On Thursday, our debate about Guantanamo Bay inevitably lead to some discussion of torture practices. Whether or not Guantanamo remains open or is closed will not solve the ongoing questions concerning torture: is it an acceptable practice? Should evidence or testimony obtained through torture be admissible in court?, etc. Still, it is an interesting topic to consider.
As a Classics and World Politics major, I often find myself concluding that the true nature of politics, and the means by which it is carried out, have not changed. After centuries of states and rulers making the same decisions and the same mistakes, I am constantly wondering if Pericles, Caesar, and Sulla were really all that different from today's leaders and elected officials.
The one topic for which the classic and modern comparison constantly fails to add up is torture. Today, in a system based on democracy, torture is considered inhumane and any evidence gained through such practices in inadmissible. In ancient Athens and Rome, a democracy and a republic that provided the very foundations of our own political system, torture was completely acceptable. In fact, evidence given by slaves during any trial was not considered valid unless it had been gained through torture. Why has our perspective on torture changed so drastically? Why, when we have so completely based our system on the models of the ancient civilizations, do we not accept their views on torture?
[As a side note, I'm not endorsing torture; I've just always found the discrepancies between the ancient and modern perspectives to be interesting.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment