Peterkin

All copacetic here, mate!

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

You could say so. It didn't solve the problem of Guantanamo. No-one has.  

Was that justified?

How do you mean? The OP question was torture of prisoners in detention as used by law-enforcement as punishment or deterrent to criminals.

Guantanamo - to the best of my information - is a place of detention and torture. It has also been a contentious issue in the US for two decades. It seemed relevant in the context. The matters of forgiveness and peace, or revenge, or punishment, go no way at all toward resolving that problem. Your answer hasn't helped; my answer hasn't helped, Beecee's answer hasn't helped. 

I conclude that whatever we, even all three put together, understand about justice cannot solve such a problem.  And it's not a unique problem, globally. 

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So, your version of justice is roughly the same as mine and beecee?

I don't think so. I have no idea what your version of justice is. I have some idea of Beecee's and disagree with at least some of it. However, I didn't articulate "my version" of justice. I don't have a comprehensive, universal philosophy of justice - only examples of how some societies have handled some aspects of it, well or badly.   I answered the question about torture-as-justice in the negative on Page 1; since then, all I've done was respond to various comments, on and off topic. 

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Didn't I address that on page one?

You could say so. It didn't solve the problem of Guantanamo. No-one has.  

7 hours ago, beecee said:

The debate in actual fact has come down to what you wrongly claim  is torture.

Oh well, I've tried my best. Carry on!

1 hour ago, beecee said:

The question was in regards to physical torture as dished out by criminals and other dysfunctional aspects of society. Again you seem to want to pick and chose what suits your own agenda.

I read the OP question as:

Quote

I am wondering what do you think about physical torture being used on criminals.

on criminals, not by criminals.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

All we can do is go on the evidence. Or again, are you suggesting we throw open all the prison doors? Plus of course any innocent person released after been deemed innocent, should certainly be compensated for such injustices.

There are many instances of miscarriage of justice when "we" didn't go by the evidence. However, as previously stated, I'm prepared to discuss the efficacy of the prison system at some other time. Some wrongfully convicted prisoners are compensated... well, that is to say, given some money, in lieu of what-all has been taken from them. Some are executed, some are abused by guards and/or other inmates; some have their appeal denied.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Again all you are doing is refusing to discuss anything that happens to put a hole in your agenda

It's not my agenda; it's Alex Mercer's. If you want to start a thread on any of those other subjects, please do. Then I will abide by your agenda.

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Well then why not discuss "physical torture" as dished out by certified, dangerous criminals, rednecks and other street rabble? 

Because that wasn't the question and i don't have the answer.

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

o some degree?☺️ You trip the light fanatstic very well.

Sorry I can't devise a simple blanket solution to a hugely complicated, multi-faceted problem.

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

And no I don't want them tortured and you are being dishonest in saying that.

I'm asking how your bringing up these examples relates to the topic.

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

Not really, simply a fact that I am not aware of anyone innocent and in prison, and the examples you give are also obviously the exceptions rather then the rule,

Sure, what's a few thousand here or there, as long as it's a minority?

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

But just a passing thought...why only put in the first sentence of what I said

Because that's the information I proceeded to provide.

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

Do you think that is honest? or smart?

I honestly thought it was the relevant bit and didn't want to clutter up the post with repetition. I don't know about smart. 

13 minutes ago, beecee said:

I also fully support the harder line now taken on prisoners applying for parole after the violent rape and torture of a little girl by a prisoner on parole...you know, the one you don't want to talk about.

Criminal justice, prison sentences, rehabilitation, reform and paroles are all very interesting topics and I'm happy to talk about them - in the appropriate venue. Particular cases, I'm always reluctant to talk about in the absence of an opportunity (or, frankly, inclination) to study them in depth.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Why not simply admit that there is evil and wrong doing on both sides of the fence, just as I have done since I started to take an interest in this thread?

Probably because it wasn't a question about a fence. There is plenty of wrongdoing all over the place, but acknowledging that doesn't express my "thoughts on physical torture".

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Why not? [discuss the cases you cited]

For the reasons I've already given.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

So you agree then that society does also need to incarcerate and in some cases throw away the key for the incorridgables in society, along with those in authority that practise evil.

