International law, constitutional law, and public support for torture

The human rights movement has spent considerable energy developing and promoting the adoption of both international and domestic legal prohibitions against torture. Empirical scholarship testing the effectiveness of these prohibitions using observational data, however, has produced mixed results. In...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Research & politics 2016-01, Vol.3 (1)
Main Authors: Chilton, Adam S, Versteeg, Mila
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Constitutional law
Human rights
International law
Public opinion
Respondents
Scholarship
Torture
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-8b9ba22b758c7c8959a01b8c2c6d69e2443c0f3108d60a886806f1966205b5c73
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-8b9ba22b758c7c8959a01b8c2c6d69e2443c0f3108d60a886806f1966205b5c73
container_end_page
container_issue 1
container_start_page
container_title Research & politics
container_volume 3
creator Chilton, Adam S
Versteeg, Mila
description The human rights movement has spent considerable energy developing and promoting the adoption of both international and domestic legal prohibitions against torture. Empirical scholarship testing the effectiveness of these prohibitions using observational data, however, has produced mixed results. In this paper, we explore one possible mechanism through which these prohibitions may be effective: dampening public support for torture. Specifically, we conducted a survey experiment to explore the impact of international and constitutional law on public support for torture. We found that a bare majority of respondents in our control group support the use of torture, and that presenting respondents with arguments that this practice violates international law or constitutional law did not produce a statistically significant decrease in support. These findings are consistent with prior research suggesting, even in democracies, that legal prohibitions on torture have been ineffective.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/2053168016636413
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_7572cff98c3f483cbe0c4b1b4c0698a5</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_2053168016636413</sage_id><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_7572cff98c3f483cbe0c4b1b4c0698a5</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2343050308</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-8b9ba22b758c7c8959a01b8c2c6d69e2443c0f3108d60a886806f1966205b5c73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UE1LAzEUDKJgqb17XPDq6st39iilaqHgRc8hyWbLlnWzJlnEf-_WihbB0xuGmXnvDUKXGG4wlvKWAKdYKMBCUMEwPUGzPVXuudMjfI4WKe0AADPFqSQztFr32cfe5Db0pis6835duNCn3ObxmDN9XQyj7VpXpHEYQsxFE2KRJzBGf4HOGtMlv_iec_Ryv3pePpabp4f18m5TOoZlLpWtrCHESq6cdKrilQFslSNO1KLyhDHqoKEYVC3AKDVdLBpcCTE9YLmTdI7Wh9w6mJ0eYvtq4ocOptVfRIhbbWJuXee15JK4pqmUow1T1FkPjllsmQNRKcOnrKtD1hDD2-hT1rswTk10SRPKKHCgoCYVHFQuhpSib362YtD77vXf7idLebAks_W_of_qPwFetIFG</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2343050308</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>International law, constitutional law, and public support for torture</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>Politics Collection</source><source>Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><creator>Chilton, Adam S ; Versteeg, Mila</creator><creatorcontrib>Chilton, Adam S ; Versteeg, Mila</creatorcontrib><description>The human rights movement has spent considerable energy developing and promoting the adoption of both international and domestic legal prohibitions against torture. Empirical scholarship testing the effectiveness of these prohibitions using observational data, however, has produced mixed results. In this paper, we explore one possible mechanism through which these prohibitions may be effective: dampening public support for torture. Specifically, we conducted a survey experiment to explore the impact of international and constitutional law on public support for torture. We found that a bare majority of respondents in our control group support the use of torture, and that presenting respondents with arguments that this practice violates international law or constitutional law did not produce a statistically significant decrease in support. These findings are consistent with prior research suggesting, even in democracies, that legal prohibitions on torture have been ineffective.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2053-1680</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2053-1680</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/2053168016636413</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Constitutional law ; Human rights ; International law ; Public opinion ; Respondents ; Scholarship ; Torture</subject><ispartof>Research &amp; politics, 2016-01, Vol.3 (1)</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2016</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2016. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – Non-Commercial License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-8b9ba22b758c7c8959a01b8c2c6d69e2443c0f3108d60a886806f1966205b5c73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-8b9ba22b758c7c8959a01b8c2c6d69e2443c0f3108d60a886806f1966205b5c73</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2053168016636413$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2343050308?