was homework invented for torture

Debunking the Myth of Roberto Nevilis: Who Really Invented Homework?

• By Emily Summers
• February 18, 2019

For those of us who have attended a formal education setting, you might remember the frustration of getting homework from most of your teachers. Before class ends, your teacher instructs your class to answer a certain page of your book or to write an essay about the topic you had just discussed.

Some of us really didn’t like doing homework. It was very time-consuming and, on top of extra-curricular activities, house chores, and other tasks you needed to do, you had very little time to yourself and your hobbies before having to go to sleep.

If you’ve ever been curious enough to find out who to thank for inventing homework, Google and several websites will tell you that it’s a man named Roberto Nevilis. That he invented homework as a form of punishment for underperforming students and, almost a thousand years later, billions of students are frustrated both at school and at home because of him.

But that, like a lot of things on the internet, simply isn’t true. In fact, Roberto Nevilis doesn’t even exist.

Who Invented Homework? Not Roberto Nevilis.

The nail in the coffin, a brief history on the education system, the father of modern homework, is homework still effective.

Online, there are many articles claiming that Roberto Nevilis was the first educator who came up with giving students homework. But if you look at the websites that claim this, you’ll find that it’s mostly forum websites or obscure educational blogs. No credible website or news source even mentions the name Roberto Nevilis. And for a guy who has affected the educational career of anyone who has had a formal education, you’d think a credible website would mention him at least once. Or some of the less-credible websites would confirm his contribution without saying the word “allegedly” or a vague “scientists believe” or the like.

Nevilis was supposedly a teacher based in Venice, Italy when he invented homework. Some claim that he invented it in 1095, while others claim he invented it in 1905 before it spread to Europe and to the rest of the world. It was said to be a form of punishment for students who underperformed in class. Students who performed well in class were spared from homework.

Either way, this claim is dubious. In 1095, education was still very informal around Europe and an organized education system in the continent didn’t start until 800 years later. In the 1500’s, English nobility were still being taught by private tutors.

Around 1095, the Roman Empire had long fallen and the Pope was still organizing the very first crusade and education was still informal, so it would be impossible for Nevilis to not only hold a class and give out homework, but to also spread out his idea to the rest of Europe when there was still no organized educational system.

And it couldn’t have been 1905, either. In 1901, California passed an act that banned homework for students younger than 15 years old before the law was revoked in 1917. That means Nevilis – assuming he does exists and isn’t the work of some internet trolls – couldn’t have invented it in 1905 in Europe if it already made its way to California and probably the rest of the world four years earlier.

And if that’s not enough evidence, just take a look at all the information you can get on him online. The only websites that mention his name: Quora, WikiAnswers, clickbait articles, and blogs for websites that help you write your homework (though if they can’t do their research properly, you might want to stay away from their services).

There’s no credible website mentioning him anywhere. And the websites that do mention him are very vague in describing his contribution. “Scientists believe” becomes a very sketchy claim when a website doesn’t cite a credible source. And if you try to search “Roberto Nevilis,” only the same handful of websites show up.

The truth is, homework existed dating back to the earliest civilizations and the first forms of education. In feudal times, education was reserved for the wealthy men. Those who weren’t rich had no time to study reading or philosophy and were busy making a living. Wealthy young women were trained in the more womanly arts, though princesses and nobles were expected to know a few things and were tutored as well. While they weren’t given workbooks and links to online quizzes, their tutors had expected them to read literary pieces during their free time.

The earliest evidence of a formal school comes from the Sumerian civilization. They had Edubas, which were houses of clay tablets were scribes practiced how to read and write. Archaeologists found student exercises etched into the tablets. Not much is known if they followed a schedule or were all taught by one teacher like the education system today.

During these times, however, homework did not involve answering questions or writing down essays as we’ve come to know it today. If we look back at history, there were other forms of educational methods that students and teachers at the time would have considered the homework of their time.

While we can’t pin the invention of homework to a certain teacher, we can trace back who was responsible for making homework that way it is to this day: Johann Gottlieb Fichte, a German philosopher known as the founding father of German nationalism.

In 1814, Prussia had a problem stirring nationalism among its citizens. Instead of serving the country after the war, citizens could choose to go back to whatever they were doing without thinking of dedicating their time and sacrifice to the country. There was no sense of pride or nationalism.

And so, Fichte conceived the Volkschule – a mandatory nine-year education similar to primary and lower secondary education provided by the state – and a Realschule – a secondary school available to aristocrats. Those attending the Volkschule were given the homework we know today as a way to demonstrate the state’s power even during personal time.

The system spread across Europe, but not in a totally dominating way. Some countries continued with their own system, which is why countries such as Finland don’t impose homework on their students. However, in 1843, back when the United States still practiced private tutors or informal lessons, Horace Mann reformed public education after travelling to Prussia and saw their education system and adapted it into the American education system. Thus, homework eventually evolved into a global practice.

Homework, therefore, is the result of nationalism and getting students to understand that “me time” actually falls on government time if they want to get their education. Contrary to what many websites would say, it wasn’t invented as a punishment for academically failing students.

However, over 200 years had passed since homework’s evolution into what we know it is today. So, is it still necessary to keep our students burdened with extra assignments? On one hand, it can be a good way to teach students time management skills. We like to think that work stays at work and personal life stays out of work, but as working adults, we know this is not the case. Homework at an early age teaches students to use their time wisely.

And while homework can still be helpful in students’ education, it’s only helpful to a certain extent. When plenty of teachers pile on homework, they’re depriving students of time to focus on their extra-curricular activities and personal life.

For those of us who have graduated with high grades, we’ve learned the hard way that a spotless report card can get our foot on the door, but if we have poor interpersonal skills and lack the skills you can only get outside of academics, you can’t achieve total success. Homework is good, but only to an extent. Then, it just becomes an unnecessary burden on students.

In fact, if you look at Finland and Japan – countries that don’t practice giving out homework – you can see that homework is unnecessary if the educational system favors it. Finland has shorter school days, longer summer breaks, and have an educational system where students aren’t required to start school until the age of seven. However, their students have always ranked high in terms of exams.

It’s because in Finland, a teaching career is at the same league as doctors and lawyers. Compare that to our current education system, where teachers are underappreciated and harried in public schools. Finland’s education system allows students more leeway, showing how it is possible to produce bright students without putting too much pressure on them.

We’ve all been frustrated with homework back when we were studying, but homework is actually more than just a nuisance we all have to face in our educational career. It’s actually an important factor which can shape productivity and the time students have for other factors of their education.

About the Author

Emily summers.

Take a Tour of an Adolescent Eating Disorder Treatment Center

9 Subjects You Could Study in College

Here Are 10 Subjects You Can Study in College

Choosing the Right Montessori Nursery A Guide for Parents

Is the D Important in Pharmacy? Why Pharm.D or RPh Degrees Shouldn’t Matter

How to Email a Professor: Guide on How to Start and End an Email Conversation

Everything You Need to Know About Getting a Post-Secondary Education

Grammar Corner: What’s The Difference Between Analysis vs Analyses?

Who Invented Homework and Why

Who Invented Homework

Italian pedagog, Roberto Nevilis, was believed to have invented homework back in 1905 to help his students foster productive studying habits outside of school. However, we'll sound find out that the concept of homework has been around for much longer.                                                                                                                                                              

Homework, which most likely didn't have a specific term back then, already existed even in ancient civilizations. Think Greece, Rome, and even ancient Egypt. Over time, homework became standardized in our educational systems. This happened naturally over time, as the development of the formal education system continued.                                                        

In this article, we're going to attempt to find out who invented homework, and when was homework invented, and we're going to uncover if the creator of homework is a single person or a group of them. Read this article through to the end to find out.

Who Created Homework and When?

The concept of homework predates modern educational systems, with roots in ancient Rome. However, Roberto Nevilis is often, yet inaccurately, credited with inventing homework in 1905.Depending on various sources, this invention is dated either in the year 1095 or 1905.

The invention of homework is commonly attributed to Roberto Nevilis, an Italian pedagog who is said to have introduced it as a form of punishment for his students in 1905. However, the concept of homework predates Nevilis and has roots that go back much further in history.

The practice of assigning students work to be done outside of class time can be traced back to ancient civilizations, such as Rome, where Pliny the Younger (AD 61–113) encouraged his students to practice public speaking at home to improve their oratory skills.

It's important to note that the idea of formalized homework has evolved significantly over centuries, influenced by educational theories and pedagogical developments. The purpose and nature of homework have been subjects of debate among educators, with opinions varying on its effectiveness and impact on student learning and well-being.

It might be impossible to answer when was homework invented. A simpler question to ask is ‘what exactly is homework?’.

If you define it as work assigned to do outside of a formal educational setup, then homework might be as old as humanity itself. When most of what people studied were crafts and skills, practicing them outside of dedicated learning times may as well have been considered homework.

Let’s look at a few people who have been credited with formalizing homework over the past few thousand years. 

Roberto Nevilis

Stories and speculations on the internet claim Roberto Nevilis is the one who invented school homework, or at least was the first person to assign homework back in 1905.

Who was he? He was an Italian educator who lived in Venice. He wanted to discipline and motivate his class of lackluster students. Unfortunately, claims online lack factual basis and strong proof that Roberto did invent homework.                                                                                                        

Homework, as a concept, predates Roberto, and can't truly be assigned to a sole inventor. Moreover, it's hard to quantify where an idea truly emerges, because many ideas emerge from different parts of the world simultaneously or at similar times, therefore it's hard to truly pinpoint who invented this idea.

Pliny the Younger

Another culprit according to the internet lived a thousand years before Roberto Nevilis. Pliny the Younger was an oratory teacher in the first century AD in the Roman Empire.

He apparently asked his students to practice their oratory skills at home, which some people consider one of the first official versions of homework.

It is difficult to say with any certainty if this is the first time homework was assigned though because the idea of asking students to practice something outside classes probably existed in every human civilization for millennia. 

Horace Mann

To answer the question of who invented homework and why, at least in the modern sense, we have to talk about Horace Mann. Horace Mann was an American educator and politician in the 19th century who was heavily influenced by movements in the newly-formed German state.

He is credited for bringing massive educational reform to America, and can definitely be considered the father of modern homework in the United States. However, his ideas were heavily influenced by the founding father of German nationalism Johann Gottlieb Fichte. 

After the defeat of Napoleon and the liberation of Prussia in 1814, citizens went back to their own lives, there was no sense of national pride or German identity. Johann Gottlieb Fichte came up with the idea of Volkschule, a mandatory 9-year educational system provided by the government to combat this.

Homework already existed in Germany at this point in time but it became a requirement in Volkschule. Fichte wasn't motivated purely by educational reform, he wanted to demonstrate the positive impact and power of a centralized government, and assigning homework was a way of showing the state's power to influence personal and public life.

This effort to make citizens more patriotic worked and the system of education and homework slowly spread through Europe.

Horace Mann saw the system at work during a trip to Prussia in the 1840s and brought many of the concepts to America, including homework.   

Who Invented Homework and Why?

Homework's history and objectives have evolved significantly over time, reflecting changing educational goals. Now, that we've gone through its history a bit, let's try to understand the "why". The people or people who made homework understood the advantages of it. Let's consider the following:                                                  

• Repetition, a key factor in long-term memory retention, is a primary goal of homework. It helps students solidify class-learned information. This is especially true in complex subjects like physics, where physics homework help can prove invaluable to learning effectively.
• Homework bridges classroom learning with real-world applications, enhancing memory and understanding.
• It identifies individual student weaknesses, allowing focused efforts to address them.
• Working independently at their own pace, students can overcome the distractions and constraints of a classroom setting through homework.
• By creating a continuous learning flow, homework shifts the perspective from viewing each school day as isolated to seeing education as an ongoing process.
• Homework is crucial for subjects like mathematics and sciences, where repetition is necessary to internalize complex processes.
• It's a tool for teachers to maximize classroom time, focusing on expanding understanding rather than just drilling fundamentals.
• Responsibility is a key lesson from homework. Students learn to manage time and prioritize tasks to meet deadlines.
• Research skills get honed through homework as students gather information from various sources.
• Students' creative potential is unleashed in homework, free from classroom constraints.

Struggling with your Homework?

Get your assignments done by real pros. Save your precious time and boost your marks with ease.

Who Invented Homework: Development in the 1900s

Thanks to Horace Mann, homework had become widespread in the American schooling system by 1900, but it wasn't universally popular amongst either students or parents. 

The early 1900s homework bans

In 1901, California became the first state to ban homework. Since homework had made its way into the American educational system there had always been people who were against it for some surprising reasons.

Back then, children were expected to help on farms and family businesses, so homework was unpopular amongst parents who expected their children to help out at home. Many students also dropped out of school early because they found homework tedious and difficult.

Publications like Ladies' Home Journal and The New York Times printed statements and articles about the detrimental effects of homework on children's health. 

The 1930 child labor laws

Homework became more common in the U.S. around the early 1900s. As to who made homework mandatory, the question remains open, but its emergence in the mainstream sure proved beneficial. Why is this?

Well, in 1930, child labor laws were created. It aimed to protect children from being exploited for labor and it made sure to enable children to have access to education and schooling. The timing was just right.

Speaking of homework, if you’re reading this article and have homework you need to attend to, send a “ do my homework ” request on Studyfy and instantly get the help of a professional right now.

Progressive reforms of the 1940s and 50s

With more research into education, psychology and memory, the importance of education became clear. Homework was understood as an important part of education and it evolved to become more useful and interesting to students. 

Homework during the Cold War

Competition with the Soviet Union fueled many aspects of American life and politics. In a post-nuclear world, the importance of Science and Technology was evident.

The government believed that students had to be well-educated to compete with Soviet education systems. This is the time when homework became formalized, accepted, and a fundamental part of the American educational system. 

1980s Nation at Risk

In 1983 the National Commission on Excellence in Education published Nation at Risk:

The Imperative for Educational Reform, a report about the poor condition of education in America.  Still in the Cold War, this motivated the government in 1986 to talk about the benefits of homework in a pamphlet called “What Works” which highlighted the importance of homework. 

Did you like our Homework Post?

For more help, tap into our pool of professional writers and get expert essay editing services!

Who Invented Homework: The Modern Homework Debate

Like it or not, homework has stuck through the times, remaining a central aspect in education since the end of the Cold War in 1991. So, who invented homework 😡 and when was homework invented?

We’ve tried to pinpoint different sources, and we’ve understood that many historical figures have contributed to its conception.

Horace Mann, in particular, was the man who apparently introduced homework in the U.S. But let’s reframe our perspective a bit. Instead of focusing on who invented homework, let’s ask ourselves why homework is beneficial in the first place. Let’s consider the pros and cons:

• Homework potentially enhances memory.
• Homework helps cultivate time management, self-learning, discipline, and cognitive skills.
• An excessive amount of work can cause mental health issues and burnout.
• Rigid homework tasks can take away time for productive and leisurely activities like arts and sports.

Meaningful homework tasks can challenge us and enrich our knowledge on certain topics, but too much homework can actually be detrimental. This is where Studyfy can be invaluable. Studyfy offers homework help.

All you need to do is click the “ do my assignment ” button and send us a request. Need instant professional help? You know where to go now.

Frequently asked questions

Who made homework.

As stated throughout the article, there was no sole "inventor of homework." We've established that homework has already existed in ancient civilizations, where people were assigned educational tasks to be done at home. 

Let's look at ancient Greece; for example, students at the Academy of Athens were expected to recite and remember epic poems outside of their institutions. Similar practices were going on in ancient Egypt, China and Rome. 

This is why we can't ascertain the sole inventor of homework. While history can give us hints that homework was practiced in different civilizations, it's not far-fetched to believe that there have been many undocumented events all across the globe that happened simultaneously where homework emerged. 

Why was homework invented? 

We've answered the question of "who invented homework 😡" and we've recognized that we cannot pinpoint it to one sole inventor. So, let's get back to the question of why homework was invented. 

Homework arose from educational institutions, remained, and probably was invented because teachers and educators wanted to help students reinforce what they learned during class. They also believed that homework could improve memory and cognitive skills over time, as well as instill a sense of discipline. 

In other words, homework's origins can be linked to academic performance and regular students practice. Academic life has replaced the anti-homework sentiment as homework bans proved to cause partial learning and a struggle to achieve conceptual clarity.

Speaking of, don't forget that Studyfy can help you with your homework, whether it's Python homework help or another topic. Don't wait too long to take advantage of expert help when you can do it now. 

Is homework important for my learning journey?

Now that we've answered questions on who created homework and why it was invented, we can ask ourselves if homework is crucial in our learning journey. 

At the end of the day, homework can be a crucial step to becoming more knowledgeable and disciplined over time. 

Exercising our memory skills, learning independently without a teacher obliging us, and processing new information are all beneficial to our growth and evolution. However, whether a homework task is enriching or simply a filler depends on the quality of education you're getting. 

• Maths Formulas
• Chemistry Formulas
• हिंदी व्याकरण
• Write for US

Who Invented Homework?

• July 27, 2023

History of Homework

Roberto nevelis of venice, inventor of modern homework, types of homework, bottom line.

An exhausting part of ending a school day was receiving a homework assignment from your teacher. This activity is passed down from generation to generation without an idea of its value.

The consensus among scholars was homework was a form of torture. Besides being time-intensive, scholars had to schedule domestic chores, hobbies, socializing, and relaxing after a hard day at school.

Also, getting a homework assignment meant less time spent doing your hobbies at home. Plus, it was reason enough for your parents to send you to your room during your favorite TV show.

Over the years, one question most scholars failed to ask is, who invented homework? The genius behind this invention stands in history as one of the most hated people.

Unfortunately, there is no definitive creator attributed to this invention. This article explores the historical developments that created the homework.

The history of homework could be more specific, with no single individual attributed to this invention. However, traces of this invention are traceable throughout history. Moreover, many people and events continue shaping and influencing the nature of modern-day homework, including homework writing services such as writemyessays .

Early civilizations practiced homework as part of their curriculum. The medieval times saw any form of education negated to the wealthy people in society. The concept didn’t involve links to Google Docs with assignments but reading literacy items on their volition.

Moreover, these times didn’t involve writing down assignments for instructor marking. They were different forms of assignments that could be considered homework during their era.

Let’s take a look at two major influencers attributed to the start of this invention:

The most loathed person accredited with the invention of homework is thought to be Roberto Nevelis of Venice. According to urban legend, Robert Nevelis was a teacher in Italy who formulated the concept of homework.

However, in-depth research reveals no concrete affiliation between homework and Roberto Nevelis. For a guy who impacted the future of learning for generations, an accreditation from other scholars should be the least accolade on his name.

More sources reveal that he formulated the concept in 1095, while others perceive it to have spread a millennium later.

Initially, the homework concept was meant to penalize naughty students in class. Moreover, high-performance students were spared from the torture of homework.

There isn’t much information on the life of Roberto to fully assert that he came up with the notion of homework in school.

Since it’s hard to trace back to the original homework creator, we look at some modern-day inventors who invented homework. Johann Gottlieb Fichte was an infamous philosopher renowned for his astounding works on German nationalism.

Fichte is credited for creating a nine-year education system similar to the primary one. Those students who attended this education system dealt with homework handed by instructors to work on during their personal time.

The specific curriculum was not quite popular across Europe, but other countries formed their curriculum with homework hints for scholars. American scholar Horace Mann traveled to Prussia and adopted their education system in 1843. This gave birth to the foundation of the current American education system. Thus, it marked the birth of modern-day homework.

Different types of homework play a role in the student’s learning process. Moreover, teachers select different types of homework to suit the student’s profile. Below we take a look at some different types for students to explore:

• Practice: The most common type of this assignment offered to students is the practice type of task. The essence of these assignments is reinforcing information learned in school. Hence, it gives scholars a chance to commit to long-term memory.
• Reading assignments: These assignments include reading a specific book, novel, chapter, or journal. The main essence of this assignment is increasing the understanding of the subject matter.
• Writing assignments: This involves tasks where students handle writing for research papers, reports, essays, creative writing, and journals. It aims at improving writing skills while demonstrating an understanding of the study material.
• Research: This involves using extra time after school to gather data or information to later use in class. Some data collection techniques include taking photos, conducting interviews, questionnaires, and data analysis.
• Projects: A common assignment that scholars often get in school is project work involving fellow students. This assignment tests students’ collective effort and contribution in presenting a project together. Hence, students must collaborate and coordinate efforts to achieve a common goal.
• Presentations: This involves gathering data together through research and presenting in front of fellow students their findings; apart from testing their research skills, presentation tests scholars’ oral skills and confidence in front of an audience. This goes a long way in testing their public speaking skills.

Why Choose Homework Route?

Throughout the years, the purpose and intention of homework continues to change. Here are some benefits students can accrue from homework:

• Time Management Skills: Doing homework teaches scholars the value of time management. Hence, students learn to strike a balance between play and work. Most students work on assignments with tight deadlines. Therefore, completing these assignments within the allocated time requires commitment.
• Self-Learning: Homework creates an environment where students can review their content and promote self-learning. Moreover, students learn how to build their reading style while revising their syllabi.
• Memory Retention: Homework offers the perfect avenue for scholars to recall what they learned during the day. Hence, it enables the memorization of facts and figures from instructors. The result is students with a sharp memory focus and concentration.
• Tracking Performance: Parents are highly engaged in their child’s learning process and performance through homework. This allows parents to engage with teachers on ways to improve their student’s academic performance.

There is no single individual to whom we can attribute the invention of homework. Therefore, we could all stop hating Robert Venelis of Venice. Despite the uncertainty of its origin, we cannot downplay the importance of homework in the learning process. Students can accrue many benefits from the long-standing tradition passed on to generations.

• Transforming Classroom Dynamics with Gamification for Better Learning Outcomes
• From Novice To Expert: The Journey Of Acquiring A Trade Qualification
• 5+ Surprising Brain Hacks to Boost Your Exam Scores
• 7 Tips on How to Improve the Quality of Your Thesis
• Study Strategies for Math Success: Tips for College Students Pursuing STEM
• Direction Of A Vector Formula
• Probability Distribution Formula
• Quartile Formula
• Circumference of a Circle Formula
• Decay Formula
• Margin of Error Formula
• Population Mean Formula
• Infinite Geometric Series Formula
• Double Time Formula
• Linear Approximation Formula
• Cosine Formula
• Spherical Segment Formula
• Proportion Formula
• Rectangular Prism Formula
• R Squared Formula
• Triangular Prism Formula
• Statistical Significance Formula
• Difference of Squares Formula
• Vertex Formula
• Perfect Square Formula
• Vieta Formula
• Right Angle Formula
• U Substitution Formula
• Percentage Change Formula
• Regular Square Pyramid Formula
• Gross Profit Formulas
• Trajectory Formula
• Exponential Formulas
• Sample Mean Formula
• Quotient Formulas
• Real Number
• Box Formulas
• Simple Interest Formula
• X& Y Intercept Formulas
• Triangular Pyramid Formula
• Coefficient Formulas
• Distance Formula
• Arithmetic Sequence Formulas
• Weighted Mean Formula
• Parallelogram Formulas
• Multiplication Table
• Pentagon Formulas
• Volume Of Parallelepiped Formula
• Octagon Formulas
• Volume Of An Ellipsoid Formula
• Binary Formulas
• Volume Of A Square Pyramid Formula
• Binomial Formulas
• Charge Density Formula
• Isosceles Triangle Formulas
• Complex Number Power Formula
• Equilateral Triangle Formulas
• Diagonal Formula
• Triangle Formulas
• Division Formula
• Area of Cube Formulas
• Diameter Formula
• Sphere Formulas
• Coin Toss Probability Formula
• Trapezoid Formulas
• Circle Graph Formula
• Hexagon Formulas
• Chord Length Formula
• Cube Formulas
• Cofunction Formulas
• Discount Formulas
• Cofactor Formula
• Rhombus Formulas
• Cpk Cp Formula
• Cone Formulas
• Degree And Radian Measure Formula
• Equation Formulas
• Consecutive Integers Formula
• Cylinder Formulas
• Interpolation Formula
• Pythagoras Formulas
• Prime Number formula
• Matrix Formulas
• Euler Maclaurin formula
• Area of Circle Formulas
• Frequency Distribution formula
• Circle Formulas
• Hypergeometric Distribution formula
• Compound Interest Formulas
• Implicit Differentiation formula
• Completing the Square Formulas
• Inverse Function formula
• Square Formulas
• Inverse Hyperbolic Functions formula
• Factorial Formulas
• Pearson Correlation formula
• Statistics Formulas
• Confidence Interval formula
• Linear Formulas
• Lagrange Interpolation formula
• Derivative Formulas
• Hypothesis Testing formula
• Differentiation Formulas
• Kite formula
• Pyramid Formulas
• Degrees of Freedom formula
• Rectangle Formulas
• Interquartile Range formula
• Probability Formulas
• Function Notation formula
• Mean Median Mode Formulas
• Gaussian Distribution formula
• Vector Formulas
• Hyperbolic Function formula
• Ellipse Formulas
• What Is Numbers?
• Permutation & Combination Formulas
• Area under the Curve Formula
• Complex Number Formulas
• Axis of Symmetry Formula
• Calculus Formulas
• Arithmetic Progression Formula
• Integration Formulas
• Average Deviation Formula
• Trigonometry Formulas
• Equation of a Circle Formula
• Polynomial Formulas
• Chain Rule Formula
• Geometry Formulas
• Quadratic Interpolation Formula
• Algebra Formulas
• Change of Base Formula
• LCM Formulas
• Absolute Value Formula
• Percentage Formulas
• Discriminant Formula
• Effect Size Formula

How Homework Became A Thing In The US

For many U.S. students, homework is an unfortunate certainty — the childhood equivalent of death and taxes. But the truth is that it has been controversial since it was introduced. A major player in the initial spread of homework in the U.S. was 19th-century education reformer Horace Mann, Study  explained. Mann was inspired by the developing public education system in Germany, which had recently become unified as a single nation-state. The Volksschulen , or "People's Schools," assigned students work to be completed at home. Mann, who helped develop a state-funded public school system in the U.S., adopted the homework concept from the German system. 

As school attendance became mandatory in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, homework became a reality for more U.S. families, Slate explained. This led to a rising backlash against it. In 1900, Edward Bok wrote in the Ladies' Home Journal that forcing children to complete homework rather than play was a "rank injustice." His editorial received support from parents and teachers and, by 1901, 2/3 of U.S. city school districts had limited homework. California went so far as to ban homework for any child under 15. In the 1930s, the American Child Health Association listed homework with child labor as a cause of tuberculosis and heart disease in children, according to The Washington Post .

The rise of homework

Attitudes toward homework shifted in a big way during the Cold War , according to History . The Russian launch of Sputnik in 1957 led to concerns that U.S. students were falling behind their Russian counterparts, and homework became an important part of revamping the high school curriculum. In 1948, only 8% of U.S. students studied for two or more hours a night. By 1962, 23% of high-school juniors studied that long.

Since then, feelings about homework have gone in roughly 15-year cycles, Slate explained. There was another backlash during the counter-cultural 1960s and 1970s, followed by another pro-homework push in the 1980s. The 1983 government report "A Nation at Risk" argued that high schoolers should be doing more homework to compete with students in South Korea, Japan, and Germany. The 1990s saw another period of anti-homework sentiment, with articles like "The Homework Ate My Family" appearing in Time . Today, homework is being assigned to children as young as kindergarten. Yet other schools are experimenting with homework bans, according to The Washington Post . The future of homework in the U.S. is as controversial as its past.

Who Invented Homework? A Big Question Answered with Facts

Crystal Bourque

Delving into the intriguing history of education, one of the most pondered questions arises: Who invented homework?

Love it or hate it, homework is part of student life.

But what’s the purpose of completing these tasks and assignments? And who would create an education system that makes students complete work outside the classroom?

This post contains everything you’ve ever wanted to know about homework. So keep reading! You’ll discover the answer to the big question: who invented homework?

Who Invented Homework?

The myth of roberto nevilis: who is he, the origins of homework, a history of homework in the united states, 5 facts about homework, types of homework.

• What’s the Purpose of Homework? 
• Homework Pros
• Homework Cons

When, How, and Why was Homework Invented?

Daniel Jedzura/Shutterstock.com

To ensure we cover the basics (and more), let’s explore when, how, and why was homework invented.

As a bonus, we’ll also cover who invented homework. So get ready because the answer might surprise you!

It’s challenging to pinpoint the exact person responsible for the invention of homework.

For example, Medieval Monks would work on memorization and practice singing. Ancient philosophers would read and develop their teachings outside the classroom. While this might not sound like homework in the traditional form we know today, one could argue that these methods helped to form the basic structure and format.

So let’s turn to recorded history to try and identify who invented homework and when homework was invented.

Pliny the Younger

Credit: laphamsquarterly.org

We can trace the term ‘homework’ back to ancient Rome. Pliny the Younger (61—112 CE), an oratory teacher, often told his students to practice their public speaking outside class.

Pliny believed that the repetition and practice of speech would help students gain confidence in their speaking abilities.

Johann Gottlieb Fichte

Credit: inlibris.com

Before the idea of homework came to the United States, Germany’s newly formed nation-state had been giving students homework for years.

It wasn’t until German Philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762—1814) helped to develop the Volksschulen (People’s Schools) that homework became mandatory.

Fichte believed that the state needed to hold power over individuals to create a unified Germany. A way to assert control over people meant that students attending the Volksshulen were required to complete assignments at home on their own time.

As a result, some people credit Fichte for being the inventor of homework.

Horace Mann

Credit: commons.wikimedia.org

The idea of homework spread across Europe throughout the 19th century.

So who created homework in the United States?

Horace Mann (1796—1859), an American educational reformer, spent some time in Prussia. There, he learned more about Germany’s Volksshulen and homework practices.

Mann liked what he saw and brought this system back to America. As a result, homework rapidly became a common factor in students’ lives across the country.

Credit: medium.com

If you’ve ever felt curious about who invented homework, a quick online search might direct you to a man named Roberto Nevilis, a teacher in Venice, Italy.

As the story goes, Nevilis invented homework in 1905 (or 1095) to punish students who didn’t demonstrate a good understanding of the lessons taught during class.

This teaching technique supposedly spread to the rest of Europe before reaching North America.

Unfortunately, there’s little truth to this story. If you dig a little deeper, you’ll find that these online sources lack credible sources to back up this myth as fact.

In 1905, the Roman Empire turned its attention to the First Crusade. No one had time to spare on formalizing education, and classrooms didn’t even exist. So how could Nevilis spread the idea of homework when education remained so informal?

And when you jump to 1901, you’ll discover that the government of California passed a law banning homework for children under fifteen. Nevilis couldn’t have invented homework in 1905 if this law had already reached the United States in 1901.

Inside Creative House/Shutterstock.com

When it comes to the origins of homework, looking at the past shows us that there isn’t one person who created homework. Instead, examining the facts shows us that several people helped to bring the idea of homework into Europe and then the United States.

In addition, the idea of homework extends beyond what historians have discovered. After all, the concept of learning the necessary skills human beings need to survive has existed since the dawn of man.

More than 100 years have come and gone since Horace Mann introduced homework to the school system in the United States.

Therefore, it’s not strange to think that the concept of homework has changed, along with our people and culture.

In short, homework hasn’t always been considered acceptable. Let’s dive into the history or background of homework to learn why.

Homework is Banned! (The 1900s)

Important publications of the time, including the Ladies’ Home Journal and The New York Times, published articles on the negative impacts homework had on American children’s health and well-being.

As a result, California banned homework for children under fifteen in 1901. This law, however, changed again about a decade later (1917).

Children Needed at Home (The 1930s)

Formed in 1923, The American Child Health Association (ACHA) aimed to decrease the infant mortality rate and better support the health and development of the American child.

By the 1930s, ACHA deemed homework a form of child labor. Since the government recently passed laws against child labor , it became difficult to justify homework assignments.

Studio Romantic/Shutterstock.com

A Shift in Ideas (The 1940s—1950s)

During the early to mid-1900s, the United States entered the Progressive Era. As a result, the country reformed its education system to help improve students’ learning.

Homework became a part of everyday life again. However, this time, the reformed curriculum required teachers to make the assignments more personal.

As a result, students would write essays on summer vacations and winter breaks, participate in ‘show and tell,’ and more.

These types of assignments still exist today!

Homework Today (The 2000s)

In 2022, the controversial nature of homework is once again a hot topic of discussion in many classrooms.

According to one study , more than 60% of college and high school students deal with mental health issues like depression and anxiety due to homework. In addition, the large number of assignments given to students takes away the time students spend on other interests and hobbies. Homework also negatively impacts sleep.

As a result, some schools have implemented a ban or limit on the amount of homework assigned to students.

Test your knowledge and check out these other facts about homework:

• Horace Mann is also known as the ‘father’ of the modern school system (read more about Who Invented School ).
• With a bit of practice, homework can improve oratory and writing skills. Both are important in a student’s life at all stages.
• Homework can replace studying. Completing regular assignments reduces the time needed to prepare for tests.
• Homework is here to stay. It doesn’t look like teachers will stop assigning homework any time soon. However, the type and quantity of homework given seems to be shifting to accommodate the modern student’s needs.
• The optimal length of time students should spend on homework is one to two hours. Students who spent one to two hours on homework per day scored higher test results.

Ground Picture/Shutterstock.com

The U.S. Department of Education provides teachers with plenty of information and resources to help students with homework.

In general, teachers give students homework that requires them to employ four strategies. The four types of homework types include:

• Practice: To help students master a specific skill, teachers will assign homework that requires them to repeat the particular skill. For example, students must solve a series of math problems.
• Preparation: This type of homework introduces students to the material they will learn in the future. An example of preparatory homework is assigning students a chapter to read before discussing the contents in class the next day.
• Extension: When a teacher wants to get students to apply what they’ve learned but create a challenge, this type of homework is assigned. It helps to boost problem-solving skills. For example, using a textbook to find the answer to a question gets students to problem-solve differently.
• Integration: To solidify the learning experience for students, teachers will create a task that requires the use of many different skills. An example of integration is a book report. Completing integration homework assignments help students learn how to be organized, plan, strategize, and solve problems on their own.

Ultimately, the type of homework students receive should have a purpose, be focused and clear, and challenge students to problem solve while integrating lessons learned.

What’s the Purpose of Homework?

LightField Studios/Shutterstock.com

Homework aims to ensure students understand the information they learn in class. It also helps teachers to assess a student’s progress and identify strengths and weaknesses.

For example, teachers use different types of homework like book reports, essays, math problems, and more to help students demonstrate their understanding of the lessons learned.

Does Homework Improve the Quality of Education?

Homework is a controversial topic today. Educators, parents, and even students often question whether homework is beneficial in improving the quality of education.

Let’s explore the pros and cons of homework to try and determine whether homework improves the quality of education in schools.

Homework Pros:

• Time Management Skills : Assigning homework with a due date helps students to develop a schedule to ensure they complete tasks on time.
• More Time to Learn : Students encounter plenty of distractions at school. It’s also challenging for students to grasp the material in an hour or less. Assigning homework provides the student the opportunity to understand the material.
• Improves Research Skills : Some homework assignments require students to seek out information. Through homework, students learn where to seek out good, reliable sources.

Homework Cons:

• Reduced Physical Activity : Homework requires students to sit at a desk for long periods. Lack of movement decreases the amount of physical activity, often because teachers assign students so much homework that they don’t have time for anything else.
• Stuck on an Assignment: A student often gets stuck on an assignment. Whether they can’t find information or the correct solution, students often don’t have help from parents and require further support from a teacher.
• Increases Stress : One of the results of getting stuck on an assignment is that it increases stress and anxiety. Too much homework hurts a child’s mental health, preventing them from learning and understanding the material.

Some research shows that homework doesn’t provide educational benefits or improve performance.

However, research also shows that homework benefits students—provided teachers don’t give them too much. Here’s a video from Duke Today that highlights a study on the very topic.

Homework Today

Maybe one day, students won’t need to submit assignments or complete tasks at home. But until then, many students understand the benefits of completing homework as it helps them further their education and achieves future career goals.

Before you go, here’s one more question: how do you feel about homework? Do you think teachers assign too little or too much? Get involved and start a discussion in the comments!

The picture on the front page: Evgeny Atamanenko/Shutterstock.com

Even in today’s world, child trafficking is still a huge problem. Incidents of human trafficking…

Have you ever stopped to consider: who invented school? In many places around the world,…

While bringing up their child, parents pay special attention to the development of positive moral…

Subscribe now!

Glad you've joined us🎉🎉.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Conflict Studies
• Development
• Environment
• Foreign Policy
• Human Rights
• International Law
• Organization
• International Relations Theory
• Political Communication
• Political Economy
• Political Geography
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Sexuality and Gender
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Security Studies
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

The ethics of torture: definitions, history, and institutions.

• Rebecca Evans Rebecca Evans Department of Politics and International Relations, Ursinus College
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.326
• Published in print: 26 November 2012
• Published online: 11 January 2018
• This version: 30 January 2020
• Previous version

International law defines torture as the intentional infliction of intense suffering aimed at forcing someone to reveal information, punishing unwanted behavior or inspiring fear in a broader population. Since torture is banned under any and all circumstances, states go to great lengths to insist that their conduct does not qualify as torture. Officials seek to distance themselves legally and morally from an association with torture by using clean torture techniques that do not leave physical marks and by downplaying the seriousness of their methods, characterizing their interrogation techniques in euphemistic language that makes it possible to practice torture without admitting that they are doing so. Yet even supposedly lesser forms of abuse referred to as torture “lite” can have severe effects when they are employed in combination and for long periods. Fundamentally, torturous acts are designed to break a victim by demonstrating the victim’s utter powerlessness. Historically, torture was not only common in times of war and social upheaval, but it was also openly practiced in many societies as an integral part of the judicial system. Torture was seen as an effective technique for obtaining information as well as an appropriate punishment for the immoral and a useful deterrent against future misconduct. Since the end of World War II, torture has been rejected as a violation of basic human rights and publicly condemned by most countries in the world; international treaties such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) require signatory parties to end torture within their territorial jurisdiction and to criminalize all acts of torture. Nonetheless, countries throughout the world continue to engage in ill-treatment and torture, often during times of national stress, when perceived others or out-group members are subjected to extreme interrogation. Although torture is employed by democratic and nondemocratic forms of government alike, empirical studies reveal that political regimes and institutions have a significant impact on the type of torture used and the duration of government support for torture. Effective democratic institutions like a free press and an independent judiciary make it more likely that cases of torture will be exposed and violators punished, and democratic governments with strong mechanisms for holding officials accountable are more likely to transition away from ill-treatment and torture of detainees, at least once violent challenges end. During periods of perceived threat, however, public intolerance of unwanted others makes it likely that democratic publics will condone if not encourage the use of torture against detained transnational terrorism suspects and other dissidents. Under such circumstances, independent judicial institutions may incentivize officials to practice torture more covertly. Non-democratic countries are more likely to flout human rights treaties such as the CAT, signing such agreements as a means of deflecting criticism but continuing to employ torture against dissidents. Even liberal democracies are found to have difficulty complying with certain international human rights treaty obligations, especially when information about violations—as in the case of torture—tends to be hidden. The resulting impunity makes it difficult to put an end to torture.

• definitions of torture
• torture lite
• history of torture
• legal abolition of torture
• institutional and political influences on the use of torture

Updated in this version

Revised to include new scholarship on the effectiveness of torture, including testimonials from officials involved in interrogations, empirical studies, and updated data on public opinion; new subtitle, keywords, section headings, and references.

Introduction

Once accepted as a legitimate judicial practice, torture has come to be widely condemned as unacceptable. The atrocities of World War II led the framers of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights to include a prohibition against torture, stipulating in unqualified terms that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (Article 5). Similarly, the Geneva Conventions, which were expanded and revised in 1949 , not only provided protection for prisoners of war and civilians but also banned the use of torture and cruelty against “unlawful” combatants as “outrages against personal dignity” (Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 3). Since that time, various international conventions have made the ban on torture an absolute moral imperative, assigning it the status of a peremptory norm ( jus cogens ) that is widely considered to be binding on all states, whether they have ratified a particular treaty or not. The 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibited torture even “during public emergencies that threaten the life of the nation” (Articles 4 and 7). Similarly, the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment insisted that “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture” (Article 2). In 1998 the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia ruled in the case of the Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija that the jus cogens value of the prohibition against torture meant that national measures authorizing or condoning torture or absolving perpetrators through amnesty laws are impermissible; furthermore, the court ruled that every state is entitled to investigate, prosecute, and punish or extradite individuals accused of torture who are present in a territory under its jurisdiction (de Wet, 2004 , p. 98). This ruling was upheld in the landmark Pinochet case, in which the British House of Lords divested former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet of his sovereign immunity and ruled that even heads of state can be held accountable for violating crimes against humanity, including the prohibition against torture (Evans, 2006 ).

Yet just as considerations of political expediency led the British government to allow General Pinochet to return to Chile rather than be extradited to Spain to stand trial, governments and international courts have not consistently upheld the prohibition against torture. Moreover, torture continues to be practiced by many countries throughout the world, including leading democracies. In 2014 , 155 countries have ratified the Convention Against Torture, but instances of torture or other ill-treatment were documented in 141 countries (Amnesty International, 2014 ). Few countries openly acknowledge employing such practices, resorting to a variety of strategies to circumvent the legal prohibition against torture, including denials that given treatments constitute torture, plausible deniability, and torture by proxy. For example, though the George W. Bush administration denied using torture against detainees in the “war on terror” launched after September 11, 2001 , its clandestine detention program and use of brutal interrogation techniques defied such public claims (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 2014 ; for a fuller discussion, see Evans 2019 ).

International law and universal human rights norms symbolize modern progress toward banning the use of torture as well as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Yet the continued use of torture suggests that protections remain vulnerable to state interests. Although torture is no longer used as a spectacle of state power, it continues as a practice hidden in plain sight. By downplaying the physical and psychological harm caused by interrogation methods and questioning the credibility of victims, governments maintain legal and moral respectability while simultaneously inflicting tortuous experiences in an attempt to uncover information to prevent future attacks.

This article begins by laying out the legal definition of torture and a number of complexities and ambiguities that arise from this definition. Next, it turns to a discussion of the history of torture, analyzing its shift from an open and accepted practice to one that became hidden and stigmatized. The article then summarizes recent scholarship on institutional and legal influences on the practice of torture, pointing to limits on the effectiveness of democratic and judicial institutions in restricting torture. It concludes with reflections on the social forces that enable torture to continue. Although people abhor the general idea of torture, they are willing to believe official denials that authorities actually engage in torture, especially when this is hidden in prisons or black sites overseas. Moral disengagement and victim blaming make it easier to condone violence, while social amnesia contributes to a lack of accountability that suggests that abuse is acceptable.

The Definition of Torture

The UN CAT (Article 1) defines torture as:

any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to lawful sanctions.

According to international law, torture is the intentional infliction of intense suffering aimed at forcing someone to reveal information, punishing unwanted behavior or inspiring fear in a broader population. While this legal definition focuses on the involvement of states and their agents rather than cruelty committed by private citizens, scholars have noted that illegal organizations, such as the mafia or guerrilla armies, are also capable of torture (Davis, 2005 , p. 163).

Since freedom from torture is defined as a universal human right which states may not violate under any circumstances, states go to great lengths to insist that their conduct does not qualify as torture. As legal scholar John Parry ( 2005 , p. 520) comments, “governments will interpret the legal definition of torture to permit specific forms of coercion because they are ‘not torture,’ a move which allows formal adherence to an absolute ban on a shrinking category of conduct.” Governments have carefully parsed the language with which they describe interrogation techniques, using euphemisms and narrow legal interpretations to differentiate between their methods and torture. Governments acknowledge employing “enhanced interrogation techniques” but insist that these do not constitute torture. Like many legal formulas, the definition of torture is sufficiently vague as to permit governments to draw semantic distinctions; governments can thus deny that the harsh interrogation methods that they employ do not meet the high threshold that legally defines torture. To qualify as torture, interrogation methods must not only cause pain but “severe” pain; they must not only involve degrading and inhuman treatment, but an “aggravated” form of such treatment. The prohibition against the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental suffering therefore opens up a subjective judgment as to whether particular methods cause sufficiently severe pain as to be considered torture. As Tobias Kelly ( 2012 , p. 170) writes, “for an act to be considered torture . . . the intensity of pain and suffering is of central importance. Yet the law provides no precise point at which pain tips over into severe pain and an act becomes torture.” As a result, even though the prohibition against torture is absolute and definitive in principle, it is quite difficult in actual practice to recognize and document when torture has taken place (Kelly, 2012 , p. 169). This is especially true given the legal reservations that countries like the United States have adopted when ratifying the UN CAT, effectively excluding practices like sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain and requiring specific intentionality that is “situated subjectively in the mind of the torturer, not objectively in the nature of his actions” (McCoy, 2011 , p.34). Though the use of excessive force would seem to be banned under international law and the US Constitution, strict textual analysis suggests that exceptions are permitted if the use of force is deemed to be “reasonable,” is applied as part of a “good faith effort to restore or maintain discipline,” or is justified by “compelling government interest” (Parry, 2005 , pp. 527–528).

Public authorities have a vested interest in insisting that instances of painful abuse should not be labeled as torture, given the political and legal consequences this carries. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001 , legal memoranda prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel within the Department of Justice authorized the use of harsh interrogation practices against detainees in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, maintaining that these did not technically constitute torture. According to an August 2002 memo, abuse does not rise to the level of torture unless it inflicts pain “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.” For purely mental pain or suffering to constitute torture, it had to result from “extreme acts” and “result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years.” The memo went on to examine a number of techniques such as sensory deprivation that “may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” but insisted that these “do not produce the pain or suffering of the necessary intensity to meet the definition of torture” (“Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 USC §§2340–2340A,” August 1, 2001 ; reprinted in Greenberg and Dratel, 2005 , pp. 172–217). Public opinion in the United States suggests that most Americans generally agreed with such distinctions; for example, after the shocking pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were shown in April 2004 , large majorities opposed the kinds of techniques used in Iraq but only a third agreed that what US soldiers did to prisoners there amounted to torture (Morin & Deane, 2004 ).

Such distinctions allow officials to distance themselves from any association with torture. In the popular imagination, torture calls to mind images of dungeons furnished with medieval instruments designed to maim and mutilate. As such, torture tends to be associated with barbaric methods of inflicting physical pain that are readily condemned by the civilized world. Yet modern torture, as Darius Rejali ( 2007 , pp. 1–5) chronicles, often takes the form of “clean” torture techniques that inflict pain without leaving visible marks. Techniques such as electric shock, choking with water, near asphyxiation, and certain types of beatings are specifically designed not to “bruise the merchandise,” which makes them easier to deny and allows states to avoid bad publicity (Rejali, 2007 , pp. 1–5). Interrogation techniques euphemistically referred to as “sleep management” (20-hour interrogations for every 24-hour cycle), “environmental manipulation” (exposure to extreme heat or cold), “stress and duress” (forcing a prisoner to stand or sit in uncomfortable positions for long periods of time), and “ego down” (degrading treatment) are often downplayed as “torture lite,” suggesting that they are not as harmful or severe as “real” torture (Bowden, 2003 , p. 53; Jaffer & Singh, 2007 , pp. 8–19; Wolfendale, 2009 , p. 54). The use of “acoustical bombardment”—playing extremely loud, dissonant music or white noise over long periods of time—has been used as a means of sensory deprivation, preventing prisoners from being able to think straight and compounding their disorientation through sleep deprivation. Although the use of music in interrogations may at first seemed innocuous, it has been found to have debilitating effects on prisoners (Cusick, 2013 , pp. 275–291). Moreover, the use of songs—like the theme song from Sesame Street or Barney the Purple Dinosaur—seems to “undercut the seriousness of the effects of the physical and psychological abuse of which it is a part. We’re able to laugh off the form of abuse on account of the associations of its content. And once we laugh at it, we effectively, although almost surreptitiously, break through the absolute ban on torture” (Cusick & Joseph, 2011 , pp. 17–18).

The various techniques used as part of enhanced interrogations are not activities that one would intuitively think of as being torturous and may even be seen as normal. For example, Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, compared sleep deprivation to the “fatigue of campaigning” that he experienced (Bellaby, 2015 , p. 185). When asked to approve specific interrogation techniques for prisoners at Guantánamo, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld authorized forcing prisoners to stand for long periods of time and asked why this was limited to eight hours per day, suggesting that he stood that long if not longer himself (Haynes, 2002 ). Such responses suggest that one knows what it feels like to undergo one of the torture lite techniques and that detainees are weak for not being able to withstand them (Cusick & Joseph, 2011 , p. 18). However, as Elaine Scarry ( 1985 , pp. 47–48) points out, forcing people to stand completely immobile for long periods of time “can produce as violent muscle and spine pain as can injury from elaborate equipment and apparatus, though any of us outside this situation, used to adjusting our body positions every few moments before even mild discomfort is felt, may not immediately recognize this.” Ross Bellaby ( 2015 , pp. 185–186) notes that interrogation techniques are used in combination and over long periods “with no option of recovery, revival or understanding of when the ordeal will end. . . . Over time the building up or continuation of such activities can have profound effects on an individual’s mental, physical and emotional state” and in combination amount to full torture.

Nonetheless, by employing “harsh interrogation” rather than torture, interrogators can more readily see themselves as “professionals motivated by the need to gain intelligence essential for saving lives” rather than as brutal or sadistic torturers (Wolfendale, 2009 , p. 49). Moreover, the use of “lite” techniques is easier to justify because interrogators are not forced to inflict physical violence directly. While they may force detainees into stress positions or subject them to sensory deprivation, the agony that the detainees experience stems from their prolonged exposure to certain conditions rather than an immediate response to the infliction of pain (Wolfendale, 2009 , p. 55). Thus, it is easier to convince interrogators that their actions are benign and that the detainees are responsible for their own pain (Wolfendale, 2009 , pp. 56–57).

Thus, according to certain perspectives, interrogation techniques and detention procedures that aim at “softening up” prisoners through sensory deprivation, sexual humiliation, and exploitation of phobias, though unpleasant, do not constitute torture. Similarly, psychological manipulations designed to break a person’s resistance by creating fear, terror, or helplessness may not be counted as torture because they are presumed not to cause prolonged mental harm, such as the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (Başoğlu, Livanou, & Crnobarić, 2007 , pp. 277–278). Such a distinction between physical torture and extreme mental suffering is reflected in the different legal status of torture, on the one hand, and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, on the other. The British government, recognizing the significance of this distinction, appealed a ruling by the European Court and scored a public relations victory by reducing the court’s finding to the judgment that Britain was “only” guilty of cruel and unusual treatment of Irish political prisoners—not actual torture (Millett, 1994 , p. 102). The CAT also creates a distinction, requiring states parties to criminalize official torture, but simply exhorting them to work to prevent cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

Yet, a 2007 study of survivors of torture found that psychological manipulation, humiliating treatment, exposure to adverse environmental conditions, and forced stress positions were no different from physical torture in terms of the level of traumatic stress and the long-term psychological after-effects that they cause. Based on their findings, the authors conclude that it is misleading to distinguish between torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment since both can cause severe mental suffering (Başoğlu et al., 2007 , pp. 283–284). Other medical experts concur that psychological manipulations and forced stress positions are not “substantially different from physical torture in terms of the severity of mental suffering” and can have severe, long lasting effects (McCoy, 2011 , p. 32; Wolfendale, 2009 , pp. 50–51). Similarly, in a study of the effects of extreme stressors on the brain, neuropsychologist Shane O’Mara ( 2015 , p. 4) finds that coercive practices that involve extreme and prolonged stress impair the normal functioning of the brain and result in neuropsychiatric disorders, disrupting if not permanently damaging bodily function and thereby violating even the standards laid down by administration lawyers. Along the same lines, David Luban ( 2009 , p. 222) argues that “there is something deeply wrong, not to mention perverse, about the entire enterprise of trying to draw fine lines between torture and lesser abuses. An essential continuity exists between them, because all have the degradation of their victim as their core.” For Luban, the key characteristic of torture lies in the abject humiliation of the victim, whose sense of complete powerlessness creates such intense fear that the victim is terrorized and “broken.” For interrogators like Tony Lagouranis and Eric Fair, interrogation practices such as stress positions and sleep deprivation, despite their designation as legal rules of engagement, actually did constitute torture; the practices stripped the detainees of their humanity, with effects that were intense, severe and extraordinarily painful (Fair, 2016 ; Lagouranis, 2008 , pp. 335–336).

Elaine Scarry shares Luban’s view that torture renders the victim completely powerless, but she focuses on the way that the infliction of excruciating pain does this. According to Scarry ( 1985 , pp. 27–28), torture reduces people to prisoners of their bodies, demonstrating and magnifying the power of the agent (and, by extension, the regime) employing torture. The “annihilating power of pain” narrows victims’ consciousness, reducing their focus to immediate bodily sensations. Their bodies become agents of their own agony, as the “grotesque overload” of physical pain disintegrates their sense of self and eliminates their ability to express and project themselves through language (Scarry, 1985 , pp. 47–49). The “world-destroying” effect of torture, in turn, compels prisoners to confess, “to assent to words that through the thick agony of the body can be only dimly heard” (Scarry, 1985 , pp. 33, 35). The confession, as Scarry explains, is what provides a justification for brutal treatment, redirecting moral responsibility from the torturer to the prisoner. Even though the torturer is in complete control, the interrogation process shifts blame on to the victim, pretending that the prisoner has caused this situation by withholding information. Yet even a confession does not absolve the prisoner: “despite the fact that in reality he has been deprived of all control over, and therefore all responsibility for, his world, his words, and his body, he is to understand his confession as it will be understood by others, as an act of self-betrayal” (Scarry, 1985 , p. 47).

Along similar lines, Jean Améry, a victim of torture during World War II, writes that torture destroys people’s sense of self by breaking down the boundaries of the body. When the victim’s body is attacked—and furthermore, when the victim has neither the ability to defend himself nor the expectation of help from another person—then he becomes nothing but a body in pain: “only in torture does the transformation of the person into flesh become complete. Frail in the face of violence, yelling out in pain, awaiting no help, capable of no resistance, the tortured person is only a body, and nothing else beside that” (Améry, 1980 , p. 28). The victim’s body becomes the instrument of the torturer, who exercises absolute domination over the prisoner’s flesh and spirit, rendering the victim helpless and hopeless (Améry, 1980 , pp. 21–40).

Recent philosophical essays argue that it is the asymmetrical relationship between victims and torturers that makes torture distinctive. Whereas victims of torture are completely vulnerable and exposed, their torturers are in perfect control. Victims are utterly at the mercy of their tormentors; the prisoner “cannot effectively evade, retaliate or shield himself against these assaults. Unlike other kinds of attack, here the victim must simply take it: there is no reply or counter open to him” (Sussman, 2005 , p. 31). Moreover, the victim cannot stop his or her physical suffering by admitting defeat; although in theory torture will stop once the subject confesses or provides certain information, “a torturer seldom if ever knows how much useful information the tortured has or how much the tortured must confess in order to have confessed ‘everything’” (Davis, 2005 , p. 164). Torture takes full advantage of victims’ helplessness, turning them into active accomplices in their own debasement. Because of the insistent, primal demand for relief from intense pain, victims cannot help but search for some way of appeasing or mollifying their tormentors; the “victim experiences within himself a dialectic where some part of him serves as the eager agent of his tormentor . . . the victim finds in his pain, and his own immediate responses to that pain, a surrogate for the torturer. The victim’s own voice, the voice of his body, has come in part to speak the torturer’s mind” (Sussman, 2005 , p. 24). In addition to exploiting the victim’s pain, torturers defile, degrade, and overwhelm their victims with shame, similar to victims of rape; not surprisingly, sexual torture is often used to emphasize the power of the tormentor and the vulnerability of the victim (Millett, 1994 , pp. 34–35).

The essence of torture is the destruction of the victim’s sense of agency. The deliberate infliction of severe physical pain or mental suffering is not enough; this must be done with the purpose of bringing individuals to such a point of weakness that they betray themselves. The victim must be broken, forced to offer information against his or her will (Bellaby, 2015 , p. 187). When a person voluntarily submits to painful procedures (such as self-flagellation or painful medical procedures), this does not qualify as torture. Moreover, torture differs from coercion insofar as torture seeks to terrorize victims into submission by overwhelming their capacity to exercise rational control over their decisions. Finally, torture differs from corporal punishment insofar as the latter prescribes a specific, predetermined penalty for a particular transgression and does not seek to break the guilty party’s will (Miller, 2017 ; for a contrasting view, see Schabas, 1996 , p. 4). As Manfred Nowak ( 2006 , p. 832), the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, explains in his study of US and international standards of torture, what distinguishes torture is the total subordination of the victim to the will and power of the torturer, for example through prolonged incommunicado detention in a secret place, which permits the perpetrator to intentionally inflict pain or suffering so as to extract a confession, obtain information, or punish or intimidate the victim.

History of Torture

Although torture has come to be widely rejected, this was not always the case. Historically, torture was not only common in times of war and social upheaval, but it was also openly practiced in many societies as an integral part of the judicial system. No euphemisms for torture were needed in medieval Europe since there was no need to deny the process and torture enjoyed general cultural consent (Silverman, 2001 , p. 21). Throughout much of history and much of the world, torture was seen as an effective technique for obtaining “true” information as well as an appropriate punishment for the immoral and a useful deterrent against future misconduct. Ancient Greeks accepted torture for the interrogation of slaves based on the assumption that slaves could not be trusted to reveal the truth voluntarily. The Romans adopted this practice and extended it to citizens, including Christians who were “put to the question” to force them to renounce their faith. With the rise of Christianity, torture fell into relative disuse until the 11th century , when European judicial systems resurrected the practice of judicial torture and the Catholic Church reversed its previous opposition to torture and sanctioned the use of torture against heretics (Peters, 1985 , pp. 13–14). In China, torture was a legally sanctioned means of extracting information and confessions from the Han dynasty ( 206 bce – 220 ce ) until just before the end of the imperial system in 1905 . Chinese officials were convinced that “the measured use of torture could result in more substantive justice—in the sense that the guilty were more likely to be convicted and the innocent allowed to go free” (Park, 2008 , p. 37).

Analyzing the accepted use of torture in medieval Europe, Lisa Silverman ( 2001 , p. 61) explains that Europeans generally believed that the truth could be elicited from the subconscious by applying physical pain: “It was widely believed that the body had many ways to betray the criminal involuntarily, speaking the truth in signs for all to see while the will stopped the tongue. Pallor, for example, was well known to indicate guilty knowledge.” By inflicting physical pain, legalized torture was therefore seen to bypass the human will and force truth from the guilty, while God would reward those proven innocent. Contrary to the modern assumption that only testimony that is given voluntarily is true, early modern people assumed that “the accused spoke the truth not freely but under compulsion, and it was precisely this compulsion … which made evidence acquired under torture so valuable” (Silverman, 2001 , p. 66).

The legal acceptability of torture therefore rested on the belief that it was an unpleasant but necessary means for discovering the truth and thus achieving justice. Criminals would be made to confess their guilt and pay for their crimes; the innocent would be vindicated. In both cases, the pain and suffering of those tortured would help achieve a higher goal, whether preserving civilization, fulfilling a sacred religious mission, or protecting the community. Torture was also used as an accepted part of ordinary criminal procedure in Europe from the thirteenth to the late eighteenth centuries , when judges were required to establish certain guilt in order to convict someone of a serious crime; certainty, in turn, was established through the testimony of two eyewitnesses or the accused person’s own confession. Because the two-eyewitness standard was so difficult to achieve, torture became an accepted means of extracting confessions (Langbein, 2004 , pp. 94–97).

In each case, the practice of torture was subject to strict rules, including the specific instruments to be used, the way in which they were to be applied, and the types of people who could be subjected to torture. In each case, initial restrictions were eventually eased. In ancient Greece and Rome, the rule that only slaves could be tortured was eventually expanded to include other groups; similarly, initial exemptions for women, children, and privileged classes were eventually dropped in medieval Europe. As John Conroy ( 2000 , pp. 27–28) explains, “the class of people whom society accepts as torturable has a tendency to expand.”

Changes in European legal systems led to a general ban on torture in continental Europe over the course of the 18th century . With the advent of less severe punishments for crimes, standards of proof could be relaxed. Defendants could be sentenced to jail, the workhouse, or exile rather than death; whereas the high stakes involved in sentencing a prisoner to death required definitive proof, relatively lighter sentences could be justified on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Torture-induced confessions were no longer legally justified (Langbein, 2004 , pp. 97–99). The abolition of a legalized system of judicial torture also reflected a shift in thinking about torture. Previously, torture was justified on religious grounds since it was presumed to benefit the sufferer by forcing him to admit the truth, even against his will, and thus bringing him closer to God. The infliction of pain was seen as a positive technique for saving the souls of fallen Christians, allowing sufferers to atone for their sins and win eternal salvation; hence, torture in the Inquisition was justified as Rettungsfolter or salvation-oriented torture (Brunkhorst, 2009 , p. 75; Glucklich, 2001 ).

Over the course of the 18th century , however, Enlightenment thinkers challenged this sacramental view of pain, contending that pain had no redeeming value and no connection to metaphysical truths; these intellectuals replaced the sacramental vision of pain with a medical approach to pain that emphasized the need to relieve suffering. Rather than embracing physical pain as a positive technique for overcoming selfishness, they condemned it as a negative practice that destroyed the self. They denied the value of testimony elicited through torture and charged that torture was a “tool of despotism” and “a weapon in the arsenal of political oppression” (Silverman, 2001 , p. 171). In his 1764 “Essay on Crimes and Punishments,” Italian prison reformer Cesare Beccaria wrote that governments have no right to authorize the punishment of a citizen so long as there remains any doubt of his guilt; according to Beccaria, torture was “a sure way to acquit robust scoundrels and to condemn weak but innocent people” (quoted in Foot, 2006 , p. 135). The changing cultural landscape meant that, in Europe at least, torture was transformed from a generally accepted practice to a generally rejected practice by the end of the 18th century . In fact, judicial torture had already become less common before this time, since judges had previously become skeptical that torture necessarily produced truthful testimony (Langbein, 2004 , p. 99; Silverman, 2001 , pp. 66–67).

Michel Foucault analyzes a similar shift in attitudes toward the use of torture as a method of punishment. Prior to the 18th century , torture was not only used to extract confessions but was also used as a form of extreme punishment intended to demonstrate and strengthen the sovereign’s power: “Its aim is not so much to re-establish a balance as to bring into play, at its extreme point, the dissymmetry between the subject who has dared to violate the law and the all-powerful sovereign who displays his strength” (Foucault, 1975 , pp. 48–49). As such, torture was used to terrorize the rest of the population by demonstrating the fearsome consequences of incurring the sovereign’s wrath. Yet the sovereign’s public use of torture as punishment, for example in public executions, did not necessarily deter others from misbehaving; it sometimes triggered sympathy for the convict and prompted riots in support of the prisoner. Public torture therefore proved counterproductive to the goals of the state, undermining rather than reinforcing the sovereign’s power. As such, it gave way to new disciplinary techniques that rejected brutal violence as an ineffective method of controlling and manipulating behavior. Although there was still a fear of violence and brutality, prisoners were found to be much more effectively disciplined by isolating them and subjecting them to constant surveillance.

Changes in legal theory meant that after the 18th century , judicial torture was no longer condoned in Western Europe. Coerced confessions were considered unreliable and were inadmissible as evidence. Torture came to be seen as the hallmark of a premodern, uncivilized culture, and modern, liberal regimes were assumed to have abandoned such a barbaric practice. According to the author of a 1907 entry on torture in the Encyclopaedia Britannica , “the whole subject is now only one of historical interest as far as Europe is concerned” (quoted in Twining & Twining, 1973 , p. 305). When Rejali (quoted in Parry, 2005 , pp. 517–518) wrote that the use of torture in Iran was not an anachronism but part of a rational, bureaucratic structure typical of modern states, his association of torture and modernity prompted one critical reviewer to ask: “if the growth of torture in 20th-century Iran and its changing forms are caused by efforts to modernize, why do we not torture in the modern United States or Western Europe?”

In fact, Rejali documents the continued use of torture by modern democracies in his 2007 book, Torture and Democracy , and argues that the scrutiny of civil society actors and human rights advocates has not ended torture but has incentivized interrogators to employ non-scarring techniques instead: “When we watch interrogators, interrogators get sneaky” (Rejali, 2007 , p. 9). In his comparative and historical analysis of torture, Christopher Einolf ( 2007 ) provides statistical evidence that there was a resurgence of torture in the 20th century . Torture increased with the rise of fascist and communist regimes in Germany, the Soviet Union, and their allies. These regimes employed torture as a mechanism for social control, using it to sow fear in their populations and neutralize dissent. Changes in the intensity and nature of military conduct in the first half of the century also led to an increase of torture of prisoners of war and occupied populations: “When total war tactics were combined with ideological and nationalist disrespect for conventional limitations on war, massacre, violence against civilians, and torture of enemy civilians and prisoners of war occurred at unprecedented levels” (Einolf, 2007 , p. 114).

Yet torture was also a common social practice used against domestic populations, especially members of marginalized groups (Parry, 2005 , p. 521). In the United States, a 1931 report by the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement documented the widespread use of stress positions, battery, psychological torture and the “water cure” in order to obtain information about a crime, highlighting the systematic use of the “third degree” by police and prison officials (Coyne & Hall, 2018 , pp. 146–147). Some of these techniques were apparently first tested in the Philippines where a wide range of torture techniques became standard operating procedure, subject to few constraints and no legal accountability (Coyne & Hall, 2018 , pp. 142–145).

Despite international efforts to promote human rights at the conclusion of World War II, torture continued to happen “off stage” in colonial and foreign locations and against members of marginalized groups whose guilt was presumed and credibility was questioned (Parry, 2005 , pp. 521–522). While colonial governments practiced torture prior to the 20th century , the rise of anti-colonial movements in the second half of the 20th century prompted colonial authorities to tighten their control and resort to increasingly brutal methods, including torture. Counter-insurgency campaigns against guerrilla forces also led to an increase in torture, as insurgents and their supporters were more likely to be tortured for information than prisoners of war in previous conventional wars, who were believed to possess relatively little information of value to the other side (Einolf, 2007 , p. 114). The 20th century also saw the rise of military governments in Latin America and communist governments in Asia that used systematic repression and torture to crack down on real and suspected opponents. These governments used torture and state terror to subdue their populations, exaggerating the extent and depth of security threats due to rigid ideological frameworks that convinced leaders that repression of the general population was necessary (Pion-Berlin & Lopez, 1991 , p. 68).

Since torture is forbidden under international law, it is commonly associated with nondemocratic regimes that fail to recognize limits on their power and wantonly subject individuals to brutal, inhumane treatment. However, with the rise of international campaigns against torture and the conditioning of foreign aid on adherence to human rights norms, nondemocratic states came to appreciate the value of appearing to conform to international norms prohibiting torture. Even nondemocratic states that regularly employ torture have ratified the UN CAT, calculating that doing so will enhance their reputations without actually preventing them from continuing to use torture (Hathaway, 2004 , pp. 202–208). In addition, both nondemocratic and democratic states have turned to “clean” torture techniques in order to avoid bad publicity about their human rights practices (Rejali, 2007 , pp. 23–26). These techniques, which leave no visible marks and are therefore easier to downplay and deny, were first developed in democratic countries, where governments continued to believe that coercive interrogation techniques were a useful means of generating valuable intelligence but also realized that they were being watched and judged by others in how well they respected human rights. Thus, in order to avoid bad publicity and preserve a veneer of legitimacy, they turned to what Rejali ( 2007 , pp. 1–10, 2011 , p. 30) refers to as stealth torture: “whenever there’s a free press, church groups, and politicians to watch the police, the interrogators literally pull their punches” and use clean torture techniques instead.

Thus, democratic and undemocratic countries alike have developed ways of evading public scrutiny of unsavory practices that they officially renounced but privately employed. Historian Alfred McCoy ( 2011 , p. 31) examines the program of psychological torture developed and propagated by the CIA during the Cold War, emphasizing that the techniques of sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain proved advantageous insofar as they did not leave “clear signs of abuse, greatly complicating any investigation, prosecution, or attempt at prohibition.” The CIA conducted research on mind control through “truth drugs” like LSD and experimented with forms of psychological torture through extreme sensory deprivation in hopes of gaining an advantage vis-à-vis their communist rivals (Coyne & Hall, 2018 , pp. 155–160). In Vietnam, where constraints were absent or lax, torture was used as part of Project Phoenix, a program designed to find, capture, interrogate and kill Vietnamese sympathetic to the Viet Cong. Some of the torture techniques developed in Vietnam were later brought back to the United States and used to coerce confessions from criminal suspects, as in the case of Vietnam veteran and Chicago police officer Jon Burge, reported to have overseen the torture of hundreds of African American suspects (Coyne & Hall, 2018 , pp. 162–166). Other cases of democratic countries’ use of torture against people defined as insurgents, terrorists, revolutionaries, or criminals include the French use of torture in Vietnam and Algeria, British practices in Kenya and Northern Ireland, dirty war tactics employed by Spanish security forces against Basque separatists, as well as methods used by Israeli security services to interrogate Palestinians suspected of “hostile terrorist activity” (Conroy, 2000 , pp. 4–8; Millett, 1994 , pp. 74–116; Parry, 2005 , p. 518; Supreme Court of Israel, 1999 ). Furthermore, officials from intelligence agencies of democratic countries were also involved in training their counterparts in developing countries on interrogation methods, including torture; the US Army School of the Americas (SOA) trained Latin American militaries to use practices such as torture, extortion, kidnapping and execution (Blakeley, 2006 ; McCoy, 2011 , p. 33; Quigley, 2011 , pp. 54–57).

These practices were deliberately hidden from the public since this allowed democratic citizens to imagine that the methods employed by their government were both efficient and moral; as Andrew Linklater (quoted in Steele, 2010 , p. 153) explains, “concealment protects moral sensibilities.” Democratic elites also took advantage of the public’s greater willingness to condone the use of torture against racial minorities, immigrants and other marginalized citizens, who are often seen as “deserving” rough treatment since they are members of groups that are portrayed as suspicious or even dangerous (Kelly, 2009 ; Wolfendale, 2009 , p. 58). As Brent Steele ( 2010 , p. 153) explains, if we do not identify—or identify with—the individuals who are subjected to torture, then we can imagine that they are as bad as possible and that they deserve the treatment they receive. Einolf ( 2007 , p. 102) agrees, citing evidence that torture is used “more often against people who are not full members of a society, such as slaves, foreigners, prisoners of war, and members of racial, ethnic, and religious outsider groups” or when the state is perceived to be under severe threat. As a result, despite domestic and international condemnation, torture techniques continue to be used not only in cases of national emergency but also as a routine part of many judicial systems (Tse, 2011 ).

Political and Institutional Influences on the Practice of Torture

All types of governments respond to violent challenges with repression. Studies have found that governments are significantly more likely to resort to torture when they face threats to their continued rule, especially when they are engaged in civil and international wars, face a violent dissident challenge, or are attacked by a transnational terrorist group (see, for example, Conrad et al., 2017 ; Davenport et al., 2007 ; Einolf, 2007 ; Wantchekon & Healy, 1999 ). Erwin Staub ( 2003 ) studied social indicators of genocide and torture, analyzing Turkey during years of Armenian genocide ( 1914–1918 ), Nazi Germany ( 1933–1945 ), Pol Pot’s Cambodia ( 1976–1979 ), Argentina’s “Dirty War” ( 1976–1983 ) and identified the scapegoating of a subgroup as the social condition most conducive to rise of torture. Criminologist Ronald Crelinsten ( 2005 , pp. 76–77) adds that torture is more likely in times of national emergency when there is an especially strong sense of threat to security and when prevailing ideology touts a “sacred mission” that provides a justification for violating standard social norms; he finds that torture is also more common when large numbers of suspects need to be processed. James Piazza and James Walsh ( 2009 , pp. 126–145) come to a more nuanced conclusion in their analysis of the impact of terrorism on government protections of human rights, finding that countries experiencing a large number of terrorist attacks were more likely to engage in disappearances and extrajudicial killings but not in torture, political imprisonment or restrictions on free speech and assembly. They do admit, however, that states may respond to terrorist attacks by engaging in more “clean” torture techniques that are by definition difficult for human rights monitoring groups to detect, much like disappearances and extrajudicial killings (Piazza & Walsh, 2009 , p. 138).

