Summary

Diane E. Beaver Request for Approval of Counter-Resistance Strategies (2002)

The extent of injury suffered by an inmate is one factor that may suggest whether the use of force could plausibly have been thought necessary in a particular situation, but the question of whether the measure taken inflicted unnecessary and wanton pain and suffering, ultimately turns on whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically for the very (emphasis added) purpose of causing harm. If so, the Eighth Amendment claim will prevail.
Source: Wikisource

Diane E. Beaver Request for Approval of Counter-Resistance Strategies (2002)

The federal torture statute will not be violated so long as any of the proposed strategies are not specifically intended to cause severe physical pain or suffering or prolonged mental harm. Assuming that severe physical pain is not inflicted, absent any evidence that any of these strategies will in fact cause prolonged and long lasting mental harm, the proposed methods will not violate the statute.
Source: Wikisource

Diane E. Beaver Request for Approval of Counter-Resistance Strategies (2002)

The deprivation of light and auditory stimuli, the placement of a hood over the detainee's head during transportation and questioning, and the use of 20 hour interrogations are all legally permissible so long as there is an important governmental objective, and it is not done for the purpose of causing harm or with the intent to cause prolonged mental suffering.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature