NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4021659.stm

Ok, a similar topic happened not so long ago, but now there is a high profile example of it.

In my opinion, although i can see the reason behind what the police chief did, i don't think you could ever torture someone from withholding information. I mean, it violates their own human rights amongst other things, and in my opinion its makes us as bad, if not as barbaric, as the criminals themselves, which would no longer give us the moral high ground from which we base justice systems around the world on.

But what do you think? Is the torture of criminals ever justified?

In theory, I would be in favour of it for really violent criminals (eg. brutal rapists and murderers) and terrorists, as I think such people are the lowest form of human life. They not only need to give the information up to help prevention of such acts in the future (by them, but also by others), but they also need to be punished.

However, I am against it in practise as I would fear miscarriages of justice. True, they're not that common the grand scheme of things, but they do happen sometimes. It would be horrendous if someone thought to be a violent murderer for example was tortured and then turned out to be innocent. For that reason, I'm against it.

I'm against it, because besides its barbarity (You're suposed to be better than the criminal, which is also why I'm against the death penilty) if you torture anyone for long enough they'll tell you anything you like. Doesn't mean they did it, or they didn't just lie to get you to stop.

Yes, you can't trust any information you gain by torturing people. Hell I would admit I shot JFK even if they would only threat me of torture.

Yes, you can't trust any information you gain by torturing people.
I suppose that's very true actually. Point taken.

*jumps on a trampoline*

bumpity boiing

Laws may be based on moralistic issues, but justice itself should be immoral in most cases. Here's my view on it:

"Oh, I stole that loaf of bread because my family was starving." - Tough luck
"I shot that guy because he was stealing my property." - Tough luck for the robber.

Once a law is broken, the person breaking that law should be putting themselves outside of it. You know the law, you CHOOSE to break it, you choose to remove yourself from its protection. You should be stripped of all civil rights and treated as nothing better than an animal. Rehabilitating criminals isn't the solution, it's only a drain on national resources. Using criminals to find out where others are and then disposing of them is the solution.

However, I do believe in a graded punishment. Some one who kills or rapes should be executed. Someone who steals a loaf of bread or speeds should get a punishment, but something much lighter. Regardless, if there is something the criminal holds in their head then they should be tortured if they're not giving it up.

I abstained from the vote because I think it should be legal, but not in the instances proposed in option 3. I think torture should only be allowed if the criminal has time-sensitive information that could save the lives of innocent people. For instance, He's kidnapped a busload of kids and hidden them in a secret location. If we don't get to them in a short time they will starve/dehydrate/run out of air.

I abstained from the vote because I think it should be legal, but not in the instances proposed in option 3. I think torture should only be allowed if the criminal has time-sensitive information that could save the lives of innocent people. For instance, He's kidnapped a busload of kids and hidden them in a secret location. If we don't get to them in a short time they will starve/dehydrate/run out of air.

What if you have the wrong man?

Reservoir Dogs said it best.
"If you beat this man enough he'll tell you he set the Boston fire, but that doesn't necessarily make it so!"

It shall never be justifiable, however it shall always occur.

If you commit a cruel and unusual crime not only should the punishment fit the crime but additionally should be the interrogation. In this case, to kidnap an 11-year old boy and murder him, this guy should be made to suffer greatly. Perhaps put him in a room with the victim's family and give them the right to avenge the death of their child.

If you commit a cruel and unusual crime not only should the punishment fit the crime but additionally should be the interrogation. In this case, to kidnap an 11-year old boy and murder him, this guy should be made to suffer greatly. Perhaps put him in a room with the victim's family and give them the right to avenge the death of their child.

He will suffer greatly, he will get life imprisonment, suspension of all rights he had before and will never, ever see anything but the 4x6 ft of his cell. He will leave prison in a casket and no other way, because life sentance over here means LIFE.

It is a fact that people make things up, or even think they are telling the truth, even though they aren't, under torture just to make it stop. So even if I thought it was morally justifiable - which I don't - it doesn't work in practic.

About making people suffer for their crimes: Since I don't believe in things like "evil", I am 100% for rehabilitation. It's all psychology. Beating someone up doesn't solve any problems.

He will suffer greatly, he will get life imprisonment, suspension of all rights he had before and will never, ever see anything but the 4x6 ft of his cell. He will leave prison in a casket and no other way, because life sentance over here means LIFE.

The thing is that Europe is significantly more liberal than the United States in practice, ideology, and attitude. Over here LIFE means 5 years and out on parol with good behavior because it's unfair to them. American liberalism! PFFT!!! Does life also include painful, suffering, torturous, hard labor? Or is he going to sit in jail, get an education, get a good health plan, and get priviledges like they do in the US?

It is a fact that people make things up, or even think they are telling the truth, even though they aren't, under torture just to make it stop. So even if I thought it was morally justifiable - which I don't - it doesn't work in practic.

About making people suffer for their crimes: Since I don't believe in things like "evil", I am 100% for rehabilitation. It's all psychology. Beating someone up doesn't solve any problems.

You are sorely misguided. Under your statement such acts as rape, murder, child abuse, genocide, etc. are not evil? What rainbow are you living under because I'd like to get out of the real world and under it.

The thing is that Europe is significantly more liberal than the United States in practice, ideology, and attitude. Over here LIFE means 5 years and out on parol with good behavior because it's unfair to them. American liberalism! PFFT!!! Does life also include painful, suffering, torturous, hard labor? Or is he going to sit in jail, get an education, get a good health plan, and get priviledges like they do in the US?

Nope, as far as i know about the german system (its where i meant by 'here') he will simply stay in prison for the rest of his life, if life is what he is given of course. He will never get out, he will have no rights and he will leave prison when he is dead. He will simply not exist any more in public life. they don't get a health plan, maybe a little education (but for what? in his case nothing) and no privileges so he is basically a living person with no rights.

It really depends on the circumstances, actually. If you have irrefutable evidence that the criminal killed someone, its okay to torture him if he won't reveal the location of the body, but he has to have either confessed to the murder or their must be VERY strong evidence, like fingerprints or DNA and/or video footage of him doing it.

Torturing to gain confessions is pointless because when you're in enough physical pain, and someone offers you a way out, i.e. confessing to a crime you didn't commit, your mind has a way of convincing itself, at least temporarily, that you did do it. This kind of torture for information is almost always politically motivated, such as the torture of Jews during the Inquisition, when they were forced to "confess" to kidnapping a Catholic boy and using his blood to make the Passover matza. In reality, Jewish law prohibits the presence of blood in any food; meat must be salted to remove blood, and eggs with even a speck of blood in the yolk must be thrown out. Even though the "confession" caused great harm to the Jews as a whole, the person being tortured temporarily lost that perspective because of the immense pain he was in.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4021659.stm

Ok, a similar topic happened not so long ago, but now there is a high profile example of it.

In my opinion, although i can see the reason behind what the police chief did, i don't think you could ever torture someone from withholding information. I mean, it violates their own human rights amongst other things, and in my opinion its makes us as bad, if not as barbaric, as the criminals themselves, which would no longer give us the moral high ground from which we base justice systems around the world on.

But what do you think? Is the torture of criminals ever justified?

No, and here is why:

As soon as the torture of 'known criminals' is justified, the torture of suspected criminals is soon to follow. Even heard of the Iquisition, or the Salem witch hunts? Think about it.

Not, if you are refering to my ation's policies, torture is a natonal pasttime. :)

It really depends on the circumstances, actually. If you have irrefutable evidence that the criminal killed someone, its okay to torture him if he won't reveal the location of the body, but he has to have either confessed to the murder or their must be VERY strong evidence, like fingerprints or DNA and/or video footage of him doing it.

Well if he has already confessed to the murders theres not much point in torturing him/her now is there? I mean if you have DNA evidence or a video thats enough to put them away.

Torturing to gain confessions is pointless because when you're in enough physical pain, and someone offers you a way out, i.e. confessing to a crime you didn't commit, your mind has a way of convincing itself, at least temporarily, that you did do it. This kind of torture for information is almost always politically motivated, such as the torture of Jews during the Inquisition, when they were forced to "confess" to kidnapping a Catholic boy and using his blood to make the Passover matza. In reality, Jewish law prohibits the presence of blood in any food; meat must be salted to remove blood, and eggs with even a speck of blood in the yolk must be thrown out. Even though the "confession" caused great harm to the Jews as a whole, the person being tortured temporarily lost that perspective because of the immense pain he was in.

Precisely why you shouldn't torture them. It shouldn't be done in any way, shape nor form. And your second paragraph kinda contradicts the first.

No, and here is why:

As soon as the torture of 'known criminals' is justified, the torture of suspected criminals is soon to follow. Even heard of the Iquisition, or the Salem witch hunts? Think about it.

Not, if you are refering to my ation's policies, torture is a natonal pasttime. :)

I am against it as much as you are, don't worry about that. Besides i was mearly making a statement for people to discuss with my PoV as a starting point.

I completely agree its a slippery slope, for once you condone it against those who are found guilty (despite what may be miscarriges of justice), there will be those who will cry out for it to be used against those suspected.