To some degree and with reservations and conditions. But that's not the issue under consideration.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I'm detailing acts of cruelty and torture that you seem to find uninteresting. 

Not uninteresting - distasteful and unhelpful. If you want those boys tortured, say why. If you think torture will reform them, explain how. 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I'm not actually aware of anyone that is innocent and in prison,

And that is a pity.

https://www.nealdavislaw.com/criminal-defense-guides/exonerations-by-state-2019.html

https://www.law.ac.uk/about/press-releases/wrongful-convictions/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011128719833355

https://www.thelocal.it/20160425/7000-italians-are-unjustly-imprisoned-each-year/

That's just a sample of the countries we tend to think of having sound criminal justice systems. It doesn't take into account all the theocracies and autocracies that still imprison  people for having the wrong sexual orientation or speaking up against the government or belonging to an ethnic minority.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

I am luckier and have in general always lived in a reasonably free and democratic society,

And if you want to keep it that way, I would advise you not to support giving more leeway and power to the police than they need to carry out their constitutional duties - so that abuse of power remains an exception, rather than the rule. 

What I said, in an addendum to the comment regarding beating of prisoners, not yet convicted of any crime, by Italian police, was:

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The police there, as elsewhere, don't always make the distinctions you make between citizens in custody. In any case, once subdued, handcuffed and caged, neither the innocent protestor nor the violent criminal is dangerous to their captors. 

46 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yet you apparently do not find it serious enough to comment on?

Not those particular cases, no, other than to reiterate that I have insufficient information on the particulars. Nor your position, either, since you have elaborated more than adequately. In addressing the OP question, I prefer to concentrate on statistics rather than hand-picked crimes.

51 minutes ago, beecee said:

We are talking about the 40 minute rape and torture of a little girl by a low life scumbag that some do gooders let out on parole?

You are. I'm not.

52 minutes ago, beecee said:

Some themselves are criminals and evil, but that goes with any section of authority in our society. Those are the ones that need to be weeded out along with our crook politicians.

Agreed.

53 minutes ago, beecee said:

You seem overly critical of them,[the police]  commenting only on the evil section of authority and yet ignoring the evil nature of some in general society. 

Trying to stay on topic. The question was: should torture be part of the punishment for incarcerated persons? (I know the question was regarding "criminals" but I'm acutely aware that not everyone in prison is a criminal.) I am certainly critical of persons in authority abusing it and terrified of persons in authority, with the power to abuse it, being given legal permission to do so. I've lived in a police state and have no desire to repeat the experience. 

demolished to make room for improved version

57 minutes ago, beecee said:

On many occasions, as per the law breaking, march in Sydney by a bunch of rednecks, they are far from being "innocent protestors" and nothing more then agenda fueled criminals practicing their brand of violence and torture.

Only, I wasn't referring to them, but to all arrestees, anywhere in the world. Subdued, handcuffed, caged prisoners - however you characterize them - pose no physical threat to their captors and therefore beating them is not justifiable police procedure.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Incidently if I didn't mention it before, the Police and authorities have received more than 6000 calls from concerned citizens, "dobbing in" some of these criminals as they are recognised from TV screens, and arrests still being made.  

You did.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

In case I havn't made my position clear, again my definition of torture is as follows, including a harrowing account of a little girl being tortured for 45 minutes by a low life criminal, that a group of people pushing reform and such, decided to let out on parole.......Thankfully, he has now been given a life sentence.

You have.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

My definition of physical torture, being the act of inflicting severe physical or mental pain on a person.

In this, you align with the UN committee.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

The next considerations ought to be, to what extent does corporal punishment, state sanctioned deprivation of freedom for a misdemeanor or crime, or parental policing of children, constitute physical torture?

This is a question that courts and legislatures all over the world must grapple with every day - which doesn't reflect all that favourably on our modern civilization.  No final, definitive, comprehensive answer can be given, even in theory, since the circumstances and particulars vary so greatly that only an intimate case-by-case examination could produce even the most fragmented remedy. I see no profit in chewing over the most sensational ones in giant font.

4 hours ago, beecee said:

The link wasn't working first time round. What I'm talking about is the criminal act you referred to of prison officers and/or  police, bashing inmates? 100% wrong!!

It's in the Guardian article I linked. https://www.wantedinrome.com/news/italy-shock-video-of-violence-against-prisoners.html Whether this beating of one by many rises from the definition of assault to the definition of torture depends on how often it's repeated. Each legal code has its level of tolerance for police violence. (Unless they're secret police, in which case they have an all-season license.)

The police there, as elsewhere, don't always make the distinctions you make between citizens in custody. In any case, once subdued, handcuffed and caged, neither the innocent protestor nor the violent criminal is dangerous to their captors. 

6 hours ago, MigL said:

Do you realize how broad this definition is ?

Yes.

6 hours ago, MigL said:

Doesn't incarceration cause mental suffering ?

Sure, but that's not counted, because they put in a clause allowing for conventional methods of punishment. Torture is considered cruel treatment in addition to the usual.

6 hours ago, MigL said:

Doesn't shift-work cause mental and physical suffering ( sleep deprivation ) ?

Are prisoners forced to do shift work? In that case, it's probably considered part of the usual punishment.

7 hours ago, MigL said:

Isn't loud music/noise a form of torture ?

Yes, it's very often used by interrogators as part of the sleep-deprivation routine.

7 hours ago, MigL said:

I can pull as many examples out of my ass as you want,

So can the Mukhabarat, which is why no legal definitions lists all the methods and degrees of cruel treatment that constitute torture.

7 hours ago, MigL said:

but unless we are all talking about the same thing, discussion is futile.

I concur.

28 minutes ago, MigL said:

So people who want a definition of torture 'get off on hurting other people' ???

That's the wrong way around. There are dozens of definitions ready to hand, in legal codes and international conventions regarding the conduct of war.  I was the second poster on this thread to cite one of these definitions; most civilized nations have enshrined some form of it in their constitutions. I mentioned that these definitions are necessarily incomplete, since the drafters of the documents can never imagine as many ways of inflicting suffering as torturers can invent. These earnest attempts at definition were made by people who wanted to outlaw torture. People who want to employ torture, or who want the definition to remain vague so that at least some of their methods are accepted into legal procedure, raise objections - often in courts - or cite exceptions or won't agree on the degree of suffering required to meet the standard. 

54 minutes ago, MigL said:

But those who agree with your unstated definition are saints who wouldn't hurt anyone ?

Not mine, the UN's, in this case, and it's stated, but not comprehensive. 

Quote

For the purpose of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person

Whether its drafters would hurt anyone, I have no way of knowing; as an atheist, I certainly wouldn't beatify them.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

we still have no definition of torture.

We have as many as we want. Google it. Every civilized country has a clause in its constitution, bill of rights, criminal code, or all three, forbidding torture and providing a legal definition. (Slaps on wrists not mentioned in any i sampled). Within that framework, the courts have to determine whether the specific case it's hearing meets the criteria. Courts vary in their application of both definitions and standards.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Anyone that spits at another person, particularly in the present crisis [which you appear to want to ignore] deserves the full wrath of the law, or private citizen. The only real dysfunctional action was from the woman concerned.

I'm not ignoring the pandemic - if that's what you mean by "present crisis" - I'm aware that the incidents I mentioned are due to the frustration caused disease-control restrictions, which store clerks are expected to enforce. It makes everyone edgy and it makes some people crazy. I have no idea what the spitting woman's problem was, but if that were the only dysfunction in your society, you'd be a shining beacon to the whole world.  

1 hour ago, beecee said:

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

So.... should the spitting woman be beaten and raped in prison, or what?

Don't be silly.

Attempting to get back on topic is all.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Then again perhaps it is more concerned with the level of crime...perhaps US police and Minneapolis Police in particular are more likely to be the victim themselves, and is why the gun is there first option.

59 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No, it's nothing to do with crime against police. Shooting a fleeing teenager in the back does not qualify as self-defence. Sometimes suspects, people being evicted from their homes, armed robbers and other people the police are trying to arrest do shoot back, but there are very few unprovoked attacks on police.