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,12845,21387,21394,21966,25753,27853,27924,27925,33611,33985,37012,43733,43948,44590,44945,45333</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chilton, Adam S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Versteeg, Mila</creatorcontrib><title>International law, constitutional law, and public support for torture</title><title>Research &amp; politics</title><description>The human rights movement has spent considerable energy developing and promoting the adoption of both international and domestic legal prohibitions against torture. Empirical scholarship testing the effectiveness of these prohibitions using observational data, however, has produced mixed results. In this paper, we explore one possible mechanism through which these prohibitions may be effective: dampening public support for torture. Specifically, we conducted a survey experiment to explore the impact of international and constitutional law on public support for torture. We found that a bare majority of respondents in our control group support the use of torture, and that presenting respondents with arguments that this practice violates international law or constitutional law did not produce a statistically significant decrease in support. These findings are consistent with prior research suggesting, even in democracies, that legal prohibitions on torture have been ineffective.</description><subject>Constitutional law</subject><subject>Human rights</subject><subject>International law</subject><subject>Public opinion</subject><subject>Respondents</subject><subject>Scholarship</subject><subject>Torture</subject><issn>2053-1680</issn><issn>2053-1680</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFRWT</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>DPSOV</sourceid><sourceid>M2L</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp1UE1LAzEUDKJgqb17XPDq6st39iilaqHgRc8hyWbLlnWzJlnEf-_WihbB0xuGmXnvDUKXGG4wlvKWAKdYKMBCUMEwPUGzPVXuudMjfI4WKe0AADPFqSQztFr32cfe5Db0pis6835duNCn3ObxmDN9XQyj7VpXpHEYQsxFE2KRJzBGf4HOGtMlv_iec_Ryv3pePpabp4f18m5TOoZlLpWtrCHESq6cdKrilQFslSNO1KLyhDHqoKEYVC3AKDVdLBpcCTE9YLmTdI7Wh9w6mJ0eYvtq4ocOptVfRIhbbWJuXee15JK4pqmUow1T1FkPjllsmQNRKcOnrKtD1hDD2-hT1rswTk10SRPKKHCgoCYVHFQuhpSib362YtD77vXf7idLebAks_W_of_qPwFetIFG</recordid><startdate>20160101</startdate><enddate>20160101</enddate><creator>Chilton, Adam S</creator><creator>Versteeg, Mila</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><general>SAGE Publishing</general><scope>AFRWT</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160101</creationdate><title>International law, constitutional law, and public support for torture</title><author>Chilton, Adam S ; Versteeg, Mila</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-8b9ba22b758c7c8959a01b8c2c6d69e2443c0f3108d60a886806f1966205b5c73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Constitutional law</topic><topic>Human rights</topic><topic>International law</topic><topic>Public opinion</topic><topic>Respondents</topic><topic>Scholarship</topic><topic>Torture</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chilton, Adam S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Versteeg, Mila</creatorcontrib><collection>Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>Political Science Database (Proquest)</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Social Science Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Open Access: DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Research &amp; politics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chilton, Adam S</au><au>Versteeg, Mila</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>International law, constitutional law, and public support for torture</atitle><jtitle>Research &amp; politics</jtitle><date>2016-01-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>3</volume><issue>1</issue><issn>2053-1680</issn><eissn>2053-1680</eissn><abstract>The human rights movement has spent considerable energy developing and promoting the adoption of both international and domestic legal prohibitions against torture. Empirical scholarship testing the effectiveness of these prohibitions using observational data, however, has produced mixed results. In this paper, we explore one possible mechanism through which these prohibitions may be effective: dampening public support for torture. Specifically, we conducted a survey experiment to explore the impact of international and constitutional law on public support for torture. We found that a bare majority of respondents in our control group support the use of torture, and that presenting respondents with arguments that this practice violates international law or constitutional law did not produce a statistically significant decrease in support. These findings are consistent with prior research suggesting, even in democracies, that legal prohibitions on torture have been ineffective.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/2053168016636413</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2053-1680
ispartof Research & politics, 2016-01, Vol.3 (1)
issn 2053-1680
2053-1680
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_7572cff98c3f483cbe0c4b1b4c0698a5
source Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3); Social Science Premium Collection; Politics Collection; Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts
subjects Constitutional law
Human rights
International law
Public opinion
Respondents
Scholarship
Torture
title International law, constitutional law, and public support for torture
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T03%3A04%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=International%20law,%20constitutional%20law,%20and%20public%20support%20for%20torture&rft.jtitle=Research%20&%20politics&rft.au=Chilton,%20Adam%20S&rft.date=2016-01-01&rft.volume=3&rft.issue=1&rft.issn=2053-1680&rft.eissn=2053-1680&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/2053168016636413&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2343050308%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-8b9ba22b758c7c8959a01b8c2c6d69e2443c0f3108d60a886806f1966205b5c73%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2343050308&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_2053168016636413&rfr_iscdi=true