Nope, as far as i know about the german system (its where i meant by 'here') he will simply stay in prison for the rest of his life, if life is what he is given of course. He will never get out, he will have no rights and he will leave prison when he is dead. He will simply not exist any more in public life. they don't get a health plan, maybe a little education (but for what? in his case nothing) and no privileges so he is basically a living person with no rights.

Most interesting. I would expect the opposite but apparently not. Sheesh this guy, if here in a jail here, would be out in 10 years max on parole with good behavior. Rehabilitation, what a farce!

Is being criminal a trait a child is BORN with?

Is being criminal a trait a child is BORN with?

Once you tie something to genetics then you no longer have to address the issue. It's a way of skirting the issue and determining it to be uncorrectable. Alcoholism, homosexuality, etc. are not all genetic. I come from a long line of Irish, Germans, and Italians. Alcohol is heavy in all three backgrounds and I do not touch the stuff very often. Genetics? No. Have some free will and a backbone. It erks me when people say, "Oh it's genetic!" It's just another way to avoid taking responsibility, something Americans have become pro's at!

Most interesting. I would expect the opposite but apparently not. Sheesh this guy, if here in a jail here, would be out in 10 years max on parole with good behavior. Rehabilitation, what a farce!

Yeah, but i think thats more to do with the over crowding of your jails if nothing else, they simply don't have the room. Yet when people demand justice, they don't want any more jails built near them so its a bit of a vicious circle.

To be honest, for lesser crimes (car theft, assault etc etc) i think rehabilitation can work, but for more serious crimes, with a history of repetition (child abuse etc etc) you need to lock em away and throw away the key.

Yeah, but i think thats more to do with the over crowding of your jails if nothing else, they simply don't have the room. Yet when people demand justice, they don't want any more jails built near them so its a bit of a vicious circle.

To be honest, for lesser crimes (car theft, assault etc etc) i think rehabilitation can work, but for more serious crimes, with a history of repetition (child abuse etc etc) you need to lock em away and throw away the key.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. Yes rehabilitation for minor crimes yes. Horrid crimes then most certainly you should be meant to suffer so greatly that you will wish for death if not given death just because you are not worthy of life anymore. Yes our jails are overcrowded and yes people cry justice but then cry "Not in my backyard." They are idiots! People don't understand that life is just once giant compromise and so is politics. If you want justice you are going to have to compromise and put the jail somewhere. Perhaps our jails wouldn't be so overcrowded though if the liberal justice system did it's job and didn't have it's double standard. Bring back conservative justice please...

Perhaps I should have been more clear. Yes rehabilitation for minor crimes yes. Horrid crimes then most certainly you should be meant to suffer so greatly that you will wish for death if not given death just because you are not worthy of life anymore. Yes our jails are overcrowded and yes people cry justice but then cry "Not in my backyard." They are idiots! People don't understand that life is just once giant compromise and so is politics. If you want justice you are going to have to compromise and put the jail somewhere. Perhaps our jails wouldn't be so overcrowded though if the liberal justice system did it's job and didn't have it's double standard. Bring back conservative justice please...

I think thats where we differ. For me liberal justice on the whole is fairer (IMHO) and i will stick with it. But i can see the advantages of a conservative system. The thing is trying to get a balance between the two, if its possible.

Indeed like I said politics is a giant compromise. But unfortunately on this side of the Atlantic it is a more domination of the liberal policies rather than the conservative ones.

Indeed like I said politics is a giant compromise. But unfortunately on this side of the Atlantic it is a more domination of the liberal policies rather than the conservative ones.

I think though that it will change to a more conservative system as time goes on, especially in the current President brings in the systems he used in Texas. But i think you would agree both have their advantages and weaknesses, and there will never be a perfect system. But thats what we have to aim at getting, even if we may never have one.

EDIT: whoops mis read your post a bit ahem

Fair enough.

i gotta say i'm impressed that this hasn't turned into a flame war like half the threads i've been on.

What if you have the wrong man?
sometimes you know you have the right man. That's when you use it.

Fair enough.

i gotta say i'm impressed that this hasn't turned into a flame war like half the threads i've been on.

The little kiddies are at school.

It is bloody pointless. You don't get reliable information that way....

The torturee, if he or she breaks, tells you what s/he thinks you want to hear.

While indeed torture is not the most reliable method of interrogation, there is still a chance possibility that it can be used effectively. Such should not be discounted.

Let me present something. I wrote this paper for my Moral Philosophy class, taught by an avid liberal communist. It spaned just over 4 pages double spaced and is 1,443 words in length. He graded me an "A" in both the paper and in the class. Please do not copy my paper and use it for school and such. I would find that most unagreeable. Additionally, as I am doing this will all my papers, this one has a copyright to it and is under the protection of my college. Thank you.