46 minutes ago, beecee said:

So why would you raise it?

I didn't. 

48 minutes ago, beecee said:

Are you denying that crimes against police do not exist?

I linked the FBI statistics.

50 minutes ago, beecee said:

Of course it is life threatening! in the current situation.

Perhaps police should wear their face-shields, which they usually have, unlike grocery clerks, who are spat on, cursed, rammed by shopping carts and occasionally chased with cars - by sane, sober, impatient customers - and nobody gives them guns or permission to throw those customers to the ground. Oh yes, some people in dysfunctional societies sometimes behave in destructive and bizarre ways. Some of the police sometimes included.

So.... should the spitting woman be beaten and raped in prison, or what?

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Then again perhaps it is more concerned with the level of crime...perhaps US police and Minneapolis Police in particular are more likely to be the victim themselves, and is why the gun is there first option. Thankfully, that situation generally does not exist in Australia.

No, it's nothing to do with crime against police. Shooting a fleeing teenager in the back does not qualify as self-defence. Sometimes suspects, people being evicted from their homes, armed robbers and other people the police are trying to arrest do shoot back, but there are very few unprovoked attacks on police. There are very many shootings of suspects and rough handling of subdued prisoners by police, who tend to be far better armed.

Spitting isn't nice, but neither is it life-threatening. He was just angry. Anyone would be angry, but law-enforcement officers are supposed to keep their cool and not lash out like provoked six-year-olds. They often have to deal with people who are emotionally unstable, mentally ill, desperate, inebriated or drugged and not in control of themselves.  

It's not about crime at all. It's about the culture of police forces and the social climate of the communities they police. Giving them more leeway to use force against the citizenry is rarely a constructive solution to crime. 

Some posts on this thread are ambiguous, lacking the courage of their author's convictions -  and not necessarily on topic. 

36 minutes ago, Neuron said:

It's unlawful if you slap your child too often without need, slap a prisoner once, or slap a prisoner every day. Whether it's torture or not I don't know.

The lines between legal and illegal, acceptable and unacceptable, punishment and torture (for that matter, enhanced interrogation and torture) may be so fine that people who get off on hurting other people, or believe hurting other people will accomplish desirable outcomes, can quibble over them all century. People who prefer to avoid hurting other people have no such difficulty figuring out what the word means.

Beating children was never a good idea. Even a slap on the cheek or buttocks that doesn't cause much physical pain can cause shame far out of proportion to the infraction it's intended to correct. A slap on the wrist, arm, leg or back of the head is less humiliating. Much worse than any of these mild physical reprimands is the underlying assumption: "They're dumb animals; hitting is all they understand."  You think children don't get that? And resent it? And learn to imitate it? Dogs and horses resent it and learn it. Corporal punishment is nowhere near as effective a teaching tool as understanding how the student's mind works.  

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

What threats do you understand at two years of age, other than disconfort/pain ?
Please give an example.

At that age, he was afraid of fireworks, so when he tried to play with electrical outlets, she told him it would explode; every time he needed reminding, she (or I) would say "Boom!!" He'd been sickly baby, so he was afraid of needles and hospitals. When he tried to put bad things in his mouth, my mother would say, "If you get sick, we'll have to take you to the hospital." Her threats were never fantastical, but were always tailored to the mind of the child and the situation. 

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

If you smacked a prisoner's hand every day, for the period of his incarceration, would that be torture ?

That also depends on the circumstances, but it would probably escape the legal definition - like many psychological abuses prison guards and police get away with every day.  I can see that 18-year-old joy-rider who had his hand smacked every morning, to the amusement of his hardened armed robber cell-mate reforming after his two year stretch - becoming a law abiding alcoholic recluse.   

5 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I really hope we can get a fairly objective, and agreed upon, definition of torture before we start calling conscientious parents torturers!  LoL!

Quote

any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person

From the International Justice Research Center article, which also says

Quote

Determining whether certain treatment rises to the level of ‘torture’ can be a challenge and will depend on which legal instrument applies, based on which treaties, if any, the State in question has ratified and whether the victim or advocate is engaging with the United Nations system or a regional human rights system.

It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to list every possible way people can torture one another ... If humans put the half the ingenuity they use for the invention of devices to kill, maim, hurt and damage others into crime-prevention, we probably wouldn't have any crime.

20 minutes ago, Neuron said:

Don't worry, you missed nothing. Just one of the many beating of prisoners that rarely (according to police) or often (according to every other evidence) happen.

Do you happen to know how the video was made? Sight unseen, I'll guess it was done secretly and the person who made it was taking a risk. And it was probably illegal, so if that person is caught and convicted, he'll suffer a most unenviable fate. Not sure we can categorize that as Justice.

This might work.

12 hours ago, beecee said:

Can any excuse be made for what they did? An account here of there upbringing....

How should i know? I'm not familiar with any of the people involved. Nor am i in the business of making excuses. I do try, however, to look at each case on its own merits, rather than lump all Americans (as many as 3% of the population) who are, or have at some time been, incarcerated into the word "criminal".

I asked how prevalent is the crime you cited (to the exclusion of all the burglaries, embezzlement, shoplifting and car theft) for the same reason: before applying any judgement derived from that case to "criminals" generally, we need to know how broadly it applies. My guess is, it tells us very little about lawbreaking and criminilatity in the UK.

12 hours ago, beecee said:

Another question I will ask you [I raised and commented on earlier]...which would be worse, a state endorsed execution or life imprisoment?

That would depend on a number of factors:

1. Perspective - "worse" for whom, in what way?

2. The nature of the crime.

3. The soundness of investigative and legal process.

4. The state of mind of the perpetrator.

5. The nature of the prison.

6. The method of execution being considered.

12 hours ago, beecee said:

In summing up, I hate bullies.

noted. I hope you never become a prison warden.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Seems Peterkin wants to eliminate any, and all, options that a person can make that would be unlawful.

How does that follow from asking what the person's practical options were in each particular situation where a law was broken?

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Shift all responsibility from the person to 'society'; that will solve all sorts of problems ( 😑 extreme sarcasm 😑 ).

If individuals are not part of a society, what is society? The individuals in concert, under the auspices of a social structure which predates them and which they learn how to inhabit during maturation, create the problems. Who else can solve those problems?

1 hour ago, MigL said:

If your two year old child, being curious, wants to stick a fork in the electrical outlet, do you slap his/her hand  hard enough that they remember the pain and never do it again, or do you explain the dangers of electricity to them, and hope that they understand, and don't kill themselves the next time you're not looking ?

In fact, the wise parent does neither. My younger brother was just such a curious child. Whenever she caught him flirting with a danger he didn't understand, she scared him off it with a threat he did understand. She never hit and taught us a great deal about living; my father struck out all the time (was a bully who never, afaik, broke a law beyond traffic infractions) and taught us very little besides how to avoid him.  

23 minutes ago, beecee said:

We all  break laws from time to time, be it simply traffic laws, parking infringements, or jay walking [which I have done] that doesn't make us criminal.

I asked what does.

25 minutes ago, beecee said:

52 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

What are the other available options for each criminal before he or she breaks the law for the first time? 

Being a law abiding citizen? 

Being is not optional; specific actions are. When you broke the jaywalking law, you had the option of going to the crosswalk. When that person in prison was confronted, at that moment, with that decision, he was not choosing between good citizenship and criminality,  he was choosing between available options: take the car or let the gang shoot him? march for civil rights or give up any chance at the vote? recruit the underage escorts or disappoint his millionaire friends? drive an unlicensed cab or starve waiting for a permit?

38 minutes ago, beecee said:

but plenty of bullies also, as per the example I gave.

 Some criminals are also bullies. Some bullies are also criminals. It's not synonymous. 

42 minutes ago, beecee said:

No argument on any of those points, other then to say that justice still needs to be seen to be done, including attempts at reformation.

How?

43 minutes ago, beecee said:

Did you read, or are you familiar with this case? .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger The other side of the world from me, but remember it well, and certainly had me really disturbed as to how any child could undertake such bizzare inhuman action. One actually appeares to have reformed, the other not.

