Torture Photos: The Power of Gruesome Evidence

Image via Wikipedia

In the face of President Obama’s decision not to release photos allegedly showing U.S. soldiers abusing detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, a reader at Andrew Sullivan’s site writes in:

I do not understand why it is so important for the photos to be released.  We know that this behavior occurred. What good would the release of these photos to the public do?  Shock factor?  I think anyone who has followed the situation in the least is well aware that the torture took place.  I didn’t have to see a photograph of Lacy Peterson’s dead body to understand that she was murdered by her husband.  The memos were released that document the torture.  What more is needed? I don’t understand how this is covering anything up when he already allowed information to be released that documents the torture.

Sullivan’s response is that: “Without photos, we would never have heard of the mass abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib. Bush and Cheney would be denying today that any of it happened at all.”

But, actually, it goes further than this.

Social science research has made it clear that confronting the true gruesomeness of a crime makes us much more likely to want to punish it — and more likely to want to punish it more harshly.

Take the Lacy Peterson example. Sure, a written description of the crime will let you know what happened. But take this description of research conducted by David Bright of the University of New South Wales: “Jurors presented with gruesome evidence, such as descriptions or images of torture and mutilation, are up to five times more likely to convict a defendant than jurors not privy to such evidence.”

Here’s the experiment, written up at the indispensable Deliberations blog (which covers all things jury related):

The research Mr. Bright describes in his 2006 paper — “Gruesome Evidence and Emotion: Anger, Blame, and Jury Decision-making,” in volume 30 of Law and Human Behavior — is a straight-up comparison.  Just over 100 subjects were assigned to read a summary of the murder trial.  The facts were the same in each summary, but the researchers varied the amount of detail in the description of the victim’s wounds.  In addition, some subjects got photographs of the victim’s wounds with their summaries, some got “neutral” pictures of the crime scene, and some got no pictures at all.

The photographs had a huge influence.  Only 8.8% of the mock jurors who didn’t see pictures voted to convict the defendant, compared to 38.2% of those who saw neutral pictures and 41.2% of those who saw gory pictures.  The level of verbal detail, on the other hand, seemed to have no effect. Why did the photographs make such a difference?  Another finding suggests the answer:  the jurors who saw gruesome pictures “reported higher levels of anger directed at the defendant” than the others.

Again: Verbal detail, no effect; pictures, five-fold conviction-rate increase.

So, despite the president’s claim that the pictures are “not particularly sensational,” it seems clear he’s making his decision based on the fact that the pictures will be… highly sensational. He admits as much by saying that they’ll inflame anti-American sentiments and endanger our troops.

Now, of course, what I’m saying here could cut in favor of the president’s decision. It tells us pictures inflame.

Thus, the real question is whether you buy the politics of what he’s saying. Is it more likely that the Arab world and/or Muslims will be inflamed by these pictures — more than they already are inflamed by hatred of America? Or is the president’s concern more likely Western reaction, particularly domestic reaction, to a refusal to prosecute torture?

I think the weight of evidence falls on the latter explanation.