James Devlin
January 16, 2003
PHL210EA
Prof. Jordan

Is Torture Ever Justifiable?

Torture is a cruel and heartless means of interrogation and punishment. It hones in on the universal, bodily weakness that is pain. The hope of interrogation is to break and individual; for punishment, it is to make the victim suffer for prolonged, indefinite amounts of time. Torture can be very brutal and there is some question as to its effectiveness in interrogation. The grim, harsh reality of torture is that the victim suffers greatly in methods that can almost be classified as inhumane. But, is torture morally just? Can torture be made morally just under certain situations?

Torture is a very broad "word" that engulfs many forms of emotional, physical, and mental pain and suffering that are not natural. However, one can torture themselves in certain ways. This should be seen as a different type of torture, self-inflicted torture. Self-inflicted torture falls under complex moral rules if it does not harm others. However, self-inflicted torture takes on a different scenario when it harms others. Torture needs to be defined adequately. There are three possible scenarios of torture that come to mind: 1) physical, emotional, and/or mental pain and suffering that is self-inflicted and does not harm others; 2) physical, emotional, and/or mental pain and suffering that is self-inflicted and does harm others; 3) physical, emotional, and/or mental pain and suffering that is inflicted upon someone by others to maximize suffering for the purposes of interrogation, punishment, or even deterrence. In scenario one, this form of torture only affects the person and thus it is their decision. The morality of this is harder to define because of the situation and lack of hurt to others. If they have made a conscious decision to hurt themselves than it is their choice, they are in control of their life. For the second scenario, this form of torture, while it may or not be intentional to hurt another, should be dealt with on an individual level and would be more subject to a moral. The third scenario falls under the most scrutiny and thus is of the most relevance and is therefore subject to discussion and argument.

Torture can be seen as a cruel and unusual punishment or method of interrogation. Under the Eighth Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment is not allowed. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted." There is no question that torture is cruel and unusual and there is no argument that can safely defend any argument that states that torture is not cruel and it is not unusual. The basis for torture is unusual methods that inflict the utmost pain and suffering, cruelty. There is nothing wrong with the Eighth Amendment because after all, why should a petty thief be tortured for stealing a few hundred dollars worth of merchandise. However, what if it is a cruel and unusual crime? But then, what crimes are "cruel" and "unusual"? Theft would most likely not be cruel and unusual. Homicide, while it is very cruel, it's not very unusual, that is if it's a clean homicide where the victim was not killed through inhumane methods such as being burned alive or boiled in acid or what not. But is rape a cruel and unusual crime? By all means, yes it is. The victim surely suffers and is scarred permanently. The rapist has definitely committed a crime much crueler than homicide and much more unusual. To argue that homicide is lesser of two evils but certainly immoral in the utmost sense, at least the victim is not made to live with the pain and suffering from the crime. Should a rapist suffer as his or her victim is made to suffer? Yes, he or she should suffer for their crime. Torture could then be made an option for punishment. To add to cases of rape, any crimes of a violent or sexual nature towards children should always be considered a cruel and unusual crime and carry the most stringent of penalties. The perpetrator of the crime should by all means be made to suffer.

Torture can also be used in the interrogation process of an individual, especially if he or she is very uncooperative towards interrogators. Interrogation is a vital part of any crime and if a person. Whether they are guilty of the crime or not, if they have information that is deemed important and useful to the investigation especially the capture of the guilty person and all other methods of interrogation have been exhausted, torture could be seen as a viable alternative. However, it should be established without a question of doubt that the individual in custody has the required information and they have made it clear to interrogators that they have no intentions of freely giving up that information. If the crime is severe enough, torture should be the last-resort in interrogation. Severity of the crime would have to be determined before hand. Petty theft or even grand theft auto would not characterize severe enough crimes to warrant torture but a crime such as homicide with a missing body would definitely be characterized as a severe crime.

Torture has yet another use. In the form of interrogation or in punishment, if there is a crime or situation that is in the interest of national security than torture, by all means, torture is warranted. For example, the leader of a terrorist cell that is operating in a "hostile" country is captured. If he or she has information regarding his or her superiors or even information regarding future attacks upon that country and he or she refuses to give up the information then after all viable methods of interrogation have been exhausted, torture becomes the next option. The interest of national security is always a severe crime. As in the case of the United States of America, two hundred and sixty-five million people, give or take, are at risk. There should be no price or weight on human life but that is a lot of people to put at risk because all of the known options are not given a chance to be successful or not. It would be immoral to put any group of people at risk, small or large, just because someone wasn't drilled to the limit for information. Cases of treason also fall under the interest of national security. If an individual has given up vital information as to the weakness of a city to biological attack than he or she while being a traitor should be made to suffer even after all vital information has been obtained.

