In a recent article published in the Texas A&M Law Review, University of Tulsa Professor of Law Russell Christopher critically examines torture’s legal and moral implications. His article, “The Unintended Consequences of Torture’s Ineffectiveness,” challenges the justification for torture by arguing its empirical ineffectiveness.
Christopher addresses a complex dilemma: the need for torture to be effective to be morally and legally permissible versus its actual ineffectiveness. This ineffectiveness undermines the ability of victims to claim duress – a legal defense for those forced into criminal actions under threat of harm. His analysis reveals a troubling paradox: If torture is ineffective, victims unjustly face criminal liability without a duress defense; if torture is considered effective, its use becomes morally and legally permissible, which is highly contentious.
His work calls for a reassessment of legal standards governing torture and coercion, advocating for a more humane and just approach. By highlighting the unintended consequences of torture’s ineffectiveness, Christopher urges policymakers and legal scholars to reconsider established norms.
Learn more about the professor’s research at Texas A&M Law Review article.