Ancient Rome, the CIA, and the Barbarity of Torture
The US Constitution's ban on “cruel and unusual punishments”—even for heinous crimes—reflects the profound wisdom of the Founding Fathers.
Rome was the cultural epicenter of the ancient world. It was renowned for its law and order, piety, engineering, and fine art. But it was still a terribly brutal civilization by modern standards.
In the mid-5th century BC, Rome established its first legal code, the Twelve Tables. Oddly, the code was silent on the subject of murder. As a result, unwritten codes of retribution were created to deal with homicide.
Parricide, the act of killing one’s own parent, was known to result in a particularly gruesome punishment. Via Tacitus:
The traditional punishment for parricide…is as follows: the condemned person is beaten with blood-colored sticks, then sewn in a sack with a dog, a rooster, a viper, and a monkey, and thrown into the deep sea, if the sea is nearby; otherwise, in accordance with the law passed by the deified Hadrian, he is thrown to wild beasts. (Justinian’s Digest 48.9.9)
If you’re wondering if this method of execution was ever enforced, the answer is yes. Livy tells us that one Publicius Malleus was sewn in a sack and tossed in the sea for killing his mother. (It’s unclear if any animals accompanied Malleus on his voyage.)
It’s worth noting that the Founding Fathers, who were highly educated in classical history, were probably aware of this gruesome practice.
In fact, it’s quite possible that executions such as that endured by Malleus were what the Framers were referring to in the Eighth Amendment, which banned “cruel and unusual punishments.”
That language is admittedly vague, but nevertheless I think it reflects the profound wisdom of the Founding Fathers.
I’ve long believed the CIA’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” torture during the War on Terror was a clear violation of the Eighth Amendment, yet that did not stop the CIA from using it or people from defending the practice.
The ends justified the means, a type of rationale that grew rather popular in the 20th century.
Defenders of the CIA program will argue the crimes of 9-11 were horrific. Indeed. As is the crime of parricide. In neither case, however, do I believe we should stoop to barbarism.
We tend to view ourselves today as enlightened. I sometimes wonder if our level of barbarity rivals that of Ancient Rome, even if it comes in a slightly different shade.
For treason against the United States of America, would death by firing squad or hanging be considered cruel and unusual punishment? Rumor has it that, in Franklin-esque paraphrase, Adam Schiff, was recently inquiring of as much on behalf of his fellow people’s representatives who were also said to be curious about the definition of what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in today’s modern era of democracy.
Yes.