In the case of Alphonso Lingis' Case Study: A Doctor in Havana, torture is used as a method of deterrent and a method of fear. In Brazil, the governmental forces capture two women who belong to a rebel group. The women are not beaten or treated harshly but in fact, for some time, treated very respectably. However, one day they are given anesthesia and taken into an operating room where they are horribly disfigured. The operation is done under very clean conditions and the victims are made to feel no physical pain. Then, they are released and told to join their friends and show them what has happened to them. In this case, torture has been used as a sort of deterrence to leave the rebel force and quit all activities against the current government. Torture is usually identified with prolonged physical pain and suffering but as this case study shows it is not physical but more or less emotional or mental though there would be physical pain with the disfigurements. Whether torture is a viable method of deterrence or not is still to be determined.

Torture is a very controversial topic. Torture, in the way of interrogation, should be allowable in the cases of severe crimes and in the interest of national security, but only after all other options have been exhausted. Torture, in the way of punishment, should only be used once again in severe crimes and in the interest of national security, when the criminal has caused immense suffering on their victim whether it is physical, mental, or emotion, and also in any crime of a sexual and/or violent nature towards a child, regardless of suffering. A statement that holds true to any punishment is that the punishment should fit the crime and if torture fits than the criminal should be subject to it. We are all to be held accountable for our actions and if we commit actions that warrant torture as a punishment than it is too bad.

It is bloody pointless. You don't get reliable information that way....

The torturee, if he or she breaks, tells you what s/he thinks you want to hear.
It depends on how you ask the questions. For instance "you tell me where that bomb is, or I will make sure you suffer excruciating pain and frequent anal rape for the rest of your miserable life. Followed by smashing a finger with a hammer and twisting it off with a pair of pliers as a well-endowed homosexual rapist is brought into the room."

Terrorist :mp5: + :sniper: = :D

It is bloody pointless. You don't get reliable information that way....

The torturee, if he or she breaks, tells you what s/he thinks you want to hear.

I really think that you are misinformed, three days after saddam husein was captured, 4 of his top advisors were captured. Now you don't think that he gave up the information willingly do you?
If you do then you are about as smart as a meal worm.
:p VIVA BUSH 4 MORE YEARS
:gundge: (saddam) :mp5:

Laws may be based on moralistic issues, but justice itself should be immoral in most cases. Here's my view on it:

"Oh, I stole that loaf of bread because my family was starving." - Tough luck
"I shot that guy because he was stealing my property." - Tough luck for the robber.


There are a number of problems with this. One of them is the legal acceptance of extenuating circumstances. Extenuating circumstance is what makes first degree murder different than second degree, and different from manslaughter. It is not necessarily putting 'morals' into the interpretation of the law, it is simply examining all the events surrounding a crime. If you meticulously plan the murder of a fellow human being, and then follow through with the crime, is this not different than a man who accidentally causes the death of another (perhaps in self-defense)? Do you consider these crimes equal? In your version of justice, they would be, because the circumstance surrounding the crime would not be considered.

The other problems have to do with the shooting of the robber. For one thing, who is to say that person was actually committing a robbery, and not just someone the shooter had it in for? If the person really was a robber, do we want to give the power to judge and sentence a criminal to individuals? If so, we would eliminate the need for a judicial system, and all revert to vigilante justice. Then there is the conflict with your original idea of not considering the circumstances. Should the shooter (say he was threatened in turn with a gun by the robber, and shot to save his life) be sentenced the same as someone guilty of first degree murder? In your version of the justice system, that is what would happen.


Once a law is broken, the person breaking that law should be putting themselves outside of it. You know the law, you CHOOSE to break it, you choose to remove yourself from its protection. You should be stripped of all civil rights and treated as nothing better than an animal.

You would lump jaywalkers in with murderers and rapists? Black and white views of 'good' and 'bad' are highly unrealistic, and extremely tolitarian. Do you believe that some crimes are worse than others? Do you believe that all laws are just? If all laws are just and must be obeyed, then every person who was involved in the American Revolution is a criminal, not deserving of civil rights. Laws are created by humans, and are therefore sometimes flawed. We update them and change them to suit our current needs. For example, in Quebéc, Canada, it is illegal to make margarine look like butter. Is this a law we need to enforce?

Many countries DO strip criminals of their civil rights and treat them like animals. These are the kinds of countries the United States feels justified in invading or calling 'barbarous'. Do you believe that a person, jailed for their political beliefs should be stripped of their civil rights? They why does your country complain vociferously when this is done in other countries? Is it only ok when you do it?

Rehabilitating criminals isn't the solution, it's only a drain on national resources.

Jails are not meant to rehabilitate criminals, and the majority of judicial systems are set up to punish, not change. You can't know that rehabiliation is not a solution, because it has not been tried in most countries. We use jails to 'deter' criminals, not strip them of their criminality. In fact, jails are an excellent place to learn from other criminals. The penal system of punishment certainly is a drain on national resources...but don't get the two methods confused.


Using criminals to find out where others are and then disposing of them is the solution.
Are these criminals proven to be guilty? Or are you assuming their guilt? In the case outline in the article that began this thread, the suspect detained was just that: as suspect. You could be a suspect in a criminal case...it doesn't mean you are guilty of it. Should we be assuming guilt and punishing suspects? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Again, your comment of 'getting rid of them' is interesting, considering your government denounces countries that do just that.


However, I do believe in a graded punishment. Some one who kills or rapes should be executed. Someone who steals a loaf of bread or speeds should get a punishment, but something much lighter. Regardless, if there is something the criminal holds in their head then they should be tortured if they're not giving it up.

That thing they hold in their head, does that include their political or religious beliefs? Would you really value any information uncovered through torture? In the original example, the boy was already dead by the time the police had detained the suspect. Would torture have brought that boy back to life? And what if the suspect turned out to be the wrong person? Is the torture of an innocent person justified because it COULD have been the guilty party? Would you really want your law enforcement officials to have this sort of power? Who would be there to make sure it was only used in 'legally justifiable' situations? Perhaps a bit more thought on the subject is necessary, rather than an emotional response to a horrible crime.

Perhaps our jails wouldn't be so overcrowded though if the liberal justice system did it's job and didn't have it's double standard. Bring back conservative justice please...

What exactly is conservative justice? Or liberal justice? Don't your states differ in their interpretations of the law? Isn't it Nevada where you can get 99 years for drug possession? (Forgive me if that is just a myth to scare dope smokers) Don't some states have capital punishment and others not? Which of these examples is liberal and which is conservative?

The fact that people would stand by ideas like torture in itself...

Torture of criminal SUSPECTS, good or bad, moral or not, is pointless and test grade stupid.

I didn't check if others have made these points, but the fact this keeps coming up again and again compels me to reinforce these points:

The information likely to be derived will be erronious 90-100% of the time because the suspect just wants the pain to stop and will lie to acheive that (false positives, more innocent people get fingered, etc.), and will lead to a rise in disorder (Who among you would ove to see your cherished loved ones get turned from lively happy people into catatonic agro and claustrophobic neurotics that defecate themselves every time they hear a siren?), will turn the general public into the enemy (ruling by intimidation means you rule a weak people who will plot against you), is a waste of time that could be spent investigating the crime (since the results are worthless, you're giving the perpetrator a big head start), and could end up being applied to YOU if you ever become a suspect in a criminal investigation (Nice holiday snaps you got there, or where you performing recon operations prior to plotting an attack on disneyland?).

In theory, I would be in favour of it for really violent criminals (eg. brutal rapists and murderers) and terrorists, as I think such people are the lowest form of human life. They not only need to give the information up to help prevention of such acts in the future (by them, but also by others), but they also need to be punished.
what about people that are actually innocent that you just think are those lowest life forms? good job, you are a subintelligent peon

In the case of kidnapping it should be manditory!

Let me present something. I wrote this paper for my Moral Philosophy class, taught by an avid liberal communist. It spaned just over 4 pages double spaced and is 1,443 words in length. He graded me an "A" in both the paper and in the class. Please do not copy my paper and use it for school and such. I would find that most unagreeable. Additionally, as I am doing this will all my papers, this one has a copyright to it and is under the protection of my college. Thank you.

Now let me explain why you do not deserve an A.

Originally Posted by Is Torture Ever Justifiable
James Devlin
January 16, 2003
PHL210EA
Prof. Jordan
Is Torture Ever Justifiable?

Torture is a cruel and heartless means of interrogation and punishment. It hones in on the universal, bodily weakness that is pain. The hope of interrogation is to break and individual; for punishment, it is to make the victim suffer for prolonged, indefinite amounts of time. Torture can be very brutal and there is some question as to its effectiveness in interrogation. The grim, harsh reality of torture is that the victim suffers greatly in methods that can almost be classified as inhumane. But, is torture morally just? Can torture be made morally just under certain situations?

Torture is a very broad "word" (Why is this in quotation marks? Are you suggesting that torture is not a word, but a concept? If so, say this.) that engulfs many forms of emotional, physical, and mental pain and suffering that are not natural. However, one can torture themselves in certain ways. This should be seen as a different type of torture, self-inflicted torture. Self-inflicted torture falls under complex moral rules (Please explain. Rules suggest that conduct regarding self-torture is somehow regulated.) if it does not harm others. However, self-inflicted torture takes on a different scenario when it harms others. Torture needs to be defined adequately. There are three possible scenarios of torture that come to mind: 1) physical, emotional, and/or mental pain and suffering that is self-inflicted and does not harm others; 2) physical, emotional, and/or mental pain and suffering that is self-inflicted and does harm others; 3) physical, emotional, and/or mental pain and suffering that is inflicted upon someone by others to maximize suffering for the purposes of interrogation, punishment, or even deterrence. In scenario one, this form of torture only affects the person and thus it is their decision. (Obviously a decision to engage in self-torture was made. However, the way you have worded this sentence suggests that self-torture is allowable because a decision was reached. That can be extended to cover torture of others, as long as one party made a decision to carry out the act of torture.) The morality of this is harder to define because of the situation and lack of hurt to others. (Since you have defined torture to include emotional and mental pain, you must acknowledge the significant effects on the people involved in the life of the person doing the harm to themselves. Your definition would then define self-torture as a kind of mental and emotional torture inflicted on others and is therefore not the passive act you make it out to be.) If they have made a conscious decision to hurt themselves than (then)it is their choice, they are in control of their life. For the second scenario, this form of torture, while it may or not be intentional to hurt another, should be dealt with on an individual level and would be more subject to a moral. (So far you have failed to discuss what morals you are referring to.)The third scenario falls under the most scrutiny and thus is of the most relevance and is therefore subject to discussion and argument.

Torture can be seen as a cruel and unusual punishment or method of interrogation. Under the Eighth Amendment, (As you are posting this paper on an international forum, it is necessary for you to explain the context of this amendment, by naming the document it amends, as well as the country or state in which it is used.) cruel and unusual punishment is not allowed. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted." There is no question that torture is cruel and unusual and there is no argument that can safely defend any argument that states that torture is not cruel and it is not unusual. The basis for torture is unusual (This word suggests that there are USUAL methods.) methods that inflict the utmost pain and suffering, (and) cruelty. There is nothing wrong with the Eighth Amendment because after all, why should a petty thief be tortured for stealing a few hundred dollars worth of merchandise. (You have made a judgment here that you hold to be reasonable. However, in asking this as a question "Why should..." you are stating that there is a counter position. You therefore need to back up your position and explain why the petty thief should not be tortured.)However, what if it is a cruel and unusual crime? But then, what crimes are "cruel" and "unusual"? Theft would most likely not be cruel and unusual. (Why not? Give justification for this position.) Homicide, while it is very cruel, it's not very unusual(You are making another judgment here in that saying murder is not unusual, and therefore common. You would need to provide statistics to back up this claim, as homicide is very rarely a leading cause of death. It may be so in certain countries and situations, so you need to make that clear.), that is if it's a clean (Careful about the connotations of the word clean. Is a 'clean' homicide more humane?) homicide where the victim was not killed through inhumane methods such as being burned alive or boiled in acid or what not. But is rape a cruel and unusual crime? By all means, yes it is. The victim surely suffers and is scarred permanently.(You are making a blanket generalisation that all rape victims are physically and emotional scarred permanently. Unless you have proof to back up this statement, it would be better to say 'is often'.) The rapist has definitely committed a crime much crueler than homicide and much more unusual.(Here you would need to prove that rape is less common than homicide, or use a word other than 'unusual' to make your point.) To argue that homicide is lesser of two evils but certainly immoral in the utmost sense, at least the victim is not made to live with the pain and suffering from the crime..(Again, a judgment you have not backed up. How did you come to the conclusion that rape is worse than murder? Since you wrote this for a Moral Philosophy class, you must tie your judgment to some set of beliefs. You have not done so.) Should a rapist suffer as his or her victim is made to suffer? Yes, he or she should suffer for their crime. (What do you base this decision on? So far you have presented it only as your opinion, yet you state it as fact.)Torture could then be made an option for punishment. (Again, how are you deciding this? You have not given sufficient criteria.) To add to cases of rape, any crimes of a violent or sexual nature towards children should always be considered a cruel and unusual crime and carry the most stringent of penalties. (Are you speaking of legal, or extra-judicial penalties? It would seem that you are proposing the latter. If so, you must make an argument for why current judicial procedures should be circumvented in these cases.) The perpetrator of the crime should by all means be made to suffer.

Torture can also be used in the interrogation process of an individual, especially if he or she is very uncooperative towards interrogators. (Define uncooperative. and at what point torture would become an option.) Interrogation is a vital part of any crime and if a person. Whether they are guilty of the crime or not, if they have information that is deemed important and useful to the investigation especially the capture of the guilty person and all other methods of interrogation have been exhausted, torture could be seen as a viable alternative.(You have stated that even if the person was innocent, if it was believed, but not yet proven they were guilty, torture would be justified. Back this up and explain how you arrived at this decision.) However, it should be established without a question of doubt that the individual in custody has the required information and they have made it clear to interrogators that they have no intentions of freely giving up that information.(How exactly would that work? If the person told investigators that they did not have the information, would that be enough to deter their torture?)If the crime is severe enough, torture should be the last-resort in interrogation. Severity of the crime would have to be determined before hand. Petty theft or even grand theft auto would not characterize severe enough crimes to warrant torture but a crime such as homicide with a missing body would definitely be characterized as a severe crime. (What about kidnappings? Or terrorist acts being planned? Your criteria needs to be developed more thoroughly.)

Torture has yet another use. In the form of interrogation or in punishment, if there is a crime or situation that is in the interest of national security than (then) torture, by all means, torture (repetition) is warranted. (Once more, you are making a judgment that torture is justified, yet you do not explain the basis for your opinion. Your decision must be based in some moral beliefs, yet you do not outline them for us.) For example, the leader of a terrorist cell that is operating in a "hostile" country is captured. If he or she has information regarding his or her superiors or even information regarding future attacks upon that country and he or she refuses to give up the information then after all viable methods of interrogation have been exhausted, torture becomes the next option. (And if the terrorist insists they have no information? According to your argument, that would make them safe from torture.) The interest of national security is always a severe crime.(You are arguing that the state itself must always come before the people, yet the state is composed of its people. What is a threat to national security? Does that include the spread of un-nationalistic ideas? For example, were the Jews in Nazi Germany a threat to national security, as they were at time portrayed? Were the cases of torture in this era therefore justified?) As in the case of the United States of America, two hundred and sixty-five million people, give or take, are at risk. There should be no price or weight on human life (Careful, as you are all but saying that life holds no value. Clarify that you mean no monetary or specific value other than moral.) but that is a lot of people to put at risk because all of the known options are not given a chance to be successful or not. It would be immoral to put any group of people at risk, small or large, just because someone wasn't drilled to the limit for information. (Aren't you putting groups of people at risk, small and large, by allowing extra-judicial intervention before guilt is confirmed?) Cases of treason also fall under the interest of national security. If an individual has given up vital information as to the weakness of a city to biological attack than he or she while being a traitor should be made to suffer even after all vital information has been obtained. (Define treason. In some nations, speaking against the government is enough to be declared a traitor. Better yet, provide a definition of treason under your government's law.)

In the case of Alphonso Lingis' Case Study: A Doctor in Havana, torture is used as a method of deterrent and a method of fear. In Brazil, the governmental forces capture two women who belong to a rebel group. The women are not beaten or treated harshly but in fact, for some time, treated very respectably. However, one day they are given anesthesia and taken into an operating room where they are horribly disfigured. The operation is done under very clean conditions and the victims are made to feel no physical pain. Then, they are released and told to join their friends and show them what has happened to them. In this case, torture has been used as a sort of deterrence to leave the rebel force and quit all activities against the current government. (You list cases but do not list your sources. Did you include a bibliography with the original essay? If you did not, these cases should not even be included, as they could be pure fiction on your part.)Torture is usually identified with prolonged physical pain and suffering but as this case study shows it is not physical but more or less emotional or mental though there would be physical pain with the disfigurements. Whether torture is a viable method of deterrence or not is still to be determined. (Who will determine this? As well, do these uses of torture fall under your idea of justified use? Since you have provided no real criteria to work from, the reader is left unsure of your intent in including these scenarios.)

Torture is a very controversial topic. (Controversy suggests differing opinions. You have not once defended your position or even mentioned what the differing viewpoints might be.) Torture, in the way of interrogation, should be allowable in the cases of severe crimes and in the interest of national security, but only after all other options have been exhausted. (Vague and ill-defined.) Torture, in the way of punishment, should only be used once again in severe crimes and in the interest of national security, when the criminal has caused immense suffering on their victim whether it is physical, mental, or emotion, and also in any crime of a sexual and/or violent nature towards a child, regardless of suffering. A statement that holds true to any punishment is that the punishment should fit the crime and if torture fits than (then) the criminal should be subject to it. (Who decide what fits the crime? Would justice mean stealing from a thief? What exactly do you mean by fitting the punishment to the crime? Why is torture that is state sanctioned not a crime, when torture by an individual would be?)We are all to be held accountable for our actions and if we commit actions that warrant torture as a