After the 9/11 terrorist attack on the U.S, the criminal justice system in the country changed its tactics in dealing with cases of terrorism, including the process of questioning people who have been suspected of being involved in terrorist activities. The adoption of new techniques has caused some debates among different stakeholders who have reservations about the techniques following the set ethical principles and standards. Among such methods of questioning that stakeholders in different departments, like human rights activists, members of the public, and scholars in the criminal justice system, have debated about is the use of torture, where the suspects are subjected to pain in order to give important information. Apart from being tortured, the investigators can also use manipulative measures to get the suspect to confess to their involvement in terrorist activities. The officers and, specifically, investigators rely on such techniques that do not adhere to ethical principles for their practice to make America look strong since it paints a picture that the safety and security of citizens are prioritized. The paper discusses the new ethical dilemmas that are used by officers in the criminal justice system regarding the methods utilized to question people suspected of being involved in terrorist activities and those who are confirmed to be terrorists, particularly torture. I will also offer my view of the issue and discuss the way the identified ethical dilemmas impact the criminal justice system in the U.S.
In an effort to ensure the safety and security of U.S citizens after the 9/11 attack, the federal government made steps to get terrorism suspects to share more about their activities to help them take necessary actions. The government introduced enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs), which included depriving suspects of their sleep, forced grooming, being forced to undress, abusing them physically, and waterboarding, which many people termed as being purely torturous. The government defended the use of such techniques by its investigators from different law enforcement agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Central Investigation Agency (CIA), citing that they were good for making the suspects talk more, hence enabling them to take countermeasures to prevent terrorist attacks. Investigators for these organizations have indicated that such techniques are effective in having people suspected to be terrorists confess their involvement in terrorist activities. People on the opposing side of the use of such questioning methods argue that even if the methods have been proven to have high efficacy levels in getting crucial leads from suspects, they are a violation of the individual rights of the suspects and are also inhumane.
Among the ethical issues arising from the use of torture when questioning terrorist suspects is human rights violation. The U.S is one of the stakeholders in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has banned the reliance on manipulative techniques like torture on human beings. Under the covenant, individuals are accorded the freedom to be treated in a humane way and not to be subjected to mistreatment or punishment, and the right to be regarded as innocent until they have been proven to be guilty through legally accepted ways (Council of Europe Portal, n.d.). Following the protections that individuals are accorded in the covenant, police officers questioning terrorist suspects using torture and other coercive techniques may regarded as breaking of international law and an act that violates the rights of human beings. Professionals in the U.S criminal justice system have the right to adhere to the stipulations of international law and resort to legally and ethically accepted methods for obtaining information from terrorist suspects, hence avoiding violating their rights to proper treatment and living freely as citizens.
Another ethical issue arising from the use of torture to obtain necessary information from terrorist suspects is how reliable and valid is the information obtained through such coercive and manipulative methods. The main reason for questioning suspects and people known to be terrorists is to have them share with the officers the plans and activities that the terrorist groups may be planning, which enables the government to take necessary measures to curb them and have the masterminds of the attacks brought to justice. In contrast, when interrogators rely on torture to get the suspects and offenders talking, it might cause them to confess to engaging in criminal activities even if they have not been involved in fear of the pain resulting from the torturous means of interrogation. These false confessions can prove to be stumbling blocks for the government and law enforcement agencies’ efforts in ensuring the safety and security of the citizens and also having the offenders brought to justice. That is because a terrorist suspect can falsely confess to being involved in terrorism due to fear of the pain, which leads to them being falsely convicted; hence, the main masterminds of terrorist activities are not arrested. Topalian (2016) argues that it is essential for officers questioning suspects to rely on techniques whose validity and reliability are confirmed and the ones that align with the set forensic criteria. Torture deviates from such elements since it leads to disinformation and false confessions.
Furthermore, when officers rely on torture as the main method of getting crucial information from terrorist suspects, it may lead to the reputation of the criminal justice system being damaged. The criminal justice system is tasked with ensuring that the rule of law is upheld and the right procedures in delivering justice are followed. The U.S. is a country that respects democracy, but the use of manipulative techniques to question suspects differs from that since it involves the use of authoritarian styles of leadership by officers. The reputation of the criminal justice system is damaged since community members will have lower trust levels in law enforcement agencies since they may see them as manipulative and authoritative rather than being focused on respecting human rights and liberty. As a result, the community members will not be willing to cooperate with law enforcement officers in the fight against terrorism, which hinders the government’s efforts in safeguarding its borders and citizens against terrorist attacks. Such elements necessitate the criminal justice system to be integral in its practices, particularly when questioning terrorist suspects and already confirmed terrorism masterminds. The use of torture and other coercive methods for obtaining information from suspects is a deviation from the integrity and respect for the rights of individuals, which the U.S respects and upholds. As argued by St-Yves & Meissner (2014), the use of torturous means for interrogating individuals is a direct infringement on the main values that the U.S is built on. The U.S is strongly committed to ensuring that the laws as stipulated in the U.S Constitution are followed by all individuals. Therefore, law enforcement agencies must lead by example and cease using such techniques at all costs. President Obama set an example by issuing a directive for all law enforcement agencies to stop relying on manipulative and torturous techniques to obtain from terrorism suspects (Human Rights Watch, 2011).
Personally, I have witnessed the effects of officers using torture as a means of making terrorist suspects confess to being involved in terrorist activities. There was a time when a relative was arrested on suspicion that he was communicating with an individual on police officers’ radar. Even if he was not communicating with said person, he had to confess to it to avoid being tortured further, which led to his being incarcerated. That made us lose trust in the criminal justice system, ranging from the police departments to the courts. Our views of the criminal justice system now are that it is a corrupt and ineffective system that does not conduct proper investigations to get to the bottom line of cases but rushes its processes in a bid to get approval from the public as being effective in ensuring their security.
To conclude, the use of torture by officers to question terrorism suspects proves to be ill-informed since it deviates from the principles of the criminal justice system and those of America as a country that is democratic. It also violates the rights of the individuals on whom such techniques are being used. The criminal justice system needs to cease using such methods when questioning suspects and start following the principle of integrity on which it is founded.
References
Council of Europe Portal, (n.d.). Compass: Manual for human rights education with young people. Link: https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/the-international-covenant-on-civil-and-political-rights#:~:text=This%20Covenant%20was%20adopted%20by,Universal%20Declaration%20of%20Human%20Rights.
Human Rights Watch, (2011). Getting away with torture: The Bush administration and mistreatment of detainees. Link: https://www.hrw.org/report/2011/07/12/getting-away-torture/bush-administration-and-mistreatment-detainees
St-Yves, M., & Meissner, C. A. (2014). Interviewing suspects. Investigative interviewing: The essentials, 145–190.
Topalian, P. C. (2016). Tradecraft primer: A framework for aspiring interrogators. CRS Press, Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN-13: 9781498751148.
write