What were they before they were crazed killers? And how typical is their crime? 

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

How do you do that? How do you tell who is going to be vicious and/or criminally insane?

I have a thought though...as I said, bullies, cowards, and criminals are generally one and the same. Perhaps if bullies were  stood up to early in life?

You can't tell who is "going to be" anything, because nobody's future is cast in concrete at birth. But you certainly can see tendencies and proclivities in early childhood; you can see a temperament forming and you can definitely see most of the risk factors in their environment. 

What is a criminal, anyway? Someone who has broken a law? Or someone who habitually breaks a particular law? Or someone who breaks many laws?  Is there any reason to suppose that all laws are good and should be respected, or that it's even possible for all people to obey all laws? What are the other available options for each criminal before he or she breaks the law for the first time? 

Many criminals are brave, even foolhardy. Most are not bullies, but thieves. No action is without a long chain causation behind it: nobody wakes up one morning and decides to start bullying people. Children don't raise themselves - and their parents don't raise them, either, though the parents contribute most to the child's development - the whole society immerses its children in its economy, legal structure, hierarchy, customs and culture, education and pastimes, beliefs and values. Children are surrounded by examples of adult behaviour to imitate; they generally keep imitating the behaviours that see rewarded in some way.  

There are also many kinds of mental illness, some even caused by a genetic error. A very small percent of those result in antisocial behaviour, and a very small percent of that small percent is untreatable if diagnosed early.  Most mental illness is a result of environmental factors that are overlooked, or discounted, or accepted as "just how things are", all the while twisting people's minds.

44 minutes ago, beecee said:

Your last question is a doozy.

Not a question; a suggestion.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

What do you do with criminals that are unable to be reformed, or refuse to be reformed and will always be a danger to society.

How do you tell which are incorrigible? If you can be quite certain that a particular criminal will never be able to function as a citizen, then a quick and tidy death (preferably carried out remotely by an unwitting layman chosen randomly, rather than a designated executioner)  would be more practical and less damaging to society than torture. 

Better yet, organize a society that doesn't turn out so many vicious criminally insane. 

There are several kinds of "peace" cited here.

By "civil peace and order" I meant to the (relatively) tranquil operation of a society, with a minimum of conflict and discord among the citizens. Societies have invented various kinds of legal system to accomplish some version of that. 

I'm not sure what dimreepr meant by "peace"; from the context, I assumed spiritual peace as experienced by a human. It that can be "granted" through forgiveness, that must be done by some other conscious entity - another human or a god - and I think the one in need of this kind of peace is the wrongdoer, whose spirit is disturbed by his own evil deed. 

Sensei, otoh, seems to be referring to the disquiet of the victim's spirit.

Revenge, justice, retribution are difficult concepts to communicate, since they have such very different degrees and kinds of significance on the individual, communal and societal level level. One thing is clear, though: torture falls partly in revenge category, but extends ominously beyond its scope, into oppression and terror - neither of which plays any part in civil peace, order and sound governance. 

The role of government is to maintain civil peace and order. Whether that's achieved through the punishment, correction, exclusion or elimination of law-breakers depends on the philosophy underlying its mandate.  Torture has, in many societies, been part of the the punishment for crime, and even more often, a means of discovering crime - whether any was committed or not. The supporters of cruel-as-usual system of justice claim it as a deterrent. It has never, afaik, reduced the absolute amount of crime nor eliminated any category of crime, from any society. This also seems to hold for the killing of lawbreakers.

Retribution, otoh, is the moral prerogative of the victim (or the wrongdoer's god), and nobody else. It's also usually against the law, as a habit of personal revenge spreads to vendettas and feuding tends to undermine peace and order.

On 4/16/2021 at 12:33 AM, Alex Mercer said:

Why would it be a good or bad idea to torture criminals as punishment.

You convicted the wrong guy!

The executioner enjoys his work so much, he takes it home.

The warden likes to keep strict order in his fiefdom.

Etc.

It's a bad idea for the same reason that official encouragement of any destructive human trait is a bad idea: it produces a destructive culture populated by destructive people and makes a short-lived, evil society.