--- On Thu, 4/23/09, Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> wrote:
> From: Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Americans sorta like torture if it works
> To: "lbo-talk" <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Date: Thursday, April 23, 2009, 11:43 AM
>
> It occurred to me yesterday that there's a win-win-win in
> here. Cheney wants to prove that waterboarding
> produces the truth. We want to find out the truth of
> all the things he did, and we want to punish him for it.
>
> The obvious solution is that we should waterboard
> him. If he tells us what we what to know, everyone
> will be happy.
>
[WS:] As much I would enjoy seeing Cheney waterboarded (that discreet charm of schadenfreude :)) I think it is not a good analogy.
Waterboarding involves risk prevention not retribution, the latter being the purpose of criminal justice. It basically involves the problem of cost/benefit assessment in situttions with unknown risk factor. Waterboarding carries the risk of legal liability but entails a potential of substantial benefit of preventing a possible terrorist act. Since both cost and benefits are finite (unlike in Pascal wager*) - the balance depends on the risk assessment: that of potential cost versus that of potential benefit. If the risk of potential attack is high and the potential loss is great - that is if the choice is cognitively framed that way - taking the risk of waterboarding is a likely choice. If the perceived risk of liability is high, but the perceived risk of attack is low, waterboarding would be a less likely choice.
The actual decision depends on the cognitive framing of the problem, as Kahneman and Tversky work in behavioral economics show.
By contrast, typical problem of criminal justice involves retribution for past behavior so it is the cost/benefit problem that does not involve risk assessment (except perhaps incidentally.) It basically involve a choice between two principles: that of a due process and that of a retribution for breaking the law.
Wojtek
* In Pascal wager the probability of gain or loss does not matter, since the "loss" (earthly life) is defined as finite, whereas "gain" (salvation) is defined as infinite quantity, so the potential gain will always be greater than the loss, even if the probability of obtaining it is minuscule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_wager