According to Emilia Powell and Jeffrey Staton ( 2009 , pp. 149–150), 83% of all states that ratified the CAT engaged in at least minimal treaty violations, while 42% of ratifiers—including 30% of democracies that ratified the CAT—systematically violated the convention. Democracies are therefore not as exceptional as they often like to think of themselves. On the one hand, liberal democratic institutions have been found to limit state coercion and repression. Democracies have a better record when it comes to respecting physical integrity rights (including freedom from torture as well as lack of extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and political imprisonment), especially where they have effective constitutional guarantees of the right to fair and public trials (Keith, Tate, & Poe, 2009 , p. 652; Simmons, 2009 , pp. 273–274). In democracies, a free media can act as a watchdog and expose human rights violations (Whitten-Woodring, 2009 ), contested elections can incentivize public officials to protect physical integrity rights (Cingranelli & Filippov, 2010 ) and effective judicial institutions can punish instances of state torture (Powell & Staton, 2009 ). Nonetheless, democratic governments have not abandoned the use of torture and many consider it useful in case of external threats such as transnational terrorism. In such instances, they turn to stealth torture and clean torture techniques in order to maintain plausible deniability and reduce the risk of exposure (Rejali, 2007 ). This allows democratic officials to claim that they remain within the bounds of legally acceptable levels of violence, as in former CIA director Michael Hayden’s central metaphor in his 2016 memoir Playing to the Edge , which he describes as playing so close to the line that you get chalk dust on your cleats. In fact, as Jinee Lokaneeta ( 2011 , pp. 34–35) argues, jurisprudence in liberal democracies uses such ambiguity to unequivocally reject torture while simultaneously permitting other forms of excess that exist at the border of legality and illegality. Thus, while constitutional provisions and human rights treaty commitments are not mere “parchment barriers” to human rights abuses including torture (Keith et al., 2009 ), they do not prevent states from violating such commitments in the face of terrorism or violent dissent.

Elections and liberal democratic institutions do, however, tend to reduce the duration of human rights abuses once violent challenges end. Courtenay Conrad and Will Moore ( 2010 ) find that elections and liberal democratic institutions can influence governments to stop using torture once the threat of violent opposition is gone; states with popular suffrage and a free press are generally more likely to terminate their use of torture because allegations of torture are more likely to become public and the executive is more likely to be held responsible and removed from office. Under such circumstances, executives have an incentive to take actions to convince interrogators and jailers that they will be caught and punished if they resort to torture. Democratic systems with a greater number of checks on executive authority (that is, a large number of veto players) are less likely to change torture practices, however, since the system is weighted toward maintaining the status quo. For example, though Barack Obama promised to close the detention camps at Guantanamo Bay, he was blocked from doing so by Congress, showing that institutionalized separation of powers makes it difficult to change human rights policy.

Thus, the use of torture may continue even when the threat of violent dissent is removed: “States whose agents engage in torture in a given year have a 93% chance of continuing to torture in the following year” (Conrad & Moore, 2010 , p. 459). The use of torture is often embedded in local culture and can be difficult to dislodge, given that executives cannot monitor and control all of the agents assigned to interrogate and supervise prisoners. In interviews with local police in India, Rachel Wahl ( 2014 , pp. 820–821) found that a deeply entrenched moral beliefs that defended the use of torture against hardened criminals and terrorists who were seen as “less human.” These enforcement officers rejected the premise that their job was to uphold the law and protect human rights; instead, they justified the use of torture as necessary to fight evil and achieve justice (Wahl, 2014 , pp. 821–822). In the face of genuine moral beliefs that conflict with human rights norms, upholding the personal integrity rights of criminals and marginalized individuals can be difficult even under normal circumstances. However, governments and enforcement officers who refrain from using torture are likely to maintain good practices “until a national security threat justifies the rougher handling of detainees” (Simmons, 2009 , pp. 305–306).

Democratic institutions may constrain governments from engaging in human rights abuses but they may also respond to popular pressure to use harsh tactics against foreigners and marginalized groups, rewarding leaders who vow to protect national security. Democratic majorities expect their leaders to protect them and elected officials who approve or condone the use of torture in the name of order and national security are often re-elected: “blocks of voters who explicitly support aggressive coercive behavior against unwanted others are able to elect executives who promise to take off the gloves on the grounds that they are implementing the will of the people” (Conrad, Hill, & Moore, 2018 , p. 4). Using data from Amnesty International on specific allegations of torture and ill treatment, Courtenay Conrad, Daniel Hill and Will Moore ( 2018 , p. 13) find that contested elections do not lead to greater protection of individual human rights; popularly “elected leaders are expected to protect the majority, and elections may incentivize them to permit/order state agents do so by committing human rights violations against people perceived to be threatening.” Even where there is widespread support for the general prohibition of torture, voters are unlikely to make protection of human rights a key electoral issue, especially for the rights of people of different racial, ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Survey research suggests, for example, that Americans are more accepting of government torture when a detainee has an Arabic name and when the alleged crime is terrorism (Conrad, Croco, Gomez, and Moore, 2018 ; Piazza, 2015 ). Contrarily, powerful constitutional courts are created to protect the rights of political minorities by monitoring and punishing violations of constitutional and human rights. Where courts are powerful, victims may file cases against human rights violators and those found guilty may be held accountable. Even so, effective courts cannot entirely prevent repressive practices, as officials may maintain plausible deniability by employing clean torture techniques that are easier to hide: “Courts may decrease state repression writ large, but they also appear to encourage executives and their agents to be more clever in hiding human rights violations that can be narrowly targeted by turning to clean torture when they do occur” (Conrad et al., 2018 , pp. 13–14). Similarly, despite expectations that constitutional prohibitions on torture should counter majoritarian support for repression of minorities, Adam Chilton and Mila Versteeg ( 2015 ) find that countries with torture bans actually engaged in more torture than countries without such bans and that torture levels actually worsened in the ten years after bans were adopted.

Just as liberal democracies generally have better human rights records but nonetheless practice torture in response to violent threats such as transnational terrorism, their compliance with international human rights treaties varies. Here, too, independent domestic courts may not be enough to deter governments from violating their commitment to refrain from using torture, and majoritarian pressures may actually reward some governments in the form of increased popular support for governments that openly violate international law (Lupu & Wallace, 2019 ). Yonatan Lupu ( 2013 ) argues that even powerful courts in liberal democracies may lack sufficient information to secure prosecutions for alleged cases of torture where evidence is difficult to obtain and standards of proof are high; as a result, ratification of the ICCPR has improved government respect for the freedoms of speech, association, assembly, and religion, but has not reduced the extent to which governments use torture, extrajudicial killings, political imprisonment, and disappearances.

Nondemocratic governments, however, are more likely to flout the terms of international human rights treaties, even when they have ratified such treaties. Such governments may cynically ratify treaties as a form of “social camouflage” to avoid international criticism even though they have little intention of actually improving their human rights practices (Simmons, 2009 , p. 112). Nondemocratic governments are actually more likely to practice torture if they have signed the CAT than if they have not (Hathaway, 2004 ). James Vreeland ( 2008 , pp. 69–70) explains this initially counterintuitive finding by analyzing the different circumstances facing “open” and “closed” dictatorships. He found that dictatorships with the trappings of competitive party politics are both more likely to sign the CAT and also demonstrate higher rates of torture. He explains that “closed” dictatorships in which power is concentrated in a single political party, junta, or leader actually face less opposition since defection is invariably punished. Such regimes face little pressure to ratify human rights treaties; moreover, since they rely on fear and intimidation to rule, “even a symbolic gesture against torture could introduce ambiguity over [their] limitations” (Vreeland, 2008 , p. 78). Dictatorships that allow some competition, however, face much greater prospects of defection and consequently have higher average rates of torture. At the same time, the greater level of uncertainty that characterizes multiparty dictatorships means that domestic political actors are in a better position to press their government to ratify human rights conventions such as the CAT. Vreeland ( 2008 , p. 94) clarifies that becoming a state party to the CAT does not itself cause an increase in torture and “may even serve to help reduce torture as governments adopt CAT provisions into domestic law”—which is why the domestic opposition in multiparty authoritarian regimes push for accession in the first place. Jay Goodliffe and Darren Hawkins ( 2006 , pp. 359–360) also argue that ratification entails a significant commitment insofar as it requires ratifying states to verify policy implementation, and establishes international monitoring and delegates prosecuting authority to other states through universal jurisdiction.

Emilie Hafner-Burton ( 2008 , pp. 700–701) argues that “naming and shaming” by human rights NGOs, media sources, and international organizations is often followed by even more acts of torture and disappearances. This arguably results from the fact that international pressure compels repressive governments to make a variety of improvements in political rights, but doing so exacerbates leaders’ insecurity and prompts them to engage in increased terror to offset these improvements, especially when armed opposition groups or elections threaten their hold on power (Hafner-Burton, 2008 , p. 712). While Beth Simmons ( 2009 , p. 305) acknowledges that international human rights treaties like the CAT cannot force governments to comply, she insists that these treaties can and do reduce torture in polities that have at least moderate levels of public accountability:

CAT ratification resonates in those polities; individuals and groups who may have good reason to fear mistreatment of themselves, their families, their countrymen, or other humans by the government have strong incentives to mobilize to implement the international ban in domestic law.

Overall, respect for constitutional protections of personal integrity rights and for the global norm against torture depends to a large extent on the expectation of norm enforcement and accountability, which is greater but not given in democratic states. Strong domestic legal systems can place significant constraints on the behavior of government leaders and agents, but enforcement is particularly difficult in the case of torture since violations tend to be hidden and public outcry is sporadic at best.

Although disagreements remain over the precise definition of torture, its modern use, and the effectiveness of international treaties prohibiting torture, most scholars agree that “the impressive worldwide prohibition of torture must be honored rather than co-opted by legal sleight of hand” (Miller, 2005 , p. 41). Though torture continues to be practiced by modern states, including democracies, it rejects the liberal tenet of the inviolable dignity of the individual and gives agents of the state absolute power over prisoners. This has a corrupting influence and is incompatible with liberalism and limited government. Even if the intended end is to save lives, the use of torture is generally rejected as an unacceptable means, and government resort to hypocrisy, secrecy and obfuscation, insisting that their enhanced interrogation methods do not qualify as torture. The absolute prohibition against torture under domestic and international law incentivizes officials to turn to clean techniques that have the veneer of acceptability even though they can cause excruciating pain and severe mental suffering.

Continued use of such techniques is made easier by downplaying their seriousness and restricting their use to marginalized groups in remote locations. “When officials declare that they have not approved illegal or inappropriate treatment, their denials tend to be accepted because we are likely to overlook or discount the seriousness of the treatment that has been permitted or inflicted” (Parry, 2005 , p. 521). The use of clean torture means that victims have a difficult time proving that they were brutally mistreated and they “may be already defined as suspect or untrustworthy because of their race or ethnicity, or because they were detained in the first place” (Parry, 2005 , p. 521). Moreover, torture is easier to hide when victims are others—foreign enemies or racial, ethnic, religious, and other minorities who are naturally regarded with less sympathy and more suspicion. People are less likely to define an act as torture when it is perpetrated against others and are therefore less likely to be concerned about torture when it occurs overseas against terrorism suspects that are viewed as a distinct “other” or is perpetrated by a member of one’s out-group (Kearns, 2015 , p. 10; Norris, Larsen, & Stastny, 2010 ).

Distinguishing between in-groups and out-groups is also one of the steps involved in conditioning individuals to commit violence and torture. In-group solidarity is fostered through common uniforms, rules, and language. Camaraderie and peer pressure urge individuals on while authorities encourage obedience and provide rewards (Huggins, Haritos-Fatouros, & Zimbardo, 2002 ). Socialization and group cohesiveness increase anonymity and decrease self-awareness, fostering a lack of personal accountability for abusive behavior (Costanzo & Gerrity, 2009 , pp. 196–198). In his study of a German police unit during World War II, Christopher Browning ( 1998 ) argues that the “ordinary men” who served in the unit were gradually desensitized to brutality by the examples of their peers and the mockery they feared if they failed to participate. Hostility toward out-groups is encouraged by dehumanizing victims and characterizing them as a threat, making it less disturbing to use violence against them. As Janice Gibson and Mika Haritos-Fatouros ( 1986 ) analyze in their study of the brutal but effective process of desensitizing special police units in Greece to torture suspected communists, military training gradually desensitized soldiers to violence and reduced the strain normally created by repugnant acts. The moral disengagement that made violence possible involved giving the enemy derogatory names and portraying them as less than human, making it easier to kil1 them (Gibson & Haritos-Fatouros, 1986 , p. 55). Similarly, in the Stanford prison experiment, the students who were randomly assigned to be guards quickly became aggressive and abusive within the prison, insulting and bullying the prisoners:

Even without training, the student guards “knew” from television and movies that they were supposed to punish prisoners; they “knew” they were supposed to feel superior; and they “knew” they were supposed to blame their victims. Their own behavior and that of their peers gradually numbed their sensitivity to what they were doing, and they were rewarded by the power they had over their prisoners. (Gibson & Haritos-Fatouros, 1986 , p. 57)

Dehumanization also helps explain the lack of accountability even when cases of torture are uncovered. In John Conroy’s ( 2000 ) study of the “unspeakable acts” committed by British soldiers against Northern Irish men falsely accused of being Irish Republican Army terrorists, he notes that the British government took years to acknowledge that the abuse and continued to deny that the techniques constituted torture. Moreover, the government charged without evidence that the tortured detainees were nothing more than “thugs and murderers” while “the perpetrators, instigators, and defenders of the five techniques . . . escaped unscathed, their reputations untarnished” (Conroy, 2000 , p. 187).

The continued use of torture and abusive practices also relies on social amnesia, which perpetuates a culture of impunity (Rajali, 2011 , p. 27). Occasional scandals tend to quickly fade from memory and torture retreats back to the shadows, at the margins of prevailing political discourse (Parry, 2005 , p. 521). For example, the British public’s knowledge of torture and other abuses committed by British colonial authorities in Kenya has clearly faded:

It is fair to say that even now, fifty years later, the British public is not really aware of what went on . . . British ignorance about Mau Mau is of a peculiar, resilient kind. It is breached every so often, but then heals over again. . . . There was a period in the later 1950s when everyone knew, or could know, what was going on. . . . All that seems to have been forgotten. The British need to believe that their Empire was run and eventually dismantled with restraint and humanity—as opposed to the disgusting brutality of the French, Dutch, Belgian, Portuguese, Spanish, and German colonial empires. (Neal Ascherson quoted in Parry, 2005 , p. 521)

Just as it is wrong to see torture as an historical anachronism, it is also misleading to claim that it is a new temptation or the product of exceptional circumstances (Athey, 2007 ). Historical amnesia and general lack of concern for the possible torture of others make it difficult to hold governments accountable for violations and pressure them to comply with the prohibition against torture. When no one is held responsible, torture is able to continue; as Rejali ( 2011 , p. 38) notes, “nothing predicts future torture as much as past impunity.” Despite international agreements and constitutional prohibitions, governments and their citizens have not demanded effective action to halt the spread of torture; in fact, they have been able to pretend that torture only occurs on an exceptional basis by relegating torture to hidden places and condoning its use against threatening and marginalized groups. This protects officials who ordered and implemented torture from responsibility. In order to confront torture, people must concern themselves with rights of all others, even those from “the torturable classes” (Conroy, 2000 , p. 251).

Links to Digital Materials

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) . The ACLU website includes thousands of searchable documents related to torture as well as a link to the partially redacted investigative report produced by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that describes human rights abuses by the CIA’s post-9/11 program of detention, torture, and other abuse of detainees. The website also includes links to statements demanding accountability for the CIA torture program and observations on the merits of legal cases against the US for its unlawful rendition, arbitrary detention, forced disappearance and torture of suspected terrorists.

Amnesty International (AI) . AI has documented torture for decades and regularly posts information on its website about torture practices in countries throughout the world, including annual reports on the state of human rights around the globe, as well as urgent action updates that contain information for letter writing campaigns calling for the release of prisoners of conscience at high risk of torture and other ill-treatment or even death.

Center for Constitutional Rights . The Center for Constitutional Rights focuses on promoting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its website contains extensive information and criticism of immigration sweeps, ghost detentions, extraordinary rendition, and other programs that deny individuals their right to due process. The website also includes descriptions of cases that have been brought against foreign officials and corporations for human rights abuses in US courts, as well as cases against US officials in foreign courts under the principle of universal jurisdiction.

Cingranelli–Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Data Project . The CIRI Human Rights Dataset contains data on government respect for 15 internationally recognized human rights in 202 countries from 1981 to 2011. It codes data from annual human rights reports produced by Amnesty International and the US Department of State and calculates a physical integrity index that measures state practices for torture, extrajudicial killing, political imprisonment and disappearances. The project was originally designed by Dr. David Cingranelli and Dr. David Richards.

Committee Against Torture (CAT) . The CAT is the body of 10 independent experts that monitors implementation of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by its State parties. The website contains information about the CAT and its work, as well as country-specific information.

Guantánamo Testimonials Project . The Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas at the University of California Davis has collected testimonies of prisoner abuse at the US naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba since 2005 as part of a long-term project to assess the effects of the US war on terror on human rights in the Americas. The website includes testimonies of prisoners, officials from US intelligence agencies, interrogators and military guards, military physicians and psychologists, defense lawyers, and the Red Cross.

Human Rights Watch . This nongovernmental organization grew out of the 1978 Helsinki Watch to become a leading defender of human rights. HRW investigates human rights violations, including torture, in countries throughout the world and publishes investigative reports of country practices as well as annual reviews of human rights practices around the globe.

Ill-Treatment and Torture Data Collection Project . Unlike previous research that measured the rough number of alleged or reported cases of torture in a given country in a given year, this project codes data on four concepts: Incidence, Perpetrators, Motive and Judicial Response. The data draws on individual allegations compiled in Amnesty International documents.

National Security Archive . This NGO, founded in 1985 by journalists and scholars to check rising government secrecy and based at George Washington University’s Gelman Library, has a massive archive of declassified US documents. The award-winning archive includes tens of thousands of documents released through Freedom of Information and declassification requests, which has produced what one review called a “state-of-the-art index to history.”

Rule of Law Oral History Project . This project, part of Columbia University’s Center for Oral History Archives, was initiated in 2008 to explore the state of human and civil rights in the post-9/11 world and expanded in 2010 to study the statutory and constitutional challenges of the use of the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay. The website includes an archive of interviews with former detainees, psychologists and activists, legal scholars, military prosecutors and officials, defense attorneys, judges, journalists, and representatives of human rights NGOs.

World Organization Against Torture (Organisation Mondiale Contre la Torture, OMCT). Created in 1986, the OMCT is a coalition of international nongovernmental organizations dedicated to ending torture, summary executions, enforced disappearances, and all other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The OMCT website contains information about grave human rights violations and campaigns to protect victims and pressure governments to respect international human rights norms and prosecute the alleged perpetrators of human rights violations. The website also contains links to annual reports on the work of human rights defenders.

