[pessimizer]

Torture is effective at hurting people, just not at getting truthful information from people. If your goal for a justice system is to hurt people, there's no reason to exclude torture other than squeamishness and the desire to create a faux-clinical atmosphere.

[rivd]

In a pure theoretical sense, yes torture is very effective at hurting people. But only for watchers or executioners who have a need of seeing the person being tortured suffer. I really doubt if traumatizing (torture > just hurting/punishing) a criminal is going to change his behaviour for the better.

The question then would be if the goal of a justice system should be to hurt people in the most effective way imaginable.

I don't know what you mean by creating a "faux-clinical atmosphere".

Isn't the reason for punishing criminals that they broke some aspect of acceptable social interaction (not hurting others a major one of those aspects) ? Even in the context of the state having the monopoly on the use violence, they should not use violence to the fullest extent possible, if only to prove that some actions are really unacceptable and there is never a reason to sink to the same level of what the criminal did. Criminals may be one-time-offenders or life-long-monsters, they are still humans.

You may call that squeamish, but i don't think torture should have any place in a modern society.

[GVIrish]

The goal of a criminal justice system is to apply justice, not to exact revenge.

Using torture as a punishment will result in making those convicted of crimes even more dehumanized and depraved. Furthermore, if torture is employed it is a guarantee that wrongfully convicted people will be tortured as well.

Cruelty should not be a tool of a system that is truly just. That is why 'cruel and unusual punishment' is specifically prohibited in the Constitution.