Contemporary Perspectives in Criminology - Coursework Example

Heading: Contemporary perspective in criminology Your name: Course name: Professors’ name: Date Introduction The U.N. Convention Against Torture (U.N.CAT) aims at eliminating any incident of torture in the signatory member state. It defines and obliges its signatories against performing any action that may result in torture. This analysis provides the key achievements of the U.N.CAT document and also the effectiveness of the document in addressing its core objectives. Some inadequacies of the Convention such as the absolute provisions of the CAT which completely disregard a state from committing acts of torture are also provided. Other key areas covered are complexities of the policy, consequences to the criminal justice and further development and suggested changes are addressed in order to provide an insightful consideration of the Convention. Summary of key achievements and effectiveness of policy The United States and other 140 countries which are signatory to the Unite Nations have signed a number of international treaties aimed at mitigating violations of human rights. The most notable document that was first passed by the United States in 1988 is the U.N. Convention Against Torture (U.N.CAT). The U.N.CAT provides a definition of torture as infliction of mental or physical severe pain intentionally with the purpose of getting suspected information from the individual or other third party under the colour of law in a particular state. The U.N.CAT criminalizes all acts of torture irrespective of the reasons behind committing such acts. The U.S. and other 140 countries have signed the treaty and this is a key achievement because it has played an imperative role in reducing cases of extreme infliction of pain on suspects and thus promoting human rights policies in the world (Great Britain: Parliament, 2008). The rationale for the U.S. and other 140 countries signing the treaty was to show the rest of the world as developed countries the need to stop torture; they therefore signed the deal as an example for the rest of the world and hope that they will also follow. As stated by Garcia (2010, p.2) the U.S. enacted 18 U.S.C §§ 2340 and 2340A, to demonstrate its commitment to eliminate torture outside the U.S. since it was generally prohibited within the U.S. jurisdiction. The document is effective in addressing all manner of torture because of its clear definition of torture and its absolute disregard of any reason to commit torture including in a threat of war or even a state of war (Dismore 2006). Identified inadequacies of policy According to Ingelse (2001, p.73) the provisions of U.N.CAT does not require a state to ensure that it institute proactive mechanism that seeks to inhibit instances of torture beyond its boundaries of jurisdiction. This approach may be a weakness since the signatory countries will be reluctant in acting against acts of torture beyond its borders even if it has the ability to deal with such cases. The other shortcoming of the U.N.CAT is its provision of absolute or under no circumstance can justification to torture be allowed by all the signatories to the U.N.CAT. This definition may be a weakness because a state cannot commit torture even if its national borders are threatened, or if the person in custody or other third party has adequate information necessary to stop foreign invasion or to stop a possible conflict that may result in a war. Considering the importance of peace and sovereignty, some acts of torture may be necessary of the general peace and stability of the country is threatened. The U.N.CAT fails to provide for the circumstances which may force a state to act in defence of its sovereignty or generally to prevent foreign invasion of its borders (Davis 2007). Complexities of policy The implications of the absolute provision in the U.N.CAT brings complexities related to national security because the U.N.CAT provides that under no circumstance can infliction of extreme pain under the colour of law be permitted. The provision therefore fails to provide for the circumstance under which the national security of a country can be prioritised. More so, the provision defines torture as intentional infliction of extreme physical or psychological pain by a person acting under the guidance of the state law. The definition of torture does not include all physical or mental torture besides the ones that cause extreme pain to the victim. The provision also acknowledges torture as the pain caused by an individual acting on behalf of the state or under the colour of law. According to Moore & Pubantz (2008, p.91) the U.S. State Department considers all mistreatment in the police brutality category while unacceptable cannot be considered torture in the U.N. CAT because the CAT seeks to address only extreme cases of cruelty. The complex issue that has not been well addressed in this case is how torture can be determined under the provision. To what extent does an act of mental or physical brutality amounts to torture? And how is such an offense determined if there are unacceptable violations of human rights by the state police without amounting to torture? Such issues have not been properly addressed and provided for in the U.N. CAT document in order to effectively determine when a case amounts to torture. Consequences of policy on criminal justice system U.N. Convention Against Torture (U.N.CAT) has had far reaching implication to both national and international crime prevention and criminal justice in general. The provision clearly defines the responsibility of the signatory states led by the United States and other 140 countries that have complied with the Convention and thus obliged to act according to the provision. The objective of the U.N.CAT focuses on the rights of the offenders in custody by prohibiting extreme use of force irrespective of the criminal offense. The first implication of this provision to crime prevention is the free and fair trial of the crime offenders without being subject to torture (Rodley 2000). Traditionally, such offenders could be subject to extreme pain that could even lead to death, as a result of the ratification of the Convention, offenders can face justice through a regulated criminal justice system within the signatory country. According to Cohen (2005, p.13) the other major consequence that the provision has had on both national and international crime prevention is the enhancement of justice by the involved state. In essence, a criminal prosecution process should be not done in violation of human rights irrespective of the offender’s extent of offence. The U.N.CAT ensures justice in the process of prosecution within the signatory states. While the provision seeks to address severe case of torture, it generally seems to compromise on extremist like terrorists who are potential threat to masses of people (Danelius1998). The provision provides that under no circumstances can an offender be subject to torture, this simply implies a general compromise on extremist like terrorist. Further developments of policy The most likely development of the policy is the inclusion of the provisions to the policies of international law. This will aim at making torture an international offence and thus applicable beyond the boundaries of the U.N. signatories. More countries are also expected to adhere to the provisions of the act and thus responding to the human rights calls of stopping any inhuman act irrespective of the reason to commit the offence (Scott 2001) The other most likely modification of the policy is the provision for special clauses within the act that considers incidences that may result in a country’s external invasion or extreme terrorist who may commit mass murders as Al Qaeda has done in the past. Changes to policy There are major provisions of the document that should be amended in order to promote both the objective of the document as well as ensuring national and sovereignty of the member states subject to the Convention. The definition of torture should be re-defined in order to cater for all cases that result in extreme emotional and physical pain. The rationale for this suggestion is because any case of intentional infliction of pain done by any segment of the government will ultimately result in torture (Kurdish Human Rights Project 2005). After re-definition of the concept of torture, categories of the circumstances under which a criminal offense may be considered an act of war should be developed. This is because of the nature of terrorists’ extremist with the intention of inflicting pain or even death to masses of people. Ways of gaining adequate implicating evidence should thus be developed in order to address such extreme case. The other major consideration that the Convention should redress is the provision for the responsibility of each state to institute proactive measures against potential cases of torture within and even outside its borders. Such provisions will ensure that any cases of torture are completely eliminated within the member states (Dismore 2006). Conclusion This analysis has detailed the major consideration of the U.N.CAT based on the definition of torture and the obligation of the signatory states with regard to torture. According to the Convention, torture is any act of that inflicts severe mental or physical pain to the victim and done under the colour of the law. The U.N.CAT aims at eliminating any act which is against human rights, the key achievements of the ratified act is based on its absolute disregard to torture in the member states. It however fails to consider the implication of extremist terrorist who are a potential threat to the international peace. Read More