Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What is Inhuman Treatment?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Criminal Law and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, I propose and argue for a conception of inhuman treatment. In the human rights context, I claim, inhuman treatment is that which is grossly degrading. Relative to “cruel,” “inhumane,” and “degrading,” “inhuman” has received little attention from moral philosophers. My aim here is to analyze this concept in greater depth in order to determine what it brings to discussions about punishment and other kinds of treatment. I begin by drawing distinctions between “inhuman,” “inhumane,” and “degrading.” Then, I discuss analyses of “inhuman treatment” proposed by Jeremy Waldron and John Vorhaus. Although I find both conceptions problematic, discussing each helps me to set the stage for my proposal. After articulating and arguing for my own conception, I conclude by briefly explaining some of its implications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For example, see Kleinig (1998), Murphy (1979), and Waldron (2010).

  2. Of course, these terms are also used in important national and international documents. For example, see the United Nations “Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,” (1987). My focus will be on understanding these terms primarily in an ethical context. Analyzing constitutions and treaties can shift the focus and introduce different evaluative criteria. While such a project is worthwhile, it is not my project here.

  3. Quotation from opinion in Ireland v. UK.

  4. Italics are mine. The interpretation of this passage is a bit difficult, and since it appears in a footnote it is not unpacked. However, Kleinig has mentioned in personal communication that his account was intended to be agent-centered.

  5. The phrase “human rights context” is used repeatedly in Waldron’s paper to refer to the social and political context in which claims of “inhuman and degrading treatment” are often made.

  6. Quoted in Waldron (2008, p. 31 [footnote]). Waldron (2008) is an earlier draft of Waldron (2010).

  7. Case is Tyrer v. UK.

  8. It might be objected here that I am taking a problematic approach that involves wrongly assuming that social concepts can be analyzed in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. Should these concepts, on the other hand, be analyzed by pointing out a “core and penumbra,” or by enumerating a cluster of characteristics associated with them? (Kleinig, personal communication) This issue is very complex, and deep consideration of it would take me too far afield. With respect to the particular issue at hand, though, I think that I have made a strong enough case that suffering should not be part of our conception of inhuman treatment.

References

  • Duff, R. A. (2005). Punishment, dignity and degradation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 25(1), 141–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1996). The metaphysics of morals. Trans. and Ed. M. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Kleinig, J. (1998). The hardness of hard treatment. In A. Ashworth & M. Wasik (Eds.), Fundamentals of sentencing theory (pp. 273–298). Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J. (1979). Cruel and unusual punishments. In M. A. Stewart (Ed.), Law, morality and rights (pp. 373–404). Boston: Reidel Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murtagh, K. (forthcoming). Is corporally punishing criminals degrading? The Journal of Political Philosophy.

  • Pullman, D. (2002). Human dignity and the ethics and aesthetics of pain and suffering. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 23, 75–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. (2001). Hannibal [Motion Picture]. Universal City, CA: Dino De Laurentiis Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twining, W., & Paskins, B. (1978). Torture and philosophy. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 52, 143–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1987). Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Treaty Series, 1465, 85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorhaus, J. (2002). On degradation. Part one: Article 3 of the European convention on human rights. Common Law World Review, 31(4), 374–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, J. (2008) Cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment: The words themselves. NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 08-36. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1278604. Accessed March 25, 2010.

  • Waldron, J. (2010). Inhuman and degrading treatment: The words themselves. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 23(2), 269–286.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank John Kleinig and Michael Levin for their comments on earlier drafts of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 23 Combes Ave., Rockville Centre, NY, 11570, USA

    Kevin J. Murtagh

Authors
  1. Kevin J. Murtagh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin J. Murtagh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Murtagh, K.J. What is Inhuman Treatment?. Criminal Law, Philosophy 6, 21–30 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-011-9131-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-011-9131-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation