The article I choose to polish is the one from week 11 “What Stops the Torture?” because quite frankly it was one of the readings I can honestly say I found interesting- because its more relatable that per capita income’s relationship on how happy people are…. This article was enjoyable for me.

I think that I could have discussed a bit more of the concepts, relying with evidence that Conrad and Moore go through in their article.

Here is the updated version of my post.

The article of Conrad, and Moore “What Stops the Torture?” is a significant analytical piece to determine the detriments of torture on individual states. In order to do so they use several different variables such as “Freedom of Expression,” “Veto rights” “Voice Freedom” and “Violent Dissent.” Using some of these variables to measure how entrenched a country’s violence is, how long of a history of violence and threats do they hold, partners with qualities of the government that allude to democratic features of their nation. These aspects rely on each other, in order for Conrad and Moore to see the relationship of how democratic a country is and how violent they are at the same time in order to determine how likely they will terminate torture. Measuring the likelihood these states will change their torture norms in the future. However, they start off by stating that the 93% of countries who use torture will continue torture- this is pretty obvious considering countries that use torture on prisoners and captives. It its very significant that they analyze governments reasons to use torture at an executive level but also at the level in which officials administer the torture. They also discuss that in some democracies even if at the executive level, torture is not appropriate sometimes it is difficult to control those in the jails and interrogation administering the torture if it is not being reported back to the officials. As such, they argue that some democracies create institutions to secure that torture isn’t used as a form of interrogation or punishment in jails. However, they determine through their data countries that present torture as a form of violence usually have an imminent threat. One of the variables they measure to determine the likelihood that torture is terminated is through a countries free press level of freedom, and popular suffrage. There is a positive relationship that exists for when countries exhibit higher levels of the variables of freedom coinciding with a decrease in the national violence it is more likely that these countries will terminate their torture allowances. The likelihood of a country having democratic institutions is expected to eventually or progressively stop their torture. However, they come to understand that torture- is normal state-wide, and is commonly used whatever the regime type, and secondly we as the public, as the press and as political leaders are unaware and less informed on the matter- perhaps because a country that is democratic will execute the torture off the countries mainland…or in a secluded area or in a high security jail…I immediately thought of Guantanamo Bay. The scholars overall claim that firstly, the way the problem will be solved if more scholars, politicians, and the general public acknowledge its happening and define it globally from country to country in order to figure out the probability of it becoming terminated within an international consensus. As such, they note it is important to see what kind of policies politicians make- and what incentives there are for politicians being pro-torture. And that one of the main hinderence for countries to continue torture- is that politicians ignore and rarely respect human rights. “The international movement to actively stop the use of torture by demanding institutional training, monitoring, and sanctioning programs is relatively new. International NGOs are working with national ones to strengthen the CAT and its more recent Optional Proto col (OPCAT). OPCAT is interesting because it requires state parties to create independent domestic institutions that have training, monitoring and sanctioning authority,” of the torture. (747)

What I revised in the beginning is what kind of variables were used, and how that was significantly applicable to the variable they were measuring.

As such, these variables should be able to tell through the evidence of how attached a country is to their torturing, and if so- could those countries be able to terminate if a) more communication of anti-torture policies were implemented from the executive to state level of officials. b) the the more democratic institutions a country has- could prove to Conrad and Moore that torture can be progressively terminated in a positive relationship of the more democratic a country is- the higher the likelihood their torture policies will diminish.

As previously stated, I very  much like this piece because little has been discussed, and studied on this direction of topics before. We know that torture exists and the patterns it holds in different regions, however, no one (to my understanding) has studied the effects of a country’s democratic institutions on the likelihood of torture becoming terminated. Its difficult when in this world we have nations like the US that spearhead democratic institutions, and yet the majority of people are unaware of the torture they carry out. This article sheds lights on how democracies use torture, because threats are prevalent in the country’s conscious.