Is it Ok to torture people??
- Thread starter Efour
- Start date
sniffy said:
And therein lies the rub... isn't the torturor putting a life in danger? At this point, you are no better than the criminal, except your actions are legally sanctioned.
Oh, and he's not even a criminal yet, as you haven't convicted him of anything, so in fact you're worse.
sr4470 said:
It was a poor choice of words which you highlighted, sorry. Basically it relates to the scenario I wrote above it. If people's lives are in danger (real danger, that the detainee purposely tried to cause like a bomb or something), even with the detainee contained and withholding information which will prevent the lose of these lives, then he deserves to be tortured to extract that information IMO.
vonhelmet said:
Yes he is. That person deserves to have their lifes to be in danger.
Not legally sanctioned, morally
If you have the intent to kill as many people as possible and you're withholding information which will prevent it, I can't think of one harsh thing that person doesn't deserve to have inflicted upon to them to get that information (edit: that's untrue actually, sorry. I don't think people like the detainee's family should be used as a pawn in getting that information)Re-read my post where I italicized the point where the detainee is "guilty without a doubt". If it's obvious he comitted the crime, I couldn't care he hasn't been through the legal process. If he is withholding information which puts people's lifes in a real danger then that information should be extracted, however that might be.
Last edited:
sniffy said:It was a poor choice of words which you highlighted, sorry. Basically it relates to the scenario I wrote above it. If people's lives are in danger (real danger, that the detainee purposely tried to cause like a bomb or something), even with the detainee contained and withholding information which will prevent the lose of these lives, then he deserves to be tortured to extract that information IMO.
Yes he is. That person deserves to have their lifes to be in danger.
Not legally sanctioned, morally
Re-read my post where I italicized the point where the detainee is "guilty without a doubt". If it's obvious he comitted the crime, I couldn't care he hasn't been through the legal process. If he is withholding information which puts people's lifes in a real danger then that information should be extracted, however that might be.
How can people's lives be in danger if he is assuredly guilty? Has the crime already taken place? If so, it is too late. If not, arrest him for conspiring and the crime will never occur.
![[DOD]Asprilla](/styles/overclockers/avatars/8.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
VIRII said:
Well, that's very straight forward isn't it.
Care to explain why people the US are shipping to less humane states like Egypt for torture tend to disappear for months at a time when sure it should just take thirty seconds at most?
Maybe the teste toaster is on the blink and they are waiting for a part?
It's dumb to think that simply threatening to torture someone will make them spill the beans, or you've just been watching too much television. If you torture someone they will tell you what they think you want to hear.
I don't have any personal experience of torture, nor do I know anyone who does, but I do know people in the intellegence and security communities and having had this discussion with them I know they feel the same.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
VIRII said:
Lol.
I guess it does, if you are torturing kids for cigarettes rather than indoctrinated / brainwashed and extremely determined individuals or non-smokers.
Not sure if chinese burns are covered by the Geneva Convention.
[DOD]Asprilla said:Lol.
I guess it does, if you are torturing kids for cigarettes rather than indoctrinated / brainwashed and extremely determined individuals or non-smokers.
Not sure if chinese burns are covered by the Geneva Convention.
Hehe. It was a tad rougher than that, where do you think toasty testes comes from?
Maz said:
no but it makes a bloody good TV show... *reaches for 24 box set*
personally i think torture is wrong, but i also think it needs to be defined better too. some methods are viewed as torture which may not be, where as other methods which are taken as standard practice are in most peoples eyes, torture.
i am against torture in any form unless it is absolutly clear that it was vital to obtain information that you were certain this person had to serve a greater good or stop an iminant and extream threat.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 2,710
- Location
- South Wales
Depends who they are torturing, if they are torturing a child killer to stop him killing again then fantastic keep him on the edge of death for weeks, torture is all they deserve.
NitrogenY3K said:
Surely if someone has killed a child they would prosecute, find him guilty and then sentence him to life inprisonment?
They would not torture the hell out him, twisting his mind and then release him into the public hoping that he wouldnt kill again. Why take the risk?
Torture in my eyes is used for one of 2 things:
1) To force a confession from someone regardless of whether they are guilty or not.
2) To force certain information out of someone that may be of some benefit.
once they have the information/confession there is no point in further torture.
As ive said previously, point 1 above is wrong and point 2, 'to me' is acceptable under extreme circumstances.
Torture wrong?...... Yes
Don't think thats the right question really.
Maybe would you agree to torturing people in special circumstances?... such as when a known terrorist for example.
Personally i'm with the 'against' torture crowd on this, you can't pass off a bad act just because you get something good out of it, its not like a get out of jail free card. You're no better then the person being tortured.
The debate here seems that the people advocating torture want some justification for torture by saying it produces a greater good. Does not matter, a bad act is a bad act, no matter what the result.
Don't think thats the right question really.
Maybe would you agree to torturing people in special circumstances?... such as when a known terrorist for example.
Personally i'm with the 'against' torture crowd on this, you can't pass off a bad act just because you get something good out of it, its not like a get out of jail free card. You're no better then the person being tortured.
The debate here seems that the people advocating torture want some justification for torture by saying it produces a greater good. Does not matter, a bad act is a bad act, no matter what the result.
VIRII said:
You should also know that while physical torture is effective, mental torture is more effective. Just much slower.
The problem with torture is the information simply isn't reliable, at least not by its nature. It may be reliable, but you never know.
M
If you believe torture will work to stop a crime/find a bomb/save a child then it won't in real life. We have a police force who are trained to detect crimes and find bombs etc. from the evidence and by interviewing suspects etc..
Why is torture more effective than investigative work by the police who have the whole police department and forensic laboratories and the media available to them, and other such resources?
I supose that's what makes this argument go in circles is that the people arguing for torture are doing so on abstract moral grounds, which don't apply to reality.
A bomb will go off soon, and you have a person in custody who knows where it is. You torture him, he gives you location of bomb. You get to location and realise that whilst torturing him, all his mates have since moved said bomb somewhere else.
Also, why don't we film the torture and post on the internet for deterence ? We could even wear orange boiler suits and shout Blair is great, whilst hacking someone's extremities off
Why is torture more effective than investigative work by the police who have the whole police department and forensic laboratories and the media available to them, and other such resources?
I supose that's what makes this argument go in circles is that the people arguing for torture are doing so on abstract moral grounds, which don't apply to reality.
A bomb will go off soon, and you have a person in custody who knows where it is. You torture him, he gives you location of bomb. You get to location and realise that whilst torturing him, all his mates have since moved said bomb somewhere else.
Also, why don't we film the torture and post on the internet for deterence ? We could even wear orange boiler suits and shout Blair is great, whilst hacking someone's extremities off