• Améry, J. (1980). At the mind’s limits: Contemplations by a survivor of Auschwitz and its realities , trans. S. Rosenfeld & S. P. Rosenfeld . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Amnesty International . (2014). Torture in 2014: 30 Years of Broken Promises .
• Athey, S. (2007). The terrorist we torture: The tale of Abdul Hakim Murad. South Central Review , 24 (1), 73–90.
• Başoğlu, M. , Livanou, M. , & Crnobarić, C. (2007). Torture v. other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment: Is the distinction real or apparent? Archives of General Psychiatry , 64 , 277–285.
• Bellaby, R. (2015). Torture-lite: An ethical middle-ground? International Journal of Applied Philosophy , 29 (2), 177–190.
• Blakeley, R. (2006). Still training to torture? US training of military forces from Latin America. Third World Quarterly , 27 (8), 1439–1461.
• Bowden, M. (2003, October). The dark art of interrogation. Atlantic Monthly , 51–76.
• Browning, C. (1998). Ordinary men: Reserve police battalion 101 and the final solution in Poland . New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
• Brunkhorst, H. (2009). Torture and democracy. In B. Clucas , G. Johnstone and T. Ward (Eds.), Torture: Moral absolutes and ambiguities . Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.
• Chilton, A. S. , & Versteeg, M. (2015). The failure of constitutional torture prohibitions. The Journal of Legal Studies , 44 (2), 417–452.
• Chytroschek, T. (2011). Musik als Waffe [Songs of War: Music as a Weapon].
• Cingranelli, D. , & Filippov, M. (2010). Electoral rules and incentives to protect human rights. Journal of Politics , 72 (1), 243–257.
• Conrad, C. R. , Conrad, J. , Walsh, J. I. , & Piazza, J. A. (2017). Who tortures the terrorists? Transnational terrorism and military torture. Foreign Policy Analysis , 13 , 761–786.
• Conrad, C. R. , Croco, S. E. , Gomez, B. T. , & Moore, W. T. (2018). Threat perception and American support for torture. Political Behavior , 40 (4), 989–1009.
• Conrad, C. R. , Hill, D. W. , & Moore, W. H. (2018). Torture and the limits of democratic institutions. Journal of Peace Research , 55 (1), 3–17.
• Conrad, C. R. , & Moore, W. T. (2010). What stops the torture? American Journal of Political Science , 54 (2), 459–476.
• Conroy, J. (2000). Unspeakable acts, ordinary people: The dynamics of torture . New York, NY: Knopf.
• Costanzo, M. , & Gerrity, E. (2009). The effects and effectiveness of using torture as an interrogation device: Using research to inform the policy debate. Social Issues and Policy Review , 3 (1), 179–210.
• Coyne, C. J. , & Hall, A. R. (2018). Tyranny comes home: The domestic face of U.S. militarism . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Crelinsten, R. (2005). How to make a torturer. Index on Censorship , 34 (1), 72–75.
• Cusick, S. G. (2013). Toward an acoustemology of detention in the “Global War on Terror.” In G. Born (Ed.), Music, sound, and the reconfiguration of public and private space (pp. 275–291). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Cusick, S. G. , & Joseph, B. W. (2011). Across an invisible line: A conversation about music and torture. Grey Room , 42 (Winter), 6–21.
• Davenport, C. , Moore, W. H. , & Armstrong, D. (2007). The puzzle of Abu Ghraib: Are democratic institutions a palliative or panacea? Working Paper .
• Davis, M. (2005). The moral justifiability of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. International Journal of Applied Philosophy , 19 (2), 161–178.
• De Wet, E. (2004). The prohibition of torture as an international norm of Jus Cogens and its implications for national and customary law. European Journal of International Law , 15 (1), 97–121.
• Einolf, C. J. (2007). The fall and rise of torture: A comparative and historical analysis. Sociological Theory , 25 (2), 101–121.
• Evans, R. (2006). Pinochet in London, Pinochet in Chile: International and domestic politics in human rights policy. Human Rights Quarterly , 28 (1), 207–244.
• Evans, R. (2019). The ethics of torture in the War on Terror. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies .
• Fair, E. (2016). “It was torture”: An Abu Ghraib interrogator acknowledges “Horrible mistakes”/ Interviewer T. Gross [Podcast].
• Foot, R. (2006). Torture: The struggle over a peremptory norm in a counter-terrorist era. International Relations , 20 (2), 131–151.
• Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison . New York, NY: Random House.
• Gibson, J. T. , & Haritos-Fatouros, M. (1986). The education of a torturer. Psychology Today , 20 (November), 50–58.
• Glucklich, A. (2001). Sacred pain: Hurting the body for the sake of the soul . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Goodliffe, J. , & Hawkins, D. G. (2006). Explaining commitment: States and the convention against torture. Journal of Politics , 68 (2), 358–371.
• Haynes, W. J. (2002, November 27). Counter-resistance techniques. Action memorandum for Office of the Secretary of Defense (stamped with handwritten notation by Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, December 2).
• Greenberg, K. J. , & Dratel, J. L. (Eds.) (2005). The torture papers: The road to Abu Ghraib . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2008). Sticks and stones: Naming and shaming the human rights enforcement problem. International Organization , 62 (4), 689–716.
• Hathaway, O. (2004). The promise and limits of the international law on torture. In S. Levinson (Ed.), Torture: A Collection (pp. 199–212). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Hayden, M. (2016). Playing to the edge: American intelligence in the age of terror . New York, NY: Penguin.
• House of Lords . (1999). R., ex parte Pinochet v Bartle and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis , Appeal, [1999] UKHL 17, ILDC 1736 (UK 1999), [2000] 1 AC 147, [1999] 2 WLR 827, [1999] 2 All ER 97, (1999) 38(3) ILM 581, (2002) 119 ILR 135 (March 24).
• Huggins, M. , Haritos-Fatouros, M. , & Zimbardo, P. (2002). Violence workers: Police torturers and Murderers Reconstruct Brazilian Atrocities . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) . (1949). Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War . 75 UNTS 287. Geneva, Switzerland: ICRC.
• Jaffer, J. , & Singh, A. (2007). Administration of torture: A documentary record from Washington to Abu Ghraib and beyond . New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
• Johnson, D. A. , Mora, A. , & Schmidt, A. (2016, September/October). The strategic costs of torture: How “enhanced interrogation” hurt America. Foreign Affairs , 121–132.
• Johnson, J. (2016, February 17). Trump says “torture works,” backs waterboarding and “much worse.” Washington Post .
• Kearns, E. M. (2015). The study of torture: Why it persists, why perceptions of it are malleable, and why it is difficult to eradicate. Laws , 4, 1–15.
• Keith, L. C. , Tate, C. N. , & Poe, S. C. (2009). Is the law a mere parchment barrier to human rights abuse? Journal of Politics , 71 (2), 644–660.
• Kelly, T. (2009). The UN Committee against torture: Human rights monitoring and the legal recognition of cruelty. Human Rights Quarterly , 31 (3), 777–800.
• Kelly, T. (2012). This side of silence: Human rights, torture, and the recognition of cruelty . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Lagouranis, T. (2008). Implementing “torture lite”: An army interrogator's first-hand account. City University of New York Law Review , 11 (2), 335–337.
• Langbein, J. (2004). The legal history of torture. In S. Levinson (Ed.), Torture: A collective (pp. 93–103). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Lokaneeta, J. (2011). Transnational torture: Law, violence, and state power in the United States and India . New York, NY: New York University Press.
• Luban, D. (2009). Human dignity, humiliation, and torture. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal , 19 (3), 211–230.
• Lupu, Y. (2013). Best evidence: The role of information in domestic judicial enforcement of international human rights agreements. International Organization , 67 (3), 469–503.
• Lupu, Y. , & Wallace, G. (2019). Violence, nonviolence, and the effects of human rights law. American Journal of Political Science , 63 (2), 411–426.
• McCoy, A. W. (2011). Mind maze: The CIA’s pursuit of psychological torture. In M. Cohn (Ed.), The United States and torture: Interrogation, incarceration, and abuse (pp. 25–52). New York: New York University Press.
• Miller, G. H. (2005). Defining torture. Cardozo Law School’s Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy, Occasional Paper No. 3 (December).
• Miller, S. (2017). Torture . In E. N. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy . The Metaphysics Lab, Stanford University (Summer).
• Millett, K. (1994). The politics of cruelty . New York, NY: Norton.
• Moren, R. , & Deane, C. (2004, May 27). Torture and physical abuse: What Americans will allow . The Washington Post .
• Norris, J. I. , Larsen, J. T. , & Stastny, B. J. (2010). Social perceptions of torture: Genuine disagreement, subtle malleability, and in-group bias. Peace and Conflict , 16 , 275–294.
• Nowak, M. (2006). What practices constitute torture? US and UN standards. Human Rights Quarterly , 28 , 809–841.
• O’Mara, S. M. (2015). Why torture doesn’t work . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Park, N. (2008). Imperial Chinese justice and the law of torture, Late Imperial China , 29 (2), 37–67.
• Parry, J. (2005). The shape of modern torture: Extraordinary rendition and detention. Melbourne Journal of International Law , 6 (2), 516–533.
• Peters, E. (1985). Torture . Oxford, England: Blackwell.
• Piazza, J. A. , & Walsh, J. I. (2009) Transnational terror and human rights. International Studies Quarterly , 53 , 125–148.
• Piazza, J. A. (2015). Terrorist suspect religious identity and public support for Harsh interrogation and detention practices. Political Psychology , 36 (6), 667–690.
• Pion-Berlin, D. , & Lopez, G. A. (1991). Of victims and executioners: Argentine state terror, 1975–1979. International Studies Quarterly , 35 (1), 63–86.
• Powell, E. J. , & Staton, J. K. (2009). Domestic judicial institutions and human rights treaty violation, International Studies Quarterly , 53 , 149–174.
• Quigley, B. (2011). Torture and human rights abuses at the school of Americas-WHINSEC. In M. Cohn (Ed.), The United States and torture: Interrogation, incarceration, and abuse (pp. 53–67). New York: New York University Press.
• Rejali, D. M. (2007). Torture and democracy . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Rejali, D. M. (2011). Torture and democracy: What now? In S. Binwas & Z. A. Zalloua (Eds.), Torture: Power, democracy, and the human body (pp. 25–45). Seattle: University of Washington Press.
• Scarry, E. (1985). The body in pain: The making and unmaking of the world . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Schabas, W. A. (1996). The death penalty as cruel treatment and torture: Capital punishment challenged in the world’s courts . Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
• Senate Select Committee on Intelligence . (2014). Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s detention and interrogation program together with foreword by Chairman Feinstein and additional minority views . 113th Congress, 2d session, S. Report 113–288.
• Silverman, L. (2001). Tortured subjects: Pain, truth, and the body in early modern France . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Simmons, B. (2009). Mobilizing for human rights: International law in domestic politics . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Steele, B. J. (2010). Defacing power: The aesthetics of insecurity in global politics . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Staub, E. (2003). The psychology of good and evil: Why children, adults, and groups help and harm others . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Supreme Court of Israel . (1999). Public Committee Against Torture v. State of Israel . HCJ 5100/94.
• Sussman, D. (2005). What’s wrong with torture? Philosophy and Public Affairs , 33 , 1–33.
• Tse, K. (2011, December 22). How to stop torture . YouTube [Video].
• Twining, W. L. , & Twining, P. E. (1973). Bentham on torture. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly , 24 (3), 305–356.
• UN High Commissioner for Human Rights . (1984). Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . GA res. 39/46, annex, 39 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, UN Doc. A/39/51; 1465 UNTS 85.
• UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights . (1948). Universal declaration of human rights , GA res. 217A (III), UN Doc. A/810 at 71.
• UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights . (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , GA res. 2200A (XXI), 21 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, UN Doc. A/6316 (1966); 999 UNTS 171; 6 ILM 368 (1967).
• Vreeland, J. R. (2008). Political institutions and human rights: Why dictatorships enter into the United Nations convention against torture. International Organization , 62 (1), 65–101.
• Wahl, R. (2014). Justice, context, and violence: Law enforcement offers on why they torture. Law and Society Review , 48 (4), 807–836.
• Wantchekon, L. , & Healy, A. (1999). The “game” of torture. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 43 (5), 596–609.
• Whitten-Woodring, J. (2009). Watchdog or lapdog? Media freedom, regime type, and government respect for human rights. International Studies Quarterly , 53 (3), 595–625.
• Wolfendale, J. (2009). The myth of “torture lite.” Ethics and International Affairs , 23 (1), 47–61.

Related Articles

• Compliance With International Law
• The Ethics of Torture in the Context of the War on Terror

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, International Studies. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 23 March 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|81.177.182.159]
• 81.177.182.159

Character limit 500 /500

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• History of Architecture
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• History of Art
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Literature
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Browse content in History
• Environmental History
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Education
• Intellectual History
• Military History
• Political History
• Regional and National History
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Browse content in Literature
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Musicology and Music History
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Religion
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cultural Studies
• Technology and Society
• Browse content in Law
• Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• History of Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Public International Law
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Biochemistry
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Environmental Geography
• Environmental Science
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Psychology
• Health Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Medical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business History
• Business Ethics
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Human Resource Management
• Knowledge Management
• Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Browse content in Economics
• Asian Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Public Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• Asian Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• International Relations
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Political Economy
• Public Policy
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Browse content in Social Work
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Browse content in Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Reviews and Awards
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

• < Previous
• Next chapter >

1 How Little We Know About Torture

• Published: April 2022
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter looks at the extensive data from the Spanish Inquisition in order to conduct a dispassionate empirical analysis of torture, its causes, characteristics, and effects. It examines scores of manuscripts, drawn from key periods in the history of the Spanish Inquisition, to provide an anatomy of torture. To analyze these findings, the chapter brings together two research programs: the historiography of the Spanish Inquisition and the study of contemporary interrogational torture. The chapter investigates the intersection of these two literatures by means of a third field of inquiry, the scholarship on intelligence analysis, to explore how the Inquisition assessed information extracted by coercive and noncoercive means and to explain why it adopted the torture practices that it came to adopt. The chapter emphasizes that the study is about how torture has been employed in the past, in a specific period and under particular circumstances. It showcases the strengths and weaknesses of torture under the most permissive conditions, which are unlikely to be met during future interrogation efforts in the United States or other democracies.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]
• Google Scholar Indexing

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Public Health

Beyond torture checklists: an exploratory study of the reliability and construct validity of the Torturing Environment Scale (TES)

Pau pérez-sales.

1 SiRa/GAC Center, Madrid, Spain

2 Department of Psychiatry, Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain

Raquel González-Rubio

3 Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain

Blanca Mellor-Marsá

4 Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain

Gonzalo Martínez-Alés

5 Psychiatry Department, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, School of Medicine, Madrid, Spain

6 Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, USA

Associated Data

The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Torture methods have traditionally been quantified using checklists. However, checklists fail to capture accurately both the almost infinite range of available methods of torture and the victims’ subjective experience. The Torturing Environment Scale (TES) was designed as a multidimensional alternative that groups torture methods according to the specific human function under attack. This study aims to do an exploratory assessment of the internal consistency reliability and discriminatory validity of the TES as part of a construct validity assessment in a sample of Basque torture survivors.

We applied the TES to a sample of 201 torture survivors from the Istanbul Protocol Project in the Basque Country Study (IPP-BC) to profile torturing environments in detention. To estimate the internal consistency reliability of the scale, categorical omega values were obtained for each subscale of the TES. To assess its discriminatory validity, the “known groups” method was used comparing mean scorings by gender, state security forces involved in the detention, and decade (the 1980s to the present) when the events took place.

Men reported more physical pain, while women reported more attacks on self-identity and sexual integrity. The TES also showed significant differences as regards the security forces involved in the detention: Civil Guard (a militarised police) used more manipulation of the environment, threats, fear, pain and extreme pain, as compared to national and regional corps. Finally, although patterns of torture remained mostly unchanged across decades, more recent detentions included more emphasis on psychological attacks: context manipulation, humiliation linked to sexual identity, and attacks to meaning and identity. For all subscales of the TES, categorical omega values ranged from 0.44 to 0.72.

The TES may be a useful tool in profiling torturing environments. Its sensitivity to key contextual variables supports the discriminatory validity of the scale. While some of the subscales showed an acceptable degree of internal consistency, others require further analysis to improve reliability. The scale provides unique insights into the profile of contemporary torture. It will allow for future quantitative research on the relationship between different torturing environments and the medical and psychological consequences thereof.

The challenge of measuring torture in research

Testimonies of torture victims across different cultures and ages have shown that the list of torture methods is as vast as the perpetrator’s imagination. This heterogeneity makes it challenging to conduct research in this field. Nonetheless, there have been many efforts to classify torture methods [ 1 ] and collect relevant information in a way that is useful for human rights research.

Traditionally, checklists have been the most common classification system. As a result, several notable scales have been developed over the last couple of decades including, to name a few, the Exposure to Torture Scale [ 2 ], the Allodi Torture Scale [ 3 ], and the Torture Checklist [ 4 ]. A recent review [ 5 ] collected up to 48 different questionnaires of war-related events (including torture), ranging in length from 8 to 164 violence-related items. In fact, most are not questionnaires but semi-structured interviews, designed to be used during rapid assessments in refugee camps, as an aid to clinical histories in rehabilitation centres, or in forensic evaluations for asylum claim processes. None of these checklists has been validated [ 5 , 6 ], nor have their psychometric properties been published. However, they are useful as they provide a structured collection of data during therapy or as part of the documentation of torture.

Torture severity measurements are more refined versions of checklists. Half of the studies in Green et al.’s review [ 5 ] derived scores by merely summing the number of different types of abuse suffered (whether or not considered to be torture). A small number of studies also took into account the frequency and duration of the torturing techniques used. However, none of these measures includes the subjective perception of the impact of each torture method. Only the Semi-Structured Interview for Survivors of Torture [ 2 ] operationalises torture severity by calculating the total number of types of torture (from a list of 44 events), frequency of exposure to torture, duration of detention, and perceived severity of each type of experience of torture (i.e. distress) rated using a 5-point Likert scale. The Semi-Structured Interview for Survivors of Torture was designed to be used in the Balkans. Therefore, its applicability in other contexts, where torture methods change, remains unknown.

In summary, existing checklists provide a rough and inaccurate measure of torture that fails to capture both the full range of combinable torture methods available and the victims’ subjective experience.

The torturing environment scale (TES)

The TES was designed as an alternative measure that groups torture methods according to which human function is under attack [ 7 ]. Hence, it depicts the profile of a given torture environment following a teleological approach, which means an alternative outlook measuring phenomena (torture methods) in terms of the purpose they serve (i.e. manipulation of environments, fear-producing actions, actions targeting identity, actions targeting the sense of belonging, actions targeting gender and sexual identity etc.) rather than how this is in practice done. Torture methods are as infinite as is the imagination of the perpetrator, and trying to list them could be an endless process. The TES addresses this problem by grouping them according to their purpose in the overall objective of breaking the self of the person. It is designed as a complement to the Istanbul Protocol, the United Nations standard for documentation of torture, and it can also be used as a monitoring tool for detention centres. It was derived from a three-layer identity-based theoretical model of torture formulated by the first author and described elsewhere [ 7 ] that puts in relation clusters of basic human needs (primary physiological functions, relation to the environment, need for safety, physical integrity, self, and identity) with different types of attacks inflicted, possible systems impacted (systems of conscious mind, fight and defence, secondary emotions, higher cognitive functions and ego, metacognitive functions), and consequences produced (brain, affect and anxiety circuits, and higher functions) (pp 258–270). The elaboration and structure of the TES as a corollary of the theoretical model has been extensively described in previous work [ 7 ]. In short, the TES includes 72 items distributed in four sections. The core section is Section I (Assessment of the Environment) that has 44 items distributed in 8 conceptual or teleological blocks (see Table  1 ). Values for each block range from 0 to 16. Additionally, it is complemented by Section II – Relational Pattern (10 items that describe the interaction between torturer and survivor), Section III on Legal Criteria according to the United Nations Convention against Torture (UNCAT) definition (6 items) and Section IV (12 items) on Medico-Psychological Findings suggestive of ill-treatment or torture. Finally, the Scale also includes a Physical Versus Psychological Torture (PPT) Index (scoring and interpretation available on request). The TES is available free online in English, Spanish and French. Researchers can introduce data and obtain their results in both graphic and Excel formats ( www.psychosocial.info ).

Torturing Environment Scale. Section 1 - Conceptual Blocks and Items

Torturing environments

The TES shifts from summing up torture methods, to measuring torturing environments . We define a torturing environment as a milieu that creates the conditions for torture. It is built by contextual elements, conditions and practices that obliterate the will and control of the victim, exposing the self. In this sense, the environment will be considered as leading to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (CIDT) or torture when it has been generated intentionally for any of the purposes stated in the United Nations definition. The creation of a Torturing Environment can include one or more of the following: a) attacks on primary needs and relation to the environment; b) attacks on the need for safety and physical integrity, including pain, threats and fear; and c) attacks to the self and identity, including individual, group and collective dimensions of identity.

Torture in the Basque country

According to official records and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), torture has been part of the Basque country reality as part of the policies of social control under Franco’s dictatorship and remained during democracy as part of anti-terrorism policies against separatist groups. According to official figures provided by the Basque Government in the framework of the peace and reconciliation process [ 8 ], 4113 persons were subjected to torture between 1960 and 2015 [ 9 ]. However, data collection has not been completed, and the number is likely to increase with time. Between the years 2012 and 2015, The Istanbul Protocol Project in the Basque Country (IPP-BC) Working Group conducted a study using a protocol of enhanced credibility assessment with an initial sample of 45 people [ 10 ], subsequently enlarged to 200 individuals who underwent incommunicado detention between the years 1965 and 2015. In incommunicado detention, the detainee is denied access to family members, an attorney, or an independent physician. The only contact allowed is with the interrogators. Incommunicado detainees may be held and interrogated by three security forces: The Civil Guard, a public security corps with military status and national scope that is part of the State Security Forces, the National Police, an armed institution of a non-military nature depending on the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the Ertzaintza , a similarly non-military local armed force depending on the Autonomous Government of the Basque Country. In the experience of the IPP-BC Working Group members and according to human rights reports and qualitative data [ 11 – 15 ], the detainee’s gender, the type of security forces involved and the decade in which the person was tortured were the most relevant variables shaping the experience of torture survivors in the Basque country.

Aim of the study

This research aims to conduct an exploratory reliability and construct validity assessment of the TES in a sample of Basque torture survivors. The objectives are to estimate the internal consistency reliability of the TES and to assess its capacity to discriminate between groups that are expected to have different values in the TES (discriminative validity). The study was conducted to test three hypotheses based on the results of the initial 45 IP Pilot Study [ 10 ]: (a) Men and women have different profiles of torturing environments, with men experiencing more physical and pain-based torture and women experiencing more psychological manipulation and sexual torture. (b) Militarised police are associated with a harsher and more physical torturing environment than non-militarised police forces. (c) Earlier cohorts report more physical and pain-based torture methods, as compared to more psychological torture experienced/reported in later ones.

Design, participants and procedure

A cross-sectional study was conducted using a random sample of torture survivors from the official records of the Basque Government between 1960 and 2012 [ 15 ]. Data was collected between October 2012 and September 2013. We calculated a sample size of 200 in order to detect 2-point differences in the scale between individuals detained before or after the year 2000, considering a 90% power and a 2-sided 0.05 alpha level, assuming SD = 4 from the general description of data.

The experts (one psychiatrist, 16 clinical psychologists, three medical doctors; n  = 20) underwent training in the use of the scale from the first author, including theoretical explanations and simulation exercises using video recordings of actual cases. Inter-rater reliability was substantial to high - Kappa coefficient of agreement between experts was 0.89 [ 16 ].

Each case was initially evaluated by one of the mental health forensic experts (psychiatrist or clinical psychologist). After obtaining informed consent, they conducted extensive clinical interviews using a semi-structured format based on the Istanbul Protocol. The interviews included a battery of tests and were recorded on tape or video and transcribed. The medical expert undertook an independent assessment. Both then jointly completed the Torturing Environment Scale .

Statistical analysis

We performed bivariate analyses using non-parametric (Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U) tests including (a) conceptual blocks, (b) individual items and (c) PPT Index. Standardised effect size estimates r and epsilon-squared were calculated for group differences in conceptual blocks scores. As measures of internal consistency, we obtained categorical omegas (ω c ) as well as their related confidence intervals (CI) for each Block of Section I and Section II. Categorical Omega is a more appropriate index of internal consistency than other alternatives such as Cronbach’s alpha [ 17 , 18 ]. All descriptive analyses were carried out using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences v22), and all categorical omegas and confidence intervals were calculated using R, MBESS package. We set the level of significance at p  < 0.05, and Bonferroni correction was used when analysing differences between categories of independent variables.

Characteristics of participants

The sample was comprised of 201 survivors of torture (SOT) (Table  2 ). One-hundred fifty-nine (79.1%) were men, and 42 (20.9%) were women. The average age at detention was 24 (IQR = 22–30). Time elapsed between detention and medical interview varied from 2 to 40 years, with 20.3 years on average. Most of them had been detained by either the Civil Guard (38.3%) or the National Police (30.8%). It is of note that 43 subjects (21.4%) had been detained more than one time by different security bodies. In such cases, we asked the interviewee to report considering only the worst detention in his/her view. In a preliminary analysis, we compared both subsets and found no differences in any of the scales of the TES.

Characteristics of the sample and conditions of detention

IQR Interquartile range

One-hundred seventeen individuals (58.2%) were sent by a judge to prison pending trial (pre-trial detention), in most of the cases based on self-incriminating statements signed during torture without applying the exclusionary rule. The rule establishes, under Article 15 of the UN Convention against Torture, there is an absolute prohibition to invoke as evidence against a person any information obtained using cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or torture.

Torturing environment as measured by the TES

Figure  1 plots the median, interquartile range (IQR) and maximum and minimum values for each of the eight blocks. Figure  2 shows the average score for each block, as shown by the software output. Both figures indicate that torture in the Basque country targeted all aspects of a human being. However, the overall pattern was based on a combination of manipulation of the environment (conditions of cells, hooding, manipulation of time, hunger, etc.), threats (more torture, relatives), pain-producing actions (stress positions, slaps, punches), coercive interrogation (emotional and cognitive manipulation, deceiving), and attacks against personal identity. Use of sexual torture was present though limited, and very few cases of extreme and excruciating pain were reported.

Distribution of the scores of Torturing Environment Blocks ( N  = 201). PPT = Physical versus Psychological Torture Index

Output of the software program. 1 to 16 shows the pre-eminence of this profile of torturing methods in each of the 8 conceptual blocks. Column I indicates the blocks that are considered by victims as the ones that most affected them

It is important to note that, from a conceptual point of view, the intensity of the attack reflected in the output does not necessarily correlate with the suffering of the victim. The scale measures the acts of torture perpetrated and the subjective experience of the victim, but this does not mean that the suffering of victims can be compared. Any implication in terms of comparing more or less severity of suffering in the experiences of torture survivors would be erroneous and beyond the scope of the scale.

Discriminatory validity

Between-groups analysis.

Tables ​ Tables3, 3 , ​ ,4, 4 , ​ ,5 5 and ​ and6 6 show the differences by blocks on the three key variables.

Torturing Environment Blocks by Gender ( N  = 201)

* p -value < 0.05, ** p  < 0.01

Gender analysis of torture methods. Summary of significant results

* p  < 0.05, ** p  < 0.01

Torturing Environment Blocks by security forces involved in detention ( n  = 158)

The superscript letters are the same in those groups between which there are differences. In the Threats-Fear variable, the differences between groups have a p-value at the limit of statistical significance. * p -value< 0.05, ** p  < 0.01

Torturing Environment Blocks by decade of detention (N = 201)

The superscript letters are the same in those groups between which there are differences. In the Context Manipulation variable, the differences between groups have a p -value at the limit of statistical significance

* p -values< 0.05, ** p  < 0.01

More physical pain was used on men; with women, torturers were more likely to use attacks on identity (gender, family, political involvement). According to the PPT index, men reported suffering more physical than psychological methods.

The analysis item by item (available on request) is summarised below (Table  4 ).

Security forces involved in detention

The interrogations by the Guardia Civil were harsher than those of other security forces (Table  5 ). They were more likely to use manipulation of the environment (conditions of the cell, hooding, blindfolding), threats and fear (including mock executions and dry and wet asphyxia), moderate pain (blunt trauma: punches, kicks, slaps, etc.; exhaustion exercises: push-ups, etc.), and extreme pain (positional torture [“quirófano”] and electric torture).

Decade of detention

There were small differences concerning the decade of detention (Table  6 ). From the 1980s to the last cases in 2012, torture methods mostly remained unchanged. However, there was a tendency over time and especially in the later years towards more context manipulation (blindfolding and hooding), humiliation linked to sexual identity (harassment and deprecation), and attacks to meaning and identity. More recent interrogations were more likely to use more emotional and cognitive manipulation. In general terms, and according to PPT index, Torture slightly evolved from Physical to Environmental and Psychological.

Internal consistency/reliability

Categorical omega and confidence intervals for each block were: Contextual manipulations ω c  = 0.63 (0.43–0.71); Fear ω c  = 0.44 (0.10–0.56); Physical pain ω c  = 0.53 (0.39–0.62); Extreme pain (not enough cases), Sexual integrity ω c  = 0.71 (0.52–0.79); Need to belong, acceptance and care ω c  = 0.48 (0.35–0.59); Identity, control, meaning and purpose ω c  = 0.72 (0.60–0.78); and Coercive Interrogation Techniques ω c  = 0.71 (0.61–0.78). Categorical omega for Manner of Interaction was ω c  = 0.53 (1.98–76.61).

The concept of Torturing Environments is a new one that shows promise in the assessment of problematic conditions in which the combination or accumulation of coercive methods might amount to torture [ 7 ], as the Special Rapporteur against Torture has recently acknowledged [ 19 ]. The Torturing Environment Scale (TES) is the first tool to assess the construct systematically. The present study is the first to apply the TES to a representative sample of torture survivors and assess its psychometric characteristics. According to the “known group” methods [ 20 ], the TES showed differences by critical variables in the analysis of the experience of SOTs and exhibited agreement in the expected direction as suggested by previous studies, qualitative reports, and field workers and human rights groups from the Basque Country [ 8 , 13 , 15 , 21 – 25 ]. Moreover, our data suggest that the TES has good construct validity as measured by its good discriminative power. In addition, our results are highly consistent with previously published data from the same sample that explored torture methods and long-term sequelae applying the Istanbul Protocol checklist of torture methods [ 12 , 22 , 26 ].

Our results support our initial hypothesis of a different profile of torture by gender. Accordingly, the TES was able to discriminate gender profiles in torturing environments in the Basque country, as described in previous studies in this context [ 12 ], and in line with data from other contexts like Balkans [ 27 ], French-Algerian War [ 28 ] and South Africa [ 26 ], among others. We also found differences in the torturing profile between the different security forces involved in the detentions. The Civil Guard used more manipulation of environment, fear, pain, and attacks to identity as compared to National Police and local Basque police (Ertzaintza). These results are in accordance with previously published qualitative research conducted on similar samples, where Civil Guard was described as using more violent methods such as electrodes and bathtub torture whereas survivors more often described National Police and Ertzaintza as conducting interrogations with blows and very long waits but without harsh physical assaults [ 7 ]. Finally, our third hypothesis regarding the evolution of torture environments over time was only partially supported. Although the use of psychological methods of torture, aimed to attack the sense of identity and self, has increased through the years, physical pain as a fundamental approach has remained throughout the decades. In qualitative studies, survivors from the Basque country reported that torture evolved with time to more psychological methods and that torture was mostly physical during the 1980s [ 13 ]. However, this does not appear to be confirmed by our data, most likely due to the small number of participants in our study who were tortured during the 1980s. We cannot discard also recall problems. We have not found directly comparable studies from other countries, although a sample of torture survivors from the Yugoslavian civil war reported gender differences in torture methods and sequelae that coincide with our results [ 27 ]. Taken all together, there is substantial evidence that there is a tendency over time and especially in the later years to target psychological processes in an attempt to leave no marks and have shorter detention periods. However, interrogators do not renounce physical coercion. Further studies will have to explore if this was specific to the Basque context or if it is part of a more global tendency.

The TES showed different degrees of internal consistency across its eight Conceptual Blocks. Values of categorical omega were acceptable for Sexual Integrity, Identity and Coercive Interrogation but very low for Fear and Need to belong. Different factors may have influenced these low values. Some factors are related to the structure of the scale, as suggested by low intercorrelations among individual items or a small number of items in some blocks. A potential workaround would be to increase the number of items in the blocks with lower omega values [ 29 ]. Also, the sample might be too homogeneous in terms of the experience of detention and interrogation [ 30 ]. For instance, the conceptual block Need to belong includes only four items, with most participants scoring positive as all detainees were submitted to incommunicado detention. The homogeneity of the sample is, at the same time, the principal strength and one of the limitations of the study. Additional studies are needed in other more heterogeneous samples. The information arising from the analyses within this group is especially useful while conceptualising the Basque Country conflict. More exploratory studies conducted in other contexts and conditions will add essential knowledge regarding the generalizability of the results and the usefulness of the scale. However, the TES has confirmed what was suggested by previous qualitative studies based on the Istanbul Protocol, the standard of reference in the assessment of torture allegations, which suggests the robustness of the scale [ 26 ]. Finally, there is also the concern that some subjects, especially those detained during the 1980s, and those detained by Ertzaintza, were underrepresented.

We consider this study to have several strengths. First, it shows results from an extensive sample of torture survivors assessed using the Istanbul Protocol and the TES. The reliability of these expert forensic assessments has been appraised elsewhere [ 26 ]. The magnitude of the sample and the careful process of applying the TES with a high inter-rater k coefficient suggests that it can be used in research without intensive training. The scale is offered free to the scientific community to use through a website of the Project ( www.psychosocial.info ).

The TES is not a substitute for a clinical or an ethnographic interview. Instead, it helps to organise the information using a teleological approach. By teleological , we mean that the focus of the TES is not on listing methods, but the target of each method in terms of a human mind-body system. Hence, it opens new avenues for quantitative research on contemporary torturing environments and its correlation with clinical variables. The TES is by no means a measure of the suffering of persons and should not be used with that purpose. It also offers potential for monitoring visits to institutions and in the framework of public health studies.

Limitations

There are some limitations of the study. (a) The sample is very homogeneous, and this might influence the validation of those subscales with lower scores. (b) It includes torture survivors from 40 years. In some instances, time might distort the perception of trauma (c) People tortured in the 80s and people tortured by Ertzaintzz might be underrepresented in the sample.

Conclusions

The TES can be a useful tool in detecting profiles of torturing environments. Here it is shown to be sensitive to key contextual variables, supporting the discriminative validity of the scale. While some of the subscales demonstrated an acceptable degree of internal consistency, others require further analysis to improve reliability. The TES provides unique insights into the way that the torturing process is thought about and can help understand the physical and psychological impacts of torture on survivors and its clinical implications. Future studies should explore further the relationship between specific profiles of torturing environments and clinical impacts and in particular, those methods that should require special international regulation.

Acknowledgements

Olatz Barrenetxea, Miguel Angel Navarro and Benito Morentín who coordinate the Istanbul Protocol Project in the Basque Country Working Group and made this study possible. Eva Siegel who reviewed and commented on earlier versions of the text.

Abbreviations

Authors’ contributions.

PP conceived the study and coordinated the fieldwork and data collection. PP, GM, RG and BM performed the analysis and interpretation of the data. PP wrote the main part of the manuscript, and GM, RG and BM made significant contributions to it. The four authors read and approved the manuscript.

The Basque Government partially funded fieldwork through the Medico-Legal Institute of the Basque Country. GMA is partially funded by “la Caixa” Foundation LCF/BQ/AA17/11610021. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The data generated currently is kept on paper and in digital format, which has been approved by the Basque Agency for Data Protection (AVPD). All documentation is kept confidentially in the premises of the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU). The research has been reviewed and approved by the Commission for Ethics in Research and Teaching of the UPV/EHU. Informed consents from all participants have been obtained. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations that must be considered in research where humans are involved.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Raquel González-Rubio, Blanca Mellor-Marsá and Gonzalo Martínez-Alés contributed equally to this work.

Contributor Information

Pau Pérez-Sales, Email: moc.xobnur@zerepuap .

Raquel González-Rubio, Email: [email protected] .

Blanca Mellor-Marsá, Email: [email protected] .

Gonzalo Martínez-Alés, Email: moc.liamg@selazenitramg .

Treadmills Were Meant to Be Atonement Machines

America’s favorite piece of workout equipment was developed as a device for forced labor in British prisons. It was banned as cruel and inhumane by 1900.

If you are one of the 51.8 million people in the U.S. who use a treadmill for exercise, you know there’s much pain for your muscle-and-fitness gain. On your next 30-minute jog, as you count down the final seconds, ponder whether the hard work made you a better person. Consider whether the workout would feel different if you had powered something, even a fan to cool yourself off.

Two hundred years ago, the treadmill was invented in England as a prison rehabilitation device. It was meant to cause the incarcerated to suffer and learn from their sweat. It would mill a bit of corn or pump some water as a bonus.

Newsletter Signup

Get your fix of JSTOR Daily’s best stories in your inbox each Thursday.

Privacy Policy   Contact Us You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking on the provided link on any marketing message.

William Cubitt, a civil engineer raised in a family of millwrights, created the treadmill—which was also called a treadwheel in the early days—in 1818. Cubitt  later became famous for overseeing the construction of The Crystal Palace in London in 1851, and was knighted by Queen Victoria for his efforts. Cubitt’s early attempts at the treadmill’s design took many forms, including two wheels you walked on whose cogs interlocked. But his most popular edition, which was installed at Brixton Prison in London , involved a wide wheel. Prisoners pressed down with their feet on steps embedded in the wheel, which moved it, presenting them with the next step. Picture it like the sport of log-rolling, only the log-like wheel was fixed in place. The Brixton treadmill was hooked up to subterranean machinery that ground corn. It wasn’t fun.

This treadmill could busy as many as 24 prisoners, standing side-by-side along the wheel. Some devices at other prisons were smaller, and most treadmills soon included partitions so convicts could not socialize. They slogged for 10 hours a day in summer, and a mere seven in winter.

The invention arrived at an apt time. At the end of the eighteenth century, the British began reforming their prisons. According to the historian U. R. Q. Henriques’ 1972 article “ The Rise and Decline of the Separate System of Prison Discipline ,” prisons previously offered their occupants next to nothing. Families had to bring in food and blankets, and the bribing of guards was rampant. As prisons began providing necessities, people worried that the poor would commit crimes just to get free stuff. Such luxuries needed to be offset by labor—ideally, labor that was painful and possibly even pointless.

Recruitment of the next generation of hardened criminals was rampant in prisons. Poor kids who came in for petty crimes would leave with contacts and lock-picking and other subversive skills. Prison administrators wanted both to rehabilitate and to keep people separate.

The partitioned treadmill delivered on both fronts. The long hours on it were mind-numbingly boring and physically exhausting. But it soon began to be used less as a work machine than as a torture device. “At first it was used to grind corn or pump water, or as a means of exercise. But it soon became a mere method of punishment, ‘grinding air,’” Henriques writes.

Since the treadmill ticked all the boxes, it rose in popularity. According to the historian David H. Shayt, by 1842, treadmills were being used in 109 of 200 jails across England, Wales, and Scotland . The likes of Oscar Wilde, imprisoned for gross indecency, worked the treadmill.

But, over time, the device’s purported ability to cure criminality through sweat—never mind the actual work output—was called into question. For instance, a short article called “ Prison Electricity ” in an 1882 edition of Scientific American called for a more productive approach to treadmilling. “The convicts hated it, and no useful results came of it,” the author writes. The suggestion was for “attaching dynamoelectric machines to the cranks” to “store electrically the energy developed.” It argued that prisons could sell energy, and thus pay for their own upkeep.

Meanwhile, treadmills were clearly not that safe. An 1885 British Medical Journal article called “ Death on the Treadmill ,” chastized Durham Prison for the treadmill-induced death of a prisoner with heart disease. Its overall high death rate—one fatality a week—prompted the conclusion that “[t]he ‘mill’ is not useful, and has proved itself occasionally injurious.”

More importantly among the minds of the day, the focus on breaking the body and mind was giving way to a more thoughtful approach to rehabilitation and to a focus on education. A series of prison acts passed throughout the 19th century increasingly restricted how long prisoners could be subjected to such devices, and the act of 1898 called for an end to their use. By 1895, there were just 39 in use across Britain, and merely 13 by 1901.

Inside of a century, the once-popular prison treadmill proved too cruel and pointless for its home nation, but that did not stop it from being imported to the U.S. The treadmill came to America in 1822, and was set up in four different prisons. It was briefly popular at the prison on East 26th Street in New York City. The first one installed there, which cost $3,050.99 to build, busied 16 prisoners at a time, who ground 40-60 bushels of corn a day. Within two years, the prison had built three more, two of them used by women. But, by 1827, the mills had fallen into only sporadic use and then were abandoned when the prison relocated. In Newgate, Charleston, and Philadelphia, treadmills were installed, used sparingly, and given up on in short order.

Just as in Britain, Americans were struggling with what to do with their criminals. Should they work alone, contemplating their former bad ways? If they worked while in prison, what was the purpose?

In America, it seemed, the answer could not be “toil for its own sake.” In 1827, the Prison Discipline Society of Boston wrote that “the treadmill… teaches the convict nothing that can be useful to him on his discharge. It is not a profitable employment of human power.”

At a prison opened in 1822 in Auburn, NY, a new approach emerged. Dubbed “collective industry,” prisoners sat together and worked, turning the prison into a factory, albeit a strict one. “The rules typically called for downcast eyes, lockstep marching, no talking, and constant work when outside the cells. The usual punishment for infractions was the lash.” This new system was considered both humane and, most importantly, highly industrious. Outside the prison walls, there was a labor shortage. Instead of milling a few dozen bushels of corn a day— work that an animal could do—these convicts were making shoes, clothing, hardware, furniture, rifles, and clocks. Private manufacturers brought raw materials or unfinished products into the prison and paid for the labor.

The idea soon spread, and prisoners all over the country were put to work—until concerns about prisons interfering with the open market surfaced, that is. Prevailing ideas about incarceration, work, and punishment continued to evolve, but the treadmill was long gone.

It resurfaced in 1913 with a U.S. patent for a “ training-machine .” In the 1960s, the American mechanical engineer William Staub created a home fitness machine called the PaceMaster 600. He began manufacturing home treadmills in New Jersey. (He used it often himself, right up until the months before his death at the age of 96.)

Now, it’s the top selling piece of exercise equipment in the U.S. It’s evolved, of course, as has America, and the two fit each other quite nicely. Today’s treadmill lets people run or walk even in inclement weather, at home or at the gym. It’s a painful, boring, and sometimes cruel device: People still do get injured and even die on treadmills. But we still climb on, by choice, letting our other devices amuse us while we sweat.

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

Get Our Newsletter

More stories.

• Reporting Atrocity—Or Not—In Postwar Britain

Nice Guy Spinoza Finishes…First?

Birth of the Corporate Person

Svalbard: Seeds of Hope

Recent posts.

• Why Not Just Be a Nurse?
• Meet Saint Wilgefortis, the Bearded Virgin
• The Art of Renaissance Clothes
• The Ocean Vents Where Life on Earth Likely Began

Support JSTOR Daily

Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Who Invented School: What You Need to Know

Who invented school? While Horace Mann is known to be the father of our modern education system, the full history of education and schooling is a bit more complex. The invention of schools is a complex story spanning multiple civilizations and time periods.

While it is difficult to pinpoint a single individual responsible for the creation of schools, it is clear that formal education has ancient roots across various cultures.

Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, India, and China all had their own systems of formal schooling, influenced by religion, culture, and educational philosophies of the time.

As the concept of school evolved, key figures in education like Horace Mann played a significant role in shaping modern educational systems.

The growth and development of schools were also greatly affected by the Industrial Revolution, which brought about transformative changes in societal structures and thinking.

Today’s schools are a result of centuries of revisions and reforms by devoted educators, philosophers, and policymakers striving to provide quality education for generations to come.

Key Takeaways

• Schools have ancient origins across various civilizations, influenced by religion, culture, and educational philosophies.
• Key figures, such as Horace Mann, contributed significantly to the development of modern educational systems.
• The evolution of schools reflects societal changes, including the impact of the Industrial Revolution on education.

Historical Origins of Schools

The concept of formal education has deep roots in the ancient world. One of the earliest known examples of structured teaching took place in Mesopotamia , also known as the “Cradle of Civilization.”

In this region, centers of learning known as “scribal schools” or “tablet houses” emerged, where students learned to master the complex cuneiform script.

Another early form of formal education was established in ancient Egypt during the Middle Kingdom, under the direction of Kheti, treasurer to Mentuhotep II (2061-2010 BC).

This initiative demonstrates the importance of education in the early civilization of North Africa and the Middle East .

In ancient Greece, the prominent philosopher Plato played a major role in laying groundwork for educational institutions.

He established the Academy , a place dedicated to learning and discussion, which is still influential in our modern understanding of education.

Boys from wealthy families attended tertiary education, where they studied subjects like philosophy and rhetoric—an essential skill for individuals seeking power and influence in ancient Greek society.

These educational centers helped shape the idea of school, influencing the future of classroom education .

While it is difficult to credit a single person with inventing the concept of school, the origins of organized education can be traced back to ancient civilizations such as Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greece.

These early forays into structured learning were instrumental in shaping the way society values and approaches the education process today.

Key Figures in Education

Throughout history, several key figures have made significant contributions to the evolution of formal education.

In ancient Egypt , a treasurer named Kheti played a crucial role in organizing one of the earliest known formal schooling systems during the Middle Kingdom period.

In Ancient Greece , the famous philosophers Socrates , Plato , and Aristotle heavily influenced the educational landscape.

Socrates developed the Socratic method , an approach to learning that involves questioning and critical thinking.

His student, Plato, founded the Academy in Athens , one of the earliest institutions of higher learning.

Plato’s most famous student, Aristotle, later established the Lyceum which emphasized the importance of empirical observation and experience in education.

Moving forward to the Renaissance , Johann Gutenberg ‘s invention of the printing press in 1440 revolutionized access to knowledge, allowing books to be mass-produced, and dramatically increasing literacy rates in Europe.

A few key thinkers and educators from the modern era include:

• John Dewey : An American philosopher and educator, Dewey was a proponent of progressive education and believed in hands-on, experiential learning rather than rote memorization.
• Maria Montessori : An Italian physician and educator, she developed the Montessori method which emphasizes self-directed learning, observation, and personal responsibility in education.
• Lev Vygotsky : A Russian psychologist, he introduced the zone of proximal development concept, highlighting the potential for growth when children learn with guidance from a more knowledgeable peer or adult.

These individuals have had lasting impacts on the education systems we see today, shaping how educational institutions function and the methods employed in teaching and learning.

Horace Mann’s Contributions

Horace Mann (1796-1859) was a prominent American education reformer who significantly influenced the development of public schools in the United States. Often referred to as the Father of the Common School , Mann dedicated his career to advocating for a free, universal, non-sectarian, and public education system.

Born in Franklin, Massachusetts, Mann did not have a strong formal education growing up. However, using resources from the Franklin Public Library , he was able to self-educate and eventually attend law school. His background undoubtedly shaped his beliefs on the importance of education for everyone.

Mann’s vision for public education comprised of several core principles:

• Citizens cannot maintain both ignorance and freedom;
• Education should be free and universal;
• A non-sectarian system that respects all religious beliefs;
• High-quality, trained teachers should guide the educational process.

Mann also emphasized the importance of moral, social, and economic uplift that could be achieved through education reform.

During his tenure as the Massachusetts Board of Education’s secretary, Mann focused on overseeing and improving the operation of the public school system. He advocated for better school buildings, longer school years, and improved teacher training. Additionally, he established normal schools – institutions designed specifically to train teachers – as a way to professionalize teaching.

Mann’s contributions to education reform had a long-lasting impact on American public education. His principles and convictions continue to shape the values and structure of the US education system, and his work remains relevant even today.

The Role of Religion in School Founding

The history of schools dates back to ancient civilizations, where religion played a significant part in the founding and development of educational institutions. For instance, in ancient Egypt, Greece, and India, schools were established mainly to teach religious principles and practices 1 .

In the United States, the early history of public education also shows a strong connection with religion. Many of the first schools were established by religious organizations and were designed to teach children about religious values in addition to reading, writing, and arithmetic 2 . Among the early American schools were the ‘Dame Schools’, which were typically run by women in their homes, and their primary goal was to provide basic education with a focus on religious teachings 3 .

To provide more context, here are some key dates and developments that highlight the role of religion in the founding of schools:

• 17th century : The first public schools in the American colonies were founded by Puritans to teach their children to read the Bible 2 . Such historical examples include the Boston Latin School (1635) and the Collegiate School (now Yale University, 1701) 3 .
• 19th century : The Common School movement, led by Horace Mann, sought to create a secular, non-sectarian public school system 4 . While church schools and religious teachings were still prevalent, the aim was to establish a public education system that could unite people from various religious backgrounds.
• Early 20th century : Religion continued to play a role in American schools, with prayers and Bible readings included in daily activities 5 .

It is important to note that the policy of keeping religion out of public schools in the United States was not fully established until the mid-20th century. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prayer in public schools was unconstitutional in 1962 6 . This decision not only clarified the separation of church and state but also emphasized that public schools could not promote or endorse any religion.

• Who Invented School? The Story Behind Monday Mornings . ↩
• The History Of Religion In American Public Schools . ↩ ↩ 2
• History and Evolution of Public Education in the US . ↩ ↩ 2
• Religion in Schools in the United States | Oxford Research Encyclopedia . ↩
• The Enduring Problem of Religion and the Public Schools . ↩
• The History Of Religion In American Public Schools . ↩

Educational Philosophies and Theorists

The history of education is marked by the contributions of many philosophers and theorists. Among the earliest recorded educational institutions is Plato’s Academy , founded in 387 B.C. in Athens, which laid the groundwork for future educational establishments.

During the Enlightenment, Jean-Jacques Rousseau introduced the concept of child-centered education . He believed that children should be allowed to follow their innate curiosity and learn through experience. Rousseau’s ideas greatly influenced subsequent educational theorists such as Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi , who emphasized the importance of hands-on learning and a holistic approach to teaching.

In the 19th century, Horace Mann became known as the Father of the Common School Movement in the United States. His advocacy for free and universal public education shaped the modern school system in the US. Mann believed in the importance of a non-sectarian curriculum and the training of professional teachers.

Key educational philosophies and their respective theorists include:

• Progressivism : John Dewey is the leading proponent of this philosophy, which emphasizes learning through experience, problem-solving, and critical thinking. Progressivism is rooted in the belief that education should be relevant to the needs and interests of the learner.
• Essentialism : William C. Bagley and Adler Mortimer advocated for a strong focus on core subjects , maintaining that a standardized and rigorous curriculum is vital for the intellectual development of students. Essentialists argue that students should master essential knowledge and skills.
• Perennialism : This philosophy, championed by Robert Maynard Hutchins and Mortimer Adler , promotes the study of great books and timeless knowledge to shape the character and intellectual abilities of learners.

These philosophies and many others have influenced education systems worldwide, helping shape the diverse methods and approaches teachers use in their classrooms today. As the field of education continues to evolve, new ideas and perspectives will undoubtedly emerge, further enriching our understanding of effective educational practices.

Evolution of Educational Systems

The history of education can be traced back to ancient civilizations, such as Egypt and Mesopotamia. In Egypt, during the Middle Kingdom period, a formal school was developed under the direction of Kheti, treasurer to Mentuhotep II (2061-2010 BC) ^4^ . Meanwhile, in Mesopotamia, the early logographic system of cuneiform script took years to master.

The concept of school underwent significant changes over time, reflecting societal values and adapting to cultural and technological advancements. John Locke, a 17th-century philosopher, advocated for thorough education based on reason and observation. His ideas influenced many progressive educators of his time ^6^ .

In the 19th century, Horace Mann was instrumental in promoting publicly funded schools in the United States ^7^ . These schools aimed to provide universal access to education for all children, regardless of social and economic background.

Significant educational approaches emerged during the 20th century, which further shaped the modern education experience:

• Montessori Method: Developed by Maria Montessori, emphasizing child-centered learning and individual growth.
• Progressive Education: Pioneered by John Dewey, focusing on critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
• Vocational Education: Preparing students for specific careers through practical training and technical skills.

Recent advancements in technology have had a pronounced impact on education, bringing about significant shifts in teaching methods and learning experiences ^8^ . Digital tools and online learning platforms offer students access to information, interactive experiences, and personalized learning paths.

However, the ongoing evolution of educational systems continues to face challenges, such as:

• Availability and access to quality education for underprivileged communities.
• Balancing traditional teaching methods with technological advancements.
• Adapting the curriculum to the demands of a rapidly changing world.

Nonetheless, the ongoing evolution of education is a testament to human progress, the relentless pursuit of knowledge, and the belief in providing everyone with the opportunity to learn and grow ^9^ .

Formal Education in Ancient Civilizations

The concept of formal education can be traced back to ancient civilizations such as Mesopotamia , Egypt , and Greece . In Mesopotamia, education was developed with a focus on training scribes and priests, as their society was contemporary with Egyptian civilization 1 . Cuneiform script, an early logographic system, took many years to master, leading to a limited number of individuals becoming proficient enough to be hired as scribes 2 .

In Egypt’s Middle Kingdom, possibly the earliest formal school was established under the direction of Kheti, treasurer to Mentuhotep II (2061-2010 BC) 2 . Egyptian education was primarily geared towards teaching the art of writing and reading to boys from wealthy families. This was important as literacy was essential for maintaining records and passing on the customs of their civilization.

Ancient Greece is also known to have played a significant role in the history of formal education. Founded in 387 B.C., Plato’s Academy in Athens served as an educational institution where philosophy and rhetoric were studied 3 . Only boys from wealthy families, aged 16 and above, were sent to tertiary education with the aim to gain influence and power through their understanding of rhetoric.

As a brief overview of the development of formal education in these civilizations, we can see it was primarily focused on providing specific knowledge and skills to a limited group of people. The importance of literacy and mastering specific skills suited to their respective societies was of great significance.

• Education – Ancient Societies, Literacy, Pedagogy | Britannica ↩
• History of education – Wikipedia ↩ ↩ 2
• Who Invented School? The History of Education Made Easy ↩

Modern School Systems and Reform Movements

The modern school system has undergone significant changes and reforms since its inception . Horace Mann , a Massachusetts legislator and secretary of that state’s board of education, initiated the idea of public schools in the 1830s. He wanted to create schools that would be universally available to all children, free of charge, and funded by the state.

In the United States, the Progressive Movement played a crucial role in the evolution of education. This movement, spanning from the 1890s to the 1930s, aimed to improve education standards and widen the number of students being served. This era saw a dramatic expansion of both schools and students, especially in fast-growing metropolitan cities. By 1910, smaller cities also began building high schools.

The 19th-century public education reform movement had a vital impact on the American society. The establishment of state-funded public school systems led the way to the modern public education system that we have today. This movement considerably shaped the future of education in America.

Though Horace Mann is widely known as the “Father of the Common School Movement” and credited with inventing the modern school in the United States, it is crucial to remember that schools were present in ancient civilizations such as Egypt, Greece, India, and China. However, the modern school system has evolved to serve a broader audience and adapt to the ever-changing needs of society.

Influences from the Industrial Revolution on Schooling

The Industrial Revolution had a significant impact on the development of modern education systems. Before the 1800s, education was primarily accessible for children from affluent families, while those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds had limited opportunities for learning ^1^ . The advent of industrialization brought about several essential shifts in the field of education, making it more inclusive and accessible to everyone.

One of the key developments during this era was the emergence of compulsory education laws and the establishment of public schools. These laws were introduced to ensure that every child, regardless of their background, had access to essential knowledge and skills.

This change meant that children from all walks of life, including those from working-class families, could have an opportunity to receive a structured education.

The focus of these educational systems was primarily on equipping students with practical skills that would be useful in the industrialized society. Here’s a brief overview of subjects taught in schools during this time:

• Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic: Core skills necessary for functioning in a literate society.
• Technical Skills: Practical abilities related to working in factories or trades.
• Civic Education: Knowledge on citizenship and responsibilities within the evolving democratic systems.

It is also noteworthy that the structure of schools during the Industrial Revolution was heavily influenced by the factory model . Schools were designed to have similar features to factories ^2^ . Some aspects of this model include:

• Division of students by age.
• Strict schedules and regimented daily routines.
• Emphasis on uniformity and standardization of curriculum.

While the industrial era’s educational systems laid the foundation for today’s schools, the current educational landscape has undergone significant transformations.

Education today is more focused on personalized learning, creativity, and preparing students for an information-rich society. The influence of the Industrial Revolution on schooling must be acknowledged, as it paved the way for the modern educational systems that exist today.

Frequently Asked Questions

What historical figures significantly contributed to the founding of modern education systems.

Ancient Greece played a pivotal role in the formalization of education , with the philosopher Plato founding the Academy in Athens in 385 B.C., which is considered one of the earliest institutions resembling modern schools. The American educator Horace Mann is also known as the Father of modern education for his efforts in promoting a strong public educational system.

Can the origins of school recess be traced to a specific person or culture?

The origins of school recess are difficult to pinpoint to a specific person or culture. However, it is known that play and physical activity have been essential components of learning throughout human history, especially for developing motor skills, social skills, and cognitive abilities.

Why was the standardization of a 12-year school system established?

The standardization of a 12-year school system was likely a product of evolving societal needs and an emphasis on education for all. One example is the Prussian General School Regulation , which required young citizens to be educated from age 5 to age 13-14 in subjects like religion, singing, and reading.

Who is recognized as the first known teacher in history?

One of the earliest known teachers in history is the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates , who shared his knowledge and wisdom with students like Plato. Socrates’ teaching methods, including the Socratic method, are still influential in today’s educational systems.

Who is the real inventor of school?

It’s difficult to assign the invention of school to an individual since education and learning have been evolving for centuries across different cultures and civilizations. However, key figures like Plato and Horace Mann are credited with advancing formal education and establishing the foundation for modern school systems.

Who invented 12 years of school?

The concept of a 12-year school system cannot be attributed to a single person, as it is a result of numerous influences over time. The Prussian General School Regulation , for instance, provided the foundation for a 12-year system by mandating education for children aged 5 to 13-14.

Who invented homework?

The invention of homework can be credited to the ancient Roman teacher Quintilian , who believed that students should continue to study and practice their lessons outside the classroom in order to reinforce their learning effectively.

Why does school exist?

The primary purpose of school is to deliver education and equip individuals with the knowledge and skills needed to become productive members of society. Schools also serve as a means to promote critical thinking , foster social interaction, and encourage personal and intellectual growth.

Kids Who Learn

You may also like.

The Best Rolling Backpack for Kids: A Practical Solution

Why Do Kids Hate School: Never Wonder Again

How Many Weeks Are in a School Year? A Quick Guide

When Should Kids Start Preschool: A Guide for Parents

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Join Our Newsletter!

Hey there, Awesome Parents and Curious Kids! 🌟 Ready to dive into a world of fun, learning, and excitement? Join our KidsWhoLearn Newsletter! Subscribe to our newsletter and get a weekly dose of joy, including:

• 🎨 Creative Crafts and DIYs
• 📚 Exciting Learning Tips & Resources
• 🍎 Healthy Snacks and Fun Recipes
• 🎉 Monthly Giveaways and Surprises!

Plus, a special welcome gift awaits! 🎁

We are a team of highly qualified and experienced writers providing help with academic work for all grades.

Is Homework A Punishment

Rest is sweet after labor, but what do we call another round of labor after labor, without rest? Research has shown that those who have enough rest after a long day filled with activities tend to make wiser and good decisions, while those who work round the clock, non-stop, are liable to making terrible decisions. After a long day at work, every worker wants to go home and rest for the next day, but it is not so with students. Students spend almost the same number of hours- on the average, as workers, but are not spared from homework. This is nothing short of punishment. A popular saying: “all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” falls nothing short of being true. The purpose of homework is defeated when a student becomes dull by reading all day. 

Children do not need to spend all their time on a particular activity all day, or they will be bored and gradually dissociate themselves from the community. When a child has spent over 8 hours in school, it is only appropriate and considerate that they are not given homework. This will help them to have enough time to play, sleep, and spend time with family members. The history of homework was traced back as a punishment for students who refused to participate in actively in-class activities. Why should punishment for a set of people become generalized? Children would prefer to engage in physically creative activities and appeal to their senses, but homework is far from this. For example, boys between the age of 2-5 would rather play with toys than complete school homework. This is justifiable as children need to relax after a long day at school. No student likes homework, those who do it; do so because of their grades or lack of choice, but they would rather have no homework left alone to their choice.

Rather than produce balanced children, homework produces robots that may not have feelings or empathy for their fellow men. Some may become anti-social and may never change until they die. Many researchers have argued about the relationship between homework and academic achievement. However, some claim that children who do their homework tend to perform brilliantly academically. In contrast, those who do not perform woefully have a biased result and can be proven with more constructive research. It is possible for a student that does not do his homework to perform brilliantly. Children vary in ability and comprehension; some may understand and memorize what is taught in class instantly; others may need repetition to understand and remember what was taught in class. This is where homework comes in handy- for students who need to repeat things over and over before it sticks. Even for students who need repetition, it is not compulsory; through homework, the teacher can repeat a topic another day or give the students a test to put them on their toes.

Some of our qualities

Our tips are tried and tested by hundreds of students.

Professionalism

Our advisors have years of experience in their fields.

History Cooperative

Medieval Torture Devices: The Rack, Impalement Sticks, and More!

From the rack, Iron Maiden, and breaking wheel, to the impalement sticks and more, medieval torture devices were instruments used during the Middle Ages to inflict pain and punishment on individuals, often as a means of interrogation, punishment, or public execution.

These devices were designed to cause immense suffering, both physically and psychologically, and were some of the most terrifying and gruesome in history.

Table of Contents

The Breaking Wheel

Perhaps one of the most famous in line of medieval torture devices is the Breaking Wheel, sometimes called the Execution Wheel or the Wheel of Catherine. It is best known for a reason since this torture and punishment method was considered one of the most brutal and agonizing ones.

The device was a large wooden wheel , big enough to fit even the tallest offenders. Some extras such as hard iron parts and spikes were added to make the medieval torture devices even more painful.

So, how did the breaking wheel work? The process was actually like a sick play with different acts. Act one involved the hammering of the victim’s limbs with a hammer. Of course, this caused severe injuries. The sharp spikes were placed directly under the limbs to make the pain more severe.

The idea of the first act was, however, not to kill the victim. It merely aimed to punish offenders and let them feel the consequences of the crimes that they committed. The bone fractures that were caused in the first act were very specific and identifiable . Only in act two, the offenders would be faced with death.

In the second act, they’d either tie the victim’s body to another cartwheel or hoist it up on a pole or mast. At this point, the torturers had some choices to make. They could either chop off the person’s head or light a fire under the wheel, slowly burning them down.

After all the torture was over, they’d leave the body to rot and be scavenged for days. Medieval Westerners thought death caused by the breaking wheel was some sacred act that hindered the journey from death to resurrection.

Therefore, the breaking wheel not only aimed to torture its victims while alive, but it also aimed to torture victims in a spiritual way after death.

Impalement Sticks

Next in the line of medieval torture devices is a large wooden stick or pole used for impalement. Impalement was used on a large scale by the former emperor of Wallachia by the name of Vlad the Impaler. Impaling is basically a really brutal way of torturing people – and eventually executing – by shoving a pole right through the victim’s body.

READ MORE: How Did Vlad the Impaler Die: Potential Murderers and Conspiracy Theories

They usually reserved this punishment for ‘crimes against the state’ and it was considered one of the worst ways to go out. You might think it would be a quick death, but nothing is further from the truth. If it’s done properly, the victim could actually survive for several days. The trick was to avoid all the vital organs when shoving the pole through the victim.

Having the right pole was crucial in doing so. The specific type of pole or wooden stake was used for impalement depending on the time period and region.

The person to be executed would be forced to sit or be tied to the stake, which would then be inserted through the anus or another part of the body. The stake would often be sharpened to make insertion easier.

Other cultures preferred metal poles or spears. These poles could be either sharpened or have a blunt tip. The person would be impaled by falling onto the pole from a height, or by being forced onto it.

In certain cases, impalement involved the use of multiple stakes or poles. The person would be tied or restrained between two or more stakes that would be driven through the body simultaneously.

The whole impalement thing goes way back and was already used as one of the torture methods in ancient Babylon. They had it in their Code of Hammurabi, which was written in 1772 BCE.

In Babylon, impalement was mainly used for women who killed their husbands. However, later on, it would be used with more political motives.

However, Vlad the Impaler was the one that brought impalement to the medieval world. During the medieval era, he impaled over 20,000 people. There were literally whole fields full of people that were impaled by the emperor of Wallachia.

Cage for Rat Torture

One of the most sinister torture techniques emerged during the Dutch Revolt at the end of the middle ages. The device in use was a simple and bottomless cage, where rats would be placed. Afterward, the cage was positioned on the victim’s belly. By placing a small tray with burning coals on top of the cage, the metal structure would heat up quickly.

Naturally, the rats wanted to flee the heat but had nowhere to go; the cage trapped them. Therefore, they would begin to bite through the only soft surface they could find — the victim’s body. Using their sharp claws and teeth, the rats would quickly gnaw their way into the victim’s bowels, inflicting excruciating pain and terror.

According to historical accounts, one of the earliest usages of this medieval torture device was during the Dutch Revolt, where Dutch leader Diederik Sonoy became notorious for implementing this form of torture against captured prisoners.

The simple device and method that accompanied it proved particularly effective when Dutch leaders wanted to extract information from their Spanish enemies. Often, the mere presence of the caged rats on prisoners’ bellies would compel the terrified individuals to spill any information they possessed, even before the addition of burning coals.

Because of the successful results, other leaders across the globe recognized the efficiency of rat torture for both interrogation and punishment purposes. So, they adopted their own variations of the technique. Astonishingly, these brutal methods persisted well into the 20th century in certain South American countries.

Dunking Stool

As you might know, people living in the medieval period were quite scared of witches; to the point where they thought they popped up everywhere in their own society. Between the years 1500 and 1660, up to 80,000 suspected witches were put to death in Europe. It both had to do with religious beliefs and an overall fear that was instilled in society.

Around 80 percent of the witches were women, who were accused of talking to the Devil because of their extraordinary expressions of lust. Dunking was one of the main mechanisms that were used to torture the victim alive.

The practice of ‘dunking’ involved the use of a chair or a stool attached to a long pole or beam that could be swung horizontally or vertically. The accused witch would be strapped or tied to the chair and then submerged or partially submerged in water, often a pond or a river.

READ MORE: Who Invented Water? History of the Water Molecule

On the one hand, if they didn’t confess, they’d be downed into the water until the victim lost consciousness and potentially died. On the other hand, if the victim confessed to witchcraft, they were thrown into the river anyway with stones tied around their body. So death was the most probable outcome, and only a few would survive this form of medieval torture.

It wasn’t just witches who were dunked into the water, however. Even thieves and murderers could face this punishment if they wouldn’t confess.

The pillory is potentially the most recognizable device on this list. This torture device was a form of public humiliation and punishment, widely used throughout Europe. It consisted of a wooden framework with holes for the head and hands, where the offender would be confined and displayed to the public.

The pillory served as a means to humiliate, shame, and physically punish individuals that were found guilty of various crimes. The device gained prominence in medieval Europe as a method of punishment. While there is no definitive inventor of the pillory, it is known that it was employed by both civil authorities and the Church.

The pillory was primarily used to punish individuals convicted of offenses such as theft, fraud, perjury, public drunkenness, blasphemy, and other acts that were quite minor if you compare them to murder or high treason.

Offenders would be placed in the pillory with their heads and hands secured in the holes, leaving them exposed and vulnerable. The public would gather around, jeering, taunting, and even physically abusing the individual in the pillory by throwing objects.

The punishments that were executed with the pillory were quite diverse. They could be subjected to verbal and physical assaults, including throwing stones, rotten vegetables, excrement, or dead animals. In some cases, the pillory was designed with additional mechanisms such as pincers or spiked collars to further inflict pain and injury.

The duration of the punishment also varied, ranging from a few hours to several days, depending on the severity of the crime committed. The pillory served as a form of public spectacle and a deterrent against crime.

It was not just humiliating, however. It was a brutal and dehumanizing practice, often resulting in severe physical and psychological harm. Over time, societal attitudes towards punishment shifted, and the use of the pillory diminished.

The Iron Maiden

Not to be mixed with the band, the Iron Maiden is a notorious torture device that has garnered considerable attention and fascination throughout history. The Iron Maiden is one of the medieval torture devices on this list that actually originated from the middle ages.

It is often depicted as an iron coffin adorned with metal spikes on the interior. While the Iron Maiden has captured the popular imagination as a symbol of medieval cruelty, it remains a bit uncertain whether the torture device actually existed and was widely used. There is simply doubt whether the sources referring to the Iron Maiden are legitimate.

That mainly has to do with the fact that the earliest references to the Iron Maiden only come from sources that date back to the 18th and 19th centuries. Because they’re only mentioned relatively late, people suggest that it might have been a fabrication or exaggeration to portray the past as more brutal and savage.

Nevertheless, despite its dubious historical authenticity, the Iron Maiden has become entrenched in popular culture and has been displayed prominently in TV dramas, literature, and art as a symbol of medieval sadism.

Pear of Anguish

The Pear of Anguish, also known as the choke pear or mouth pear, is a pear-shaped device that emerged at the end of the middle ages and early modern period.

This choke pear basically had a metal body that was divided into spoon-like segments. These segments could be expanded by using a spring mechanism or a key. The use of the Pear of Anguish focused on inflicting pain, gagging, or simply mutilating the victim in any way possible.

The usage of the pear depended on the specific crime that was committed by the offender. You had either a choke pear, which was an oral device inserted into the victim’s mouth, or anal and vaginal pears – which need no further explanation. Once inserted, the pear gradually expanded.

The pain would’ve been incredible, and the device had a high potential to result in severe internal damage. Its pronged structure allowed it to tear into delicate tissues such as the throat, cervix, or intestines, leading to agonizing injuries and, in many cases, death.

Historical accounts indicate that this medieval torture device was commonly employed on individuals accused of witchcraft, homosexuality, or heresy. Its use served to enforce social and religious norms, instill fear, and extract confessions.

Brazen Bull

The Brazen Bull, also known as the Sicilian Bull, is a gruesome torture device that originated in ancient Greece . It was basically a hollow brass statue that resembled a bull, designed for burning people.

The condemned person would be placed inside the bull, and a fire would be set underneath it, slowly heating the metal. As the temperature rose, the metal became scorching hot, causing the person inside to endure intense heat and pain whilst being slowly burned.

The bull’s construction was ingenious and amplified the cries and screams of the victim; the metal walls of the bull acted as a resonating chamber, converting the desperate pleas for mercy into haunting, bull-like sounds.

The intention behind the Brazen Bull was both physical and psychological. The victim would witness their impending doom as they were slowly roasted alive, while the agonizing screams would be transformed into haunting vibrations.

The psychological impact on both the victim and witnesses was immense, even instilling fear in the ones that were just watching the spectacle. In practice, this also led to a higher degree of obedience in the onlookers. For if you failed to obey, there was a potential that you’d end up inside the fiery bull.

The use of the Brazen Bull was not limited to a particular group or time period. It found its way into various civilizations and historical periods, serving as a symbol of cruelty and inhumanity.

Thumb Screw

The thumb screw is another form of medieval torture that has a long and dark history, particularly during the medieval period. While the other medieval torture devices on this list have a high probability of leading to death, the thumb screw wasn’t very deadly. It was focused on the victim’s bones and the victim’s hand, or their mutilation.

This thumb screw consists of a metal vice-like mechanism with two flat surfaces and a screw in the center. The victim’s thumb would be placed between the surfaces, and as the screw was turned, the plates would tighten, putting the desired amount of pressure on the thumb.

The gradual tightening caused immense pain as the pressure increased. Often, this led to the breaking or crushing of bones and caused severe tissue damage. The severity of the torment could be adjusted by turning the screw, making it a versatile tool for varying degrees of suffering.

The thumb screw was seldom used on its own and often in combination with other methods of torture. While the physical suffering was, of course, not desired by the victim, the psychological trauma that was caused by the potential of increasing pain was also a big factor in the torture.

Torture by the Rack, an infamous torture device dating back to medieval times, is one of the most painful torture methods. This torture device pulled the limbs on a stretching table.

The rack consisted of a wooden frame with a roller at each end. The victim’s ankles and wrists were bound to these rollers with ropes, and as the torturer turned the handle, the ropes attached to the rollers would be pulled. This resulted in the victim’s limbs being slowly separated in opposite directions.

This relentless stretching caused immense pain and often resulted in dislocated joints, torn ligaments, and the snapping of bones. The torturer had control over the degree of stretching, allowing them to gradually increase the tension, pushing the victim to their limits.

The rack was not only used as a tool of punishment and ripping off people’s limbs. Actually, skilled torturers were able to make the victim confess their crimes rather quickly because they installed an increasing fear of the upcoming stretching of the limbs.

Throughout history, the rack was employed in various regions and during different periods of time. Its use was not confined to specific groups or societies but rather transcended cultural boundaries, leaving behind a legacy of suffering and anguish. The rack is certainly one of the most gruesome instruments of torture that have existed in medieval times.

Judas Cradle

Also known as the Judas Chair, the Judas Cradle was primarily used by the Spanish Inquisition and other judicial systems of that time. This torture tool consisted of a pyramid-shaped seat with a pointed tip.

The victim would be placed on top of the seat, usually with their legs bound, and gradually lowered onto the sharp point. The Judas Cradle was a tool of punishment and coercion, with a high probability of inflicting internal injuries. Its use aimed to extract confessions or punish individuals that were deemed guilty of crimes or heresy.

The Knee Splitter

The knee splitter is another terrible medieval torture device. Designed to immobilize the victim, it consisted of two spiked wood blocks or sharp blades attached to a hinged mechanism.

The victim’s knees were forced onto the device and, upon activation, the spikes or blades would penetrate deeply into the flesh and bone – causing severe injuries. The knees of the victim were simply split, leaving the offender in intense agony.

The knee splitter was utilized as a means of punishment, interrogation, or simply to instill fear and control.

The Scavenger’s Daughter

The Scavenger’s Daughter, also known as Skevington’s Daughter, was a medieval torture device that was primarily used in England during the reign of King Henry VIII. It was invented by Sir Leonard Skevington, an English knight.

READ MORE: How Did Henry VIII Die? The Injury That Costs a Life

The device made sure that the victim was completely restrained. It consisted of an iron hoop, rods, or screws. The victim would be forced to kneel with their head and limbs bent forward, while the hoop was tightened around their body, applying intense pressure.

This torture device was primarily used to punish individuals suspected of high treason, heresy, or other crimes against the state or the Church. Those accused of plotting against the crown, engaging in political dissent, or holding ‘erroneous’ religious beliefs were subjected to the Scavenger’s Daughter.

The device’s purpose was to compress the victim’s body which, in turn, caused severe pain and could lead to broken bones. The compression of the hoop restricted the blood flow and put immense pressure on the internal organs.

The torture was often combined with other methods of torment, such as beatings or psychological abuse, to extract confessions or force individuals to renounce their beliefs.

The Breast Ripper

The breast ripper, also known as the iron spider or the spider’s web, consisted of a metal tool with four or more sharp, claw-like hooks, arranged in a circular or semicircular pattern. This device was specifically created to cause mutilation of the breasts of women.

The breast ripper was exclusively applied to women who were accused of various crimes. The most common ones were related to adultery, witchcraft, or heresy. The victim’s breasts would be clamped tightly with the hooks, and then the device was forcefully pulled away, tearing and mutilating the flesh.

The use of the breast ripper was not limited to legal proceedings, as it was also employed during interrogations to extract confessions. The physical and psychological trauma inflicted by this device left lifelong scars, both physical and emotional, on its victims.

Spanish Donkey

Last in the line of medieval torture devices is the Spanish Donkey – also known as the wooden horse or wooden pony. It is yet another gruesome device commonly used by the Spanish Inquisition.

This device consisted of a triangular-shaped wooden plank or ‘saddle’. The wood was often adorned with spikes or sharp edges. The victim – who was often stripped naked – had to sit on the exact edge of the device. In that sense, it sort of resembled the Judas Cradle. However, there was a definite difference.

With the Spanish Donkey, the torturer would apply additional weights to the victim’s feet or tie them to the device, increasing the pressure and causing excruciating pain. This sadistic method aimed to inflict intense suffering, often resulting in severe injuries or death.

How to Cite this Article

There are three different ways you can cite this article.

1. To cite this article in an academic-style article or paper , use:

<a href=" https://historycooperative.org/medieval-torture-devices/ ">Medieval Torture Devices: The Rack, Impalement Sticks, and More!</a>

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

White former officers get sentences of 10 to 40 years in torture of 2 Black men in Mississippi

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

A federal judge Thursday finished handing down prison terms of about 10 to 40 years to six white former Mississippi law enforcement officers who pleaded guilty to breaking into a home without a warrant and torturing two Black men in an hours-long attack that included beatings, repeated uses of stun guns and assaults with a sex toy before one victim was shot in the mouth.

U.S. District Judge Tom Lee called the ex-officers’ actions “egregious and despicable” and gave sentences near the top of federal guidelines to five of the six men who attacked Michael Corey Jenkins and Eddie Terrell Parker in January 2023.

The case drew condemnation from law enforcement officials across the country, including Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland. In its grisly details, local residents saw echoes of Mississippi’s history of racist atrocities by people in authority. The difference this time is that those who abused their power paid a steep price for their crimes, the victims’ attorneys said.

“The depravity of the crimes committed by these defendants cannot be overstated,” Garland said Thursday.

Brett McAlpin, 53, who was the fourth highest-ranking officer in the Rankin County Sheriff’s Office, received a sentence of about 27 years on Thursday. McAlpin nodded to his family in the courtroom. He offered an apology before he was sentenced but did not look at the victims as he spoke.

“This was all wrong, very wrong. It’s not how people should treat each other and even more so, it’s not how law enforcement should treat people,” McAlpin said. “I’m really sorry for being a part of something that made law enforcement look so bad.”

The only defendant who didn’t receive a prison term at the top of the sentencing guidelines was Joshua Hartfield, 32, a former Richland police officer who did not work in a sheriff’s department with the others and was not a member of a “Goon Squad.” He was the last of the six former officers sentenced over three days this week, months after they all pleaded guilty.

Before giving Hartfield a 10-year sentence Thursday, Lee said the former policeman did not have a history of using excessive force and was roped into the brutal episode by one of the former deputies, Christian Dedmon. Lee said, however, that Hartfield failed to intervene in the violence and participated in a cover-up.

Lee sentenced Dedmon, 29, to 40 years in prison and Daniel Opdyke, 28, to 17½ years on Wednesday. He gave about 20 years to Hunter Elward, 31, and 17½ years to Jeffrey Middleton, 46, on Tuesday.

Arguing for a lengthy sentence, federal prosecutor Christopher Perras said McAlpin was not technically a member of the Goon Squad but “molded the men into the goons they became.”

World & Nation

Mississippi ex-deputy gets 20-year sentence in racist torture of 2 Black men

Last year, law enforcement officers burst into a home without a warrant and assaulted the two men with stun guns, a sex toy and other objects.

March 19, 2024

Parker, told investigators that McAlpin functioned like a “mafia don” as he instructed the officers throughout the evening. Prosecutors said other deputies often tried to impress McAlpin, and Opdyke’s attorney said Wednesday that his client saw McAlpin as a father figure.

The younger deputies who were already sentenced, Perras said Thursday, tried to understand how they had started off “wanting to be good law enforcement officers and turned into monsters.”

“How did these deputies learn to treat another human being this way? Your honor, the answer is sitting right there,” Perras said as he turned and pointed at McAlpin.

In March 2023, months before federal prosecutors announced charges in August, an investigation by the Associated Press linked some of the deputies to at least four violent encounters with Black men since 2019 that left two dead and another with lasting injuries.

The officers invented false charges against the victims, planting a gun and drugs at the scene of their crime, and stuck to their cover story for months until finally admitting that they tortured Jenkins and Parker. Elward admitted to shoving a gun into Jenkins’ mouth and firing it in what federal prosecutors said was meant to be a “mock execution.”

In a statement read by his attorney Thursday, Jenkins said he “felt like a slave” and was “left to die like a dog.”

“If those who are in charge of the Rankin County Sheriff’s Office can participate in these kinds of torture, God help us all. And God help Rankin County,” Jenkins said.

Mississippi ex-deputies sentenced to 40 and 17 years as judge decries brutal attack on 2 Black men

Two former Mississippi deputies -- among six officers convicted -- wept as a federal judge sentenced them to years in prison and condemned their cruelty for torturing two Black men.

March 20, 2024

The terror began Jan. 24, 2023, with a racist call for extrajudicial violence when a white person complained to McAlpin that two Black men were staying with a white woman at a house in Braxton, Miss. McAlpin told Dedmon, who texted a group of white deputies asking if they were “available for a mission.”

“No bad mugshots,” Dedmon texted — a green light, according to prosecutors, to use excessive force on parts of the body that wouldn’t appear in a booking photo.

Dedmon also brought Hartfield, who was instructed to cover the back door of the property during their illegal entry.

Once inside, the officers mocked the victims with racial slurs and shocked them with stun guns. They handcuffed them and poured milk, alcohol and chocolate syrup over their faces. Dedmon and Opdyke assaulted them with a sex toy. They forced them to strip naked and shower together to conceal the mess.

After Elward shot Jenkins in the mouth, lacerating his tongue and breaking his jaw, they devised a cover-up. The deputies agreed to plant drugs, and false charges stood against Jenkins and Parker for months.

McAlpin and Middleton, the oldest men of the group, threatened to kill the other officers if they spoke up, prosecutors said. In court Thursday, McAlpin’s attorney Aafram Sellers said only Middleton threatened to kill the other officers.

Six former Mississippi officers plead guilty to torture of two Black men

Six white former Mississippi law officers pleaded guilty to state charges for torturing two Black men in a racist assault.

Aug. 14, 2023

Sellers also questioned probation officer Allie Whitten on the stand about details submitted to the judge. When federal investigators interviewed the neighbor who called McAlpin, that person reported seeing “trashy” people at the house who were both white and Black, Sellers said. That called into question whether the episode started on the basis of race, he argued.

Federal prosecutors said the neighbor referred to people at the home as “those people” and “thugs.” The information included in the charging documents, which the officers did not dispute when they pleaded guilty, revealed some of them used racial taunts and epithets throughout the episode.

Majority-white Rankin County is just east of Jackson, home to one of the highest percentages of Black residents of any major U.S. city. The officers shouted at Jenkins and Parker to “stay out of Rankin County and go back to Jackson or ‘their side’ of the Pearl River,” court documents say.

Attorneys for several of the deputies said their clients became ensnared in a culture of corruption that was not only permitted but encouraged by leaders within the Sheriff’s Office.

Rankin County Sheriff Bryan Bailey, who took office in 2012, revealed no details about his deputies’ actions when he announced they had been fired last June. After they pleaded guilty in August, Bailey said the officers had gone rogue and he promised changes. Jenkins and Parker called for his resignation and filed a $400-million civil lawsuit against the department.

In November, Bailey was reelected without opposition to another four-year term.

Goldberg and Pettus write for the Associated Press.

More to Read

Memphis judge postpones cops’ state trial in Tyre Nichols death until end of federal case

March 8, 2024

Proud Boys member sentenced to 6 years in prison for Capitol riot role after berating judge

Jan. 24, 2024

2nd former L.A. deputy sentenced to federal prison for abducting Compton skateboarder

Jan. 23, 2024

Start your day right

Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Biden signs $1.2-trillion funding package after Senate’s early-morning passage ended shutdown threat

Deadly attack on Moscow concert hall shakes Russian capital, sows doubts about security

March 23, 2024

Kamala Harris to tour blood-stained building where 2018 Florida school massacre happened

The double cancer blow to Kate and King Charles leaves Britain’s royal family depleted and strained

White former officers get sentences of 10 to 40 years in torture of 2 Black men in Mississippi

J ACKSON, Miss. (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday finished handing down prison terms of about 10 to 40 years to six white former Mississippi law enforcement officers who pleaded guilty to breaking into a home without a warrant and torturing two Black men in an hourslong attack that included beatings, repeated uses of stun guns and assaults with a sex toy before one of the victims was shot in the mouth.

U.S. District Judge Tom Lee called the culprits' actions “egregious and despicable" and gave sentences near the top of federal guidelines to five of the six men who attacked Michael Corey Jenkins and Eddie Terrell Parker in January 2023.

The case drew condemnation from top law enforcement officials in the country, including Attorney General Merrick Garland. In its grisly details, local residents saw echoes of Mississippi’s history of racist atrocities by people in authority. The difference this time is that those who abused their power paid a steep price for their crimes, the victims' attorneys said.

“The depravity of the crimes committed by these defendants cannot be overstated,” Garland said Thursday.

Brett McAlpin, 53, who was the fourth highest-ranking officer in the Rankin County Sheriff's Office, received a sentence of about 27 years on Thursday. McAlpin nodded to his family in the courtroom. He offered an apology before he was sentenced but did not look at the victims as he spoke.

“This was all wrong, very wrong. It’s not how people should treat each other and even more so, it’s not how law enforcement should treat people,” McAlpin said. “I’m really sorry for being a part of something that made law enforcement look so bad.”

The only defendant who didn't receive a prison term at the top of the sentencing guidelines was Joshua Hartfield, 32, a former Richland police officer who did not work in a sheriff’s department with the others and was not a member of a “Goon Squad.” He was the last of the six former officers sentenced over three days this week, months after they all pleaded guilty.

Before giving Hartfield a 10-year sentence Thursday, Lee said Hartfield did not have a history of using excessive force and was roped into the brutal episode by one of the former deputies, Christian Dedmon. Lee said, however, that Hartfield failed to intervene in the violence and participated in a cover-up.

Lee sentenced Dedmon, 29, to 40 years and Daniel Opdyke, 28, to 17.5 years on Wednesday . He gave about 20 years to Hunter Elward, 31, and 17.5 years to Jeffrey Middleton, 46, on Tuesday .

Arguing for a lengthy sentence, federal prosecutor Christopher Perras said McAlpin was not technically a member of the Goon Squad but “molded the men into the goons they became.”

Parker told investigators that McAlpin functioned like a “mafia don" as he instructed the officers throughout the evening. Prosecutors said other deputies often tried to impress McAlpin, and Opdyke's attorney said Wednesday that his client saw McAlpin as a father figure.

The younger deputies tried to wrap their heads around how they had started off “wanting to be good law enforcement officers and turned into monsters,” Perras said Thursday.

“How did these deputies learn to treat another human being this way? Your honor, the answer is sitting right there," Perras said, pointing at McAlpin.

In March 2023, months before federal prosecutors announced charges in August, an investigation by The Associated Press linked some of the deputies to at least four violent encounters with Black men since 2019 that left two dead and another with lasting injuries.

The officers invented false charges against the victims, planting a gun and drugs at the scene of their crime, and stuck to their cover story for months until finally admitting that they tortured Jenkins and Parker. Elward admitted to shoving a gun into Jenkins’ mouth and firing it in what federal prosecutors said was meant to be a “mock execution.”

The terror began Jan. 24, 2023, with a racist call for extrajudicial violence when a white person complained to McAlpin that two Black men were staying with a white woman at a house in Braxton. McAlpin told Dedmon, who texted a group of white deputies asking if they were “available for a mission.”

“No bad mugshots,” Dedmon texted — a green light, according to prosecutors, to use excessive force on parts of the body that wouldn’t appear in a booking photo.

Dedmon also brought Hartfield, who was instructed to cover the back door of the property during their illegal entry.

Once inside, the officers mocked the victims with racial slurs and shocked them with stun guns. They handcuffed them and poured milk, alcohol and chocolate syrup over their faces. Dedmon and Opdyke assaulted them with a sex toy. They forced them to strip naked and shower together to conceal the mess.

After Elward shot Jenkins in the mouth, lacerating his tongue and breaking his jaw, they devised a coverup. The deputies agreed to plant drugs, and false charges stood against Jenkins and Parker for months.

McAlpin and Middleton, the oldest in the group, threatened to kill other officers if they spoke up, prosecutors said. In court Thursday, McAlpin's attorney Aafram Sellers said only Middleton threatened to kill them.

Sellers also questioned a probation officer about details submitted to the judge. When federal investigators interviewed the neighbor who called McAlpin, that person reported seeing “trashy” people at the house who were both white and Black, Sellers said. That called into question whether the episode started on the basis of race, he argued.

Federal prosecutors said the neighbor referred to people at the home as “those people” and “thugs.” The information included in the charging documents, which the officers did not dispute when they pleaded guilty, revealed some of them used racial taunts and epithets throughout the episode.

Majority-white Rankin County is just east of Jackson, home to one of the highest percentages of Black residents of any major U.S. city. The officers shouted at Jenkins and Parker to “stay out of Rankin County and go back to Jackson or ‘their side’ of the Pearl River,” court documents say.

Attorneys for several of the deputies said their clients became ensnared in a culture of corruption that was encouraged by leaders in the sheriff's office.

Rankin County Sheriff Bryan Bailey revealed no details about his deputies’ actions when he announced they had been fired last June. After they pleaded guilty in August, Bailey said the officers had gone rogue and promised changes. Jenkins and Parker called for his resignation and filed a $400 million civil lawsuit against the department.

Bailey, who was reelected without opposition in November, said in a statement Thursday that he is “committed to the betterment of this county” and will work “with the honest, hard-working men and women currently with this department" to make Rankin County safer.

In a statement read by his attorney Thursday, Jenkins said he “felt like a slave” and was “left to die like a dog.”

“If those who are in charge of the Rankin County Sheriff’s Office can participate in these kinds of torture, God help us all," Jenkins said. “And God help Rankin County.”

Michael Goldberg is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow him at @mikergoldberg .

Six former law enforcement officers known as the 'Goon Squad' receive decades-long sentences for torture of two black men in Mississippi

Six former law enforcement officers have received decades-long prison sentences in Mississippi after pleading guilty to breaking into a home without a warrant and torturing two black men in an hours-long attack. 

A federal judge issued the sentences, ranging from 10 to 40 years, for the attack that included beatings, repeated use of stun guns and assaults with a sex toy before one of the victims was shot in the mouth.

US District Judge Tom Lee called the culprits' actions "egregious and despicable" and gave sentences near the top of federal guidelines to five of the six men who attacked Michael Corey Jenkins and Eddie Terrell Parker.

The exception was for Joshua Hartfield, 32, a former police officer who did not work in a sheriff's department with the others and was not a member of a "Goon Squad".

He was the last of the six former officers sentenced over three days this week, months after they all pleaded guilty.

Before giving Hartfield a 10-year sentence on Thursday, Judge Lee said Hartfield did not have a history of using excessive force and was roped into the brutal episode by one of the former deputies, Christian Dedmon, who received a 40-year sentence.

Judge Lee said, however, that Hartfield failed to intervene in the violence and participated in a cover-up.

Brett McAlpin, 53, who was the fourth-highest-ranking officer in the Rankin County Sheriff's Office, received a sentence of about 27 years on Thursday.

McAlpin nodded to his family in the courtroom and offered an apology before the judge sentenced him.

"This was all wrong, very wrong. It's not how people should treat each other and even more so, it's not how law enforcement should treat people," said McAlpin, who did not look at the victims as he spoke.

"I'm really sorry for being a part of something that made law enforcement look so bad."

All but Hartfield served with the Rankin County Sheriff's Office outside Mississippi's capital city of Jackson.

Arguing for a lengthy sentence, federal prosecutor Christopher Perras said McAlpin was not technically a member of the Goon Squad but "moulded the men into the goons they became".

Parker told investigators that McAlpin functioned like a "mafia don" as he instructed the officers throughout the evening.

Prosecutors said other deputies often tried to impress McAlpin, and Daniel Opdyke's attorney said on Wednesday that his client saw McAlpin as a father figure.

The younger deputies tried to wrap their heads around how they had started off "wanting to be good law enforcement officers and turned into monsters", Mr Perras said on Thursday.

"How did these deputies learn to treat another human being this way? Your honour, the answer is sitting right there," Mr Perras said as he turned and pointed at McAlpin.

In March 2023, months before federal prosecutors announced charges in August, an investigation by The Associated Press linked some of the deputies to at least four violent encounters with black men since 2019 that left two dead and another with lasting injuries.

'Left to die like a dog'

The officers invented false charges against the victims, planting a gun and drugs at the scene of their crime, and stuck to their cover story for months until finally admitting that they tortured Mr Jenkins and Mr Parker.

Elward admitted to shoving a gun into Mr Jenkins' mouth and firing it in what federal prosecutors said was meant to be a "mock execution".

In a statement read by his attorney on Thursday, Mr Jenkins said he "felt like a slave" and was "left to die like a dog".

"If those who are in charge of the Rankin County Sheriff's Office can participate in these kinds of torture, God help us all. And God help Rankin County," Mr Jenkins said.

On a 'mission'

The terror began January 24, 2023, with a racist call for extrajudicial violence when a white person complained to McAlpin that two black men were staying with a white woman at a house in Braxton.

McAlpin told Dedmon, who texted a group of white deputies asking if they were "available for a mission".

"No bad mugshots," Dedmon texted — a green light, according to prosecutors, to use excessive force on parts of the body that wouldn't appear in a booking photo.

Dedmon also brought Hartfield, who was instructed to cover the back door of the property during their illegal entry.

Once inside, the officers mocked the victims with racial slurs and shocked them with stun guns.

They handcuffed them and poured milk, alcohol and chocolate syrup over their faces.

Dedmon and Opdyke assaulted them with a sex toy.

They forced them to strip naked and shower together to conceal the mess.

After Elward shot Jenkins in the mouth, lacerating his tongue and breaking his jaw, they devised a cover-up.

The deputies agreed to plant drugs, and false charges stood against Mr Jenkins and Mr Parker for months.

McAlpin and Middleton, the oldest men of the group, threatened to kill the other officers if they spoke up, prosecutors said.

In court on Thursday, McAlpin's attorney Aafram Sellers said only Middleton threatened to kill the other officers.

Rankin County Sheriff Bryan Bailey, who took office in 2012, revealed no details about his deputies' actions when he announced they had been fired last June.

After they pleaded guilty in August, Mr Bailey said the officers had gone rogue and promised changes.

Mr Jenkins and Mr Parker called for his resignation and filed a $US400 million ($609 million) civil lawsuit against the department.

Last November, Mr Bailey was re-elected without opposition to another four-year term.

• X (formerly Twitter)
• Race Relations
• United States

Former Mississippi police officer gets about 10 years in prison for racist torture of 2 Black men

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — The last of six former law enforcement officers who tortured two Black men outside Mississippi’s capital has been sentenced.

Former Richland police officer Joshua Hartfield was given an approximately 10-year federal prison sentence on Thursday.

The six white officers were fired and pleaded guilty to subjecting Michael Corey Jenkins and Eddie Terrell Parker to numerous acts of racist torture in January 2023.

The so-called “Goon Squad” broke into a home where a neighbor complained that the Black men were staying with a white woman. Hartfield tried to destroy evidence of the torture.

This is a breaking news update. An earlier story follows below.

Advertisement

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — A high-ranking former sheriff’s deputy in Mississippi — one who was often seen as a father figure by younger officers — was sentenced to more than 27 years Thursday for breaking into a home with a group of law enforcement officers as they tortured two Black men, an act the judge called “egregious and despicable.”

Former deputy Brett McAlpin, 53, was the fifth former law enforcement officer sentenced this week by U.S. District Judge Tom Lee after pleading guilty to the attack, which involved beatings, repeated uses of stun guns and assaults with a sex toy before one of the victims was shot in the mouth. The sixth and final member of the group, 32-year-old former Richland police officer Joshua Hartfield, is set to be sentenced Thursday afternoon.

McAlpin on Thursday wore a jumpsuit turned inside out to conceal the name of the jail where he is detained, and he nodded to his family in the courtroom. He offered an apology before the judge sentenced him.

“This was all wrong, very wrong. It’s not how people should treat each other and even more so, it’s not how law enforcement should treat people,” said McAlpin, who did not look at the victims as he spoke. “I’m really sorry for being a part of something that made law enforcement look so bad.”

Lee sentenced Christian Dedmon, 29, to 40 years and Daniel Opdyke, 28, to 17.5 years on Wednesday. He gave about 20 years to Hunter Elward, 31, and 17.5 years to Jeffrey Middleton, 46, on Tuesday. All but Hartfield served with the Rankin County Sheriff’s Office outside Mississippi’s capital city, where some called themselves “The Goon Squad.”

McAlpin was the fourth highest-ranking officer at the Rankin County Sheriff’s Office, a probation officer said in court. Arguing for a lengthy sentence, federal prosecutor Christopher Perras said McAlpin was not technically a member of the Goon Squad but “molded the men into the goons they became.”

Parker told investigators that McAlpin, who was off duty and not in uniform during the attack, functioned like a “mafia don” as he instructed the officers throughout the evening. Prosecutors said other deputies often tried to impress McAlpin, and Opdyke’s attorney said Wednesday that his client saw McAlpin as a father figure.

The younger deputies who were already sentenced tried to wrap their heads around how they had started off “wanting to be good law enforcement officers and turned into monsters,” Perras said Thursday.

“How did these deputies learn to treat another human being this way? Your honor, the answer is sitting right there,” Perras said as he turned and pointed at McAlpin.

In March 2023, months before federal prosecutors announced charges in August, an investigation by The Associated Press linked some of the deputies to at least four violent encounters with Black men since 2019 that left two dead and another with lasting injuries.

The officers invented false charges against the victims, planting a gun and drugs at the scene of their crime, and stuck to their cover story for months until finally admitting that they tortured Michael Corey Jenkins and Eddie Terrell Parker. Elward admitted to shoving a gun into Jenkins’ mouth and firing it in what federal prosecutors said was meant to be a “mock execution.”

In a statement read by his attorney Thursday, Jenkins said he “felt like a slave” and was “left to die like a dog.”

“If those who are in charge of the Rankin County Sheriff’s Office can participate in these kinds of torture, God help us all. And God help Rankin County,” Jenkins said.

For each of the deputies sentenced so far, Lee has handed down prison terms near the top of the sentencing guidelines.

The terror began Jan. 24, 2023, with a racist call for extrajudicial violence when a white person complained to McAlpin that two Black men were staying with a white woman at a house in Braxton. McAlpin told Dedmon, who texted a group of white deputies asking if they were “available for a mission.”

“No bad mugshots,” Dedmon texted — a green light, according to prosecutors, to use excessive force on parts of the body that wouldn’t appear in a booking photo.

Dedmon also brought Hartfield, who was instructed to cover the back door of the property during their illegal entry.

Once inside, the officers mocked the victims with racial slurs and shocked them with stun guns. They handcuffed them and poured milk, alcohol and chocolate syrup over their faces. Dedmon and Opdyke assaulted them with a sex toy. They forced them to strip naked and shower together to conceal the mess.

After Elward shot Jenkins in the mouth, lacerating his tongue and breaking his jaw, they devised a coverup. The deputies agreed to plant drugs, and false charges stood against Jenkins and Parker for months.

McAlpin and Middleton, the oldest men of the group, threatened to kill the other officers if they spoke up, prosecutors said. In court Thursday, McAlpin’s attorney Aafram Sellers said only Middleton threatened to kill the other officers.

Sellers also questioned probation officer Allie Whitten on the stand about details submitted to the judge. When federal investigators interviewed the neighbor who called McAlpin, that person reported seeing “trashy” people at the house who were both white and Black, Sellers said. That called into question whether the episode started on the basis of race, he argued.

Federal prosecutors said the neighbor referred to people at the home as “those people” and “thugs.” The information included in the charging documents, which the officers did not dispute when they pleaded guilty, revealed some of them used racial taunts and epithets throughout the episode.

The majority-white Rankin County is just east of Jackson, home to one of the highest percentages of Black residents of any major U.S. city. The officers shouted at Jenkins and Parker to “stay out of Rankin County and go back to Jackson or ‘their side’ of the Pearl River,” court documents say.

Attorneys for several of the deputies said their clients became ensnared in a culture of corruption that was not only permitted, but encouraged by leaders within the sheriff’s office.

Rankin County Sheriff Bryan Bailey, who took office in 2012, revealed no details about his deputies’ actions when he announced they had been fired last June. After they pleaded guilty in August, Bailey said the officers had gone rogue and promised changes. Jenkins and Parker called for his resignation and filed a $400 million civil lawsuit against the department. Last November, Bailey was reelected without opposition to another four-year term.