Is it Ok to torture people??

In the olden days of Britain, when torture was legal and practiced, evidence admitted under torture was inadmissible. But the torturers would do their work until the subject cracked, and then get a written admission afterwards, the subject knowing full well that to refuse would simply mean more torture.

I could fully imagine that continuing.
 
Look at what they put the British Guantanamo inmates through when they wouldn't sign a confession saying they had attended a terrorist rally in Afghanistan.

Luckily one of then used his employment record for Dixons to prove he was working in a UK highstreet at the time and was not in Afghanistan.
 
Pug said:
well, apparently, the information obtained through torturing is thought to be unreliable, as it could result in them telling whatever you want to hear to stop the torture...

logical i suppose.
Click to expand...


Yeah totaly agree, with that. I know if i was being tortured i'd say the sky was green, the sea was pink etc etc. Whatever it takes to stop it.

But, always a but! If the stakes were high enough and I were on the otherside of the bright light and electric wire, I could also see myself doing the torture. Even knowing the lies i'd spew... :(
 
Torture is a really ineffective way to get information out of any potential assailent, terrorist or insurgent. The longer time goes on the results are to be believed to become less reliable. Ultimately they will give information that they beleive their captors want the them to hear just to stop the torture

Is it justified ? It would be easy to say no but with the benefit of hindsight, if it would stop me or any member of my family being shot, blown up and the results were reliable then I know what I would go for
 
Never, because the information you gain cannot be relied upon and you end up wasting more time than you save. That and the whole barbarism thing.
 
I am usually a vehement supporter of, "the ends justifies the means" but lately I just don't know...

To sacirifice the life/human rights of one to save a million? Bah easy...

To torture someone on the *chance* they might give up a tiny bit of information that can sit on some intelligence officer's desk that *might* save lives?

I dunno.... who draws the line?
 
I would guess there are different kinds of torture.

Theres sticking bamboo shoots under someones nails and then there is depriving someone of something, eg. Food etc.

Theres the intense attention to breaking someones character and will down by pain then there is the gradual break down by depriving someone of a basic need.

Make sense?
 
Torture is never justified.

If you are trying to protect society from terrorists, then instilling the fear of torture is just falling to their level.

Besides, information gleaned under torture is doubtful at best.
 
robmiller said:
That and the whole barbarism thing.
Click to expand...

Are you meaning the cartoon elephant or having a haircut and shave?

I can't believe that so many people would weigh the wellbeing of an individual higher than the lives of many. Ok I can see the idea of all life being sacred, but would you be willing to see everyone you know die/suffer instead of making 1 person uncomfortable?

There are many forms of torture. There is sensory deprevation, it takes time but doesn't really cause any pain, it just disorientates and confuses the "victim", to the point where they mentally break. If it were a hurry then they would most likely use physical torture as it is the quickest.

And clever interogation gets absolutley nowhere. Anyone, even without training, can keep their mouths shut when being asked questions when they know there's no threat. Whereas only those who are trained can really cope with being tortured. I believe that the majority of people would crack with even the lowest level of physical/mental torture very quickly. I don't think that truth serums work very well on their own, but they are used as an aide to torture practises. Besides, would a truth serum also be against someone's human rights?

Do people lie under torture? I don't know, possibly just to make it end. However they are also probably thinking that they've been caught once and are being tortured, and that if they lie then they might get caught again and it would be worse the second time around.
 
And what about all those 'terroists' at Guantanamo? Do you want to torture all of them too?
What about the guy who was 'allegedly' working at Dixons when he was blatantly learning how to become a terrorist in Afghanistan.

What happens if one of your loved ones is mistaken for a terrorist, can we torture them until they spills the beans?
 
we were given this scenario in an ethical and legal studies lecture last week:

'there is a nail bomb planted in a city centre in the uk, you know which city, but you do not know where abouts - there is 2 hours until the bomb is due to go off, the terrorists 10year old sister is in custody and knows where it is, do you torture her to find out?'

roughlly it was a 50-50 answer in our group
then the scenario changed

'the bomb is nuclear, there is no chance you can clear the area before it goes off, there will be a massive loss of life, does your opinion on whether or not to torture her change?'

so are you going to work on the theory of deontology or utiliarianism?
so do you do the moral thing, or the action which will produce the greatest balance of good over bad?
it IS wrong to torture a kid, but is torturing a kid worse than a massive loss of life?

had me stumped.
 
Hemp Knight said:
I can't believe that so many people would weigh the wellbeing of an individual higher than the lives of many. Ok I can see the idea of all life being sacred, but would you be willing to see everyone you know die/suffer instead of making 1 person uncomfortable?
Click to expand...

It's got nothing to do, in my eyes, with making one person 'uncomfortable' it's about lowering yourself to the standards of the terrorists.

If we are a society that tortures people then are we actually defending what we see as a higher ideal or just our own selfish interests?

If you are going to torture terrorists for information then why not petty criminals or suspected petty criminals?
 
[QUOTE='[DOD]
If you are going to torture terrorists for information then why not petty criminals or suspected petty criminals?[/QUOTE]

Been chatting about that in the office and came to the conclusion that there is a solid line you can draw to distinguish between a guy with a nuke or a guy that stole an apple. I think its pretty obvious :) Still nasty though.
 
The $6m Dan said:
What happens if one of your loved ones is mistaken for a terrorist, can we torture them until they spills the beans?
Click to expand...

Do you also honestly think that they go around just torturing anyone and everyone completely randomly?

My loved ones will highly unlikely be in that position that they need to be tortured as none of them (AFAIK) have anything to do with terrorism or any connections with known terrorists, nor do they have any criminal records of any significance nor are they in the MI's black book. If brought in for questioning they will also talk rather then remain silent. If someone is caught in a situation where it is obvious they are involved in some terrorist plot and are refusing to talk then what do you want them to do? Let them go knowing that we done the right thing even if a thousand people die as a result.

The Government and the military know more about what they are doing then what you give them credit for.
 
Hemp Knight said:
Do you also honestly think that they go around just torturing anyone and everyone completely randomly?

My loved ones will highly unlikely be in that position that they need to be tortured as none of them (AFAIK) have anything to do with terrorism or any connections with known terrorists, nor do they have any criminal records of any significance nor are they in the MI's black book. If brought in for questioning they will also talk rather then remain silent. If someone is caught in a situation where it is obvious they are involved in some terrorist plot and are refusing to talk then what do you want them to do? Let them go knowing that we done the right thing even if a thousand people die as a result.

The Government and the military know more about what they are doing then what you give them credit for.
Click to expand...

Well said. That's the thing, people who are likely to be tortured, are in that position for a reason. They are suspected of having info on something to do with terrorism, and they are being tortured precisely because they won't tell the authorities when questioned, and thus are sympathisers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom