Should torture ever be used to obtain confessions?

Translation: quotations from Cesare Beccaria are quoted in the anonymous 1767 English translation (London; Albany 1872 edition), not his original words.

1. WHAT HE SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• BELIEF (undated; quoted in the anonymous 1767 English translation (London; Albany 1872 edition)): Cesare Beccaria believed that torture should not be used to obtain confessions. He argued that in crimes of difficult proof, such as adultery and sodomy, presumptions and half-proofs are wrongly admitted, and that torture should not be exercised on the accused or their family. "It is in these cases that torture should exercise its cruel power on the person of the accused, the witnesses, and even his whole family, as, with unfeeling indifference, some civilians have taught, who pretend to dictate laws to nations." [1]
• BELIEF (undated; quoted in the anonymous 1767 English translation (London; Albany 1872 edition)): Cesare Beccaria believed that torture should never be used to obtain confessions, as it is inherently unjust and leads to the conviction of the innocent or the acquittal of the guilty based on physical endurance rather than truth. He argued that the use of torture violates natural rights and creates an arbitrary system of justice. (key quote above) [2]
• BELIEF (undated; quoted in the anonymous 1767 English translation (London; Albany 1872 edition)): Cesare Beccaria believed that torture should not be used to obtain confessions, arguing that it is an unreliable method for discovering truth and is inconsistent with the principles of justice and human dignity. (key quote above) [3]
• BELIEF (undated; quoted in the anonymous 1767 English translation (London; Albany 1872 edition)): Cesare Beccaria believed that torture should not be used to obtain confessions because it is a form of suggestive interrogation and is contradictory to the laws that forbid suggestive interrogations. He argues that torture is more suggestive than any direct question and can lead to false confessions. "Can there be an interrogation more suggestive than pain? Torture will suggest to a robust villain an obstinate silence, that he may exchange a greater punishment for a less; and to a feeble man confession, to relieve him from the present pain, which affects him more than the apprehension of the future." [4]
• BELIEF (undated; quoted in the anonymous 1767 English translation (London; Albany 1872 edition)): The passage shows that the author believes torture should never be used to obtain confessions. The author argues that it is inhumane, unnecessary, and that its use is a remnant of barbarism. The author also points out that nations which have abolished torture have not seen an increase in crime and have become more enlightened and flourishing as a result. "If there were but one nation in the world which had abolished the use of torture; if in that nation crimes were no more frequent than in others; and if that nation be more enlightened and more flourishing since the abolition, its example surely were sufficient for the rest of the world." [5]
• BELIEF (undated; quoted in the anonymous 1767 English translation (London; Albany 1872 edition)): Cesare Beccaria believed that tortures and torments are not consistent with justice and do not answer the end proposed by the laws. He questioned their use in the context of preventing crimes and obtaining confessions. "Are tortures and torments consistent with justice, or do they answer the end proposed by the laws?" [6]
• BELIEF (undated; quoted in the anonymous 1767 English translation (London; Albany 1872 edition)): The passage shows that the author believes torture should not be used to obtain confessions, as it is described as a severe and unjust practice that causes lasting harm to the innocent and lacks compassion. This belief is grounded in the contrast between French and English legal systems and the argument that severity is unnecessary for discovering crimes. "In France, on the contrary, an innocent person, who has had the misfortune to be thrown into a dungeon and tortured almost to death, has no consolation, no damages to hope for, no action against any one; and to add to his misfortune, he has for ever lost his reputation." [7]
• BELIEF (undated; quoted in the anonymous 1767 English translation (London; Albany 1872 edition)): Cesare Beccaria believed that torture should not be used to obtain confessions because it undermines the fairness of the judicial process and is not a reliable method for determining guilt. He argued that a confession obtained through torture is treated as a convincing proof, while an extra-judicial confession is not sufficient for condemnation, highlighting the problematic nature of using torture. "Confession, then, is allowed to be a convincing proof, especially when obtained by the force of torture; at the same time that an extra-judicial confession, when a man is at case and under no apprehension, is not sufficient for his condemnation." [8]

What cuts against it

• BELIEF (undated; quoted in the anonymous 1767 English translation (London; Albany 1872 edition)): Cesare Beccaria believed that in the most atrocious crimes, the slightest conjectures are sufficient for conviction, and that the judge is allowed to exceed the limits of the law. "In the most atrocious crimes the slightest conjectures are sufficient, and the judge is allowed to exceed the limits of the law." [9]

2. HOW IT APPLIES (reasoning; inference is marked)

1. Cesare Beccaria argued that torture is inherently unjust and leads to the conviction of the innocent or the acquittal of the guilty based on physical endurance rather than truth. [2]

2. He believed that the use of torture violates natural rights and creates an arbitrary system of justice. [2]

3. Cesare Beccaria argued that torture is an unreliable method for discovering truth and is inconsistent with the principles of justice and human dignity. [3]

4. He also questioned the justice of tormenting one person for the crime of another. [10]

5. Cesare Beccaria believed that torture should never be used to obtain confessions, as it is a cruelty and an ineffective method, as it can lead to the condemnation of the innocent and the escape of the guilty. [11]

3. HIS TAKE

Record coverage: DIRECT

Cesare Beccaria addressed the question of whether torture should be used to obtain confessions directly in his work. He argued against its use on multiple grounds, including its injustice, its unreliability in discovering truth, and its inconsistency with the principles of justice and human dignity. He also pointed out that nations which have abolished torture have not seen an increase in crime and have become more enlightened and flourishing as a result. [5]

Extrapolation: Cesare Beccaria would oppose the use of torture to obtain confessions, arguing that it is an unjust and unreliable method that leads to the conviction of the innocent and the acquittal of the guilty based on physical endurance rather than truth. He would also argue that it violates natural rights and creates an arbitrary system of justice.

Competing readings: There is no direct evidence in the record that Cesare Beccaria supported the use of torture to obtain confessions. The record shows a consistent opposition to its use.

Confidence: High, based on the direct and consistent opposition to the use of torture in the record.