being able to use torture in general.
The four publics that favor an exception for terrorists when innocent lives are at risk include majorities in India (59%), Nigeria (54%), and Turkey (51%), and a plurality in Thailand (44%).
Support for the unequivocal position was highest in Spain (82%), Great Britain (82%) and France (82%), followed by Mexico (73%), China (66%), the Palestinian territories (66%), Poland (62%), Indonesia (61%), and the Ukraine (59%). In five countries either modest majorities or pluralities support a ban on all torture: Azerbaijan (54%), Egypt (54%), the United States (53%), Russia (49%), and Iran (43%). South Koreans are divided.
[snip]
The survey presented respondents with an argument in favor of allowing the torture of potential terrorists who threaten civilians: “Terrorists pose such an extreme threat that governments should now be allowed to use some degree of torture if it may gain information that would save innocent lives.” In fourteen nations, a majority or plurality rejected this argument in favor of the unequivocal view: “Clear rules against torture should be maintained because any use of torture is immoral and will weaken international human rights standards against torture.”
The executive director of the company sees the results as extremely encouraging, but I’m not so sure that his enthusiasm is warranted. Yes, the overall trends are positive. But it’s still a little unsettling that nearly 4 out of 10 people world-wide are willing to countenance torture in at least some circumstances, including 44% of Americans, and that nearly 2 out of 10 think it should be generally available to the government. (Who else do they want tortured? Shoplifters?) Even worse, the number of people who accept torture is generally on the rise:
Only India had even a modest plurality favoring an exception for terrorists in 2006. In the current survey three countries (India, Nigeria, and Turkey) have a majority supporting such exceptions, Thailand has a plurality and South Korea is divided.
Four countries included in both surveys show dramatic increases in support for allowing the torture of terrorists: India (from 32% to 59%), Nigeria (39% to 54%), Turkey (24% to 51%), and South Korea (31% to 51%). Substantial increases also occurred in Egypt (25% to 46%) and the United States (36% to 44%).
At the same time there have been equally dramatic increases among those favoring a complete ban on torture. Support has grown substantially in Mexico (rising from 50% to 73%), Spain (65% to 82%), China (49% to 66%), Indonesia (51% to 61%), Britain (72% to 82%), and Russia (43% to 49%).
On average, support for an exception has gone up six points while support for an unequivocal rule has gone up two points. Thus the net increase in favor of an exception is just four points.
As the summary notes, acceptance of torture is affected — unsurprisingly — by the distribution of terrorist attacks. Since the previous poll in 2006, three of the six countries in which acceptance has increased have experienced terrorist attacks (India, Turkey, South Korea) and four of the six in which it has decreased have not (Spain, Britain, Indonesia, and Russia).
Time for a quote from Martin Luther King, Jr. from his sermon “But For”
“Some of you are afraid that you may lose your job, or that they will stab you, shoot at you or bomb your house. But I tell you that you may go on and live until you are 90 but your just as dead as 38 as you would be at 90. For the sensation of breathing is but the belated announcement of an earlier death, for you died the day you refused to stand up for justice you died the day you refused to stand up for truth, you died the day you refused to stand up for righteousness.” –Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. But For
A great many dead people still breathing in too many countries.
Best,
Ben
Ya.
Of course the question presumes that it may or will “save innocent lives”.
If I was law prof, that might seem a topic for a paper…
The meaning of “innocence”, the status of an “innocent life,” and the standards for lawfully determining the most effecient methods of saving them by torturing other lives adjuged as somewhat less than innocent.
Do you suppose Prof. Dershowitz (et al) have gotten that far in the calculations?
It could be an interdisciplanry thing, with a philosopher, a cognitive scientist, and a lawyer sorting through the pragmatics, and a theologian batting clean-up to deal with any messy problems of original sin and such. Come to think of it, maybe a psychiatrist should be included.
Those in the West, generally speaking, have a comfortable life and a reasonably high standard of living. Accordingly, torture has a terrible ring to it. In some countries, the standard of life is so bad, due to civil war or the prevalence of disease, no clean drinking water and inadequate food, that torture doesn’t seem so bad. Everything is relative. Perhaps this explains some of the results.
Are you sure South Korea has experienced a terrorist attack since 2006? I don’t recall any…there have been some violent demonstrations (some against US beef, and a pro-Chinese olympic rally or two).
Speaking of torture, I notice that David Addington has now left Prof. Organ-Failure-or-Death to swing alone. Perhaps Addington hopes to be able to travel internationally in the future without fear of arrest (and not just to India, Nigeria or Turkey).
Could this abandonment by the V.P.’s office make Yoo more likely to work a deal? It’s tough to say. Which is worse, or more embarrassing, that you authored torture memos (of poor legal quality even) all by yourself and are solely to blame, or that you were so eager to please that you abandoned your oath and responsibility and simply signed off on shoddy, evil memos that someone else ghostwrote? It’s a tough call. But this does indicate that they are no longer ‘all hang[ing] together[.]’
The Professor is such a key actor in this that it may be difficult to justify a deal with him in order to obtain testimony against others. It all depends on the testimony, but his may becoming less and less credible as the days pass, even as he remains one of the easiest of the bunch to implicate.
How interesting that South Korea and China vary widely.
No survey of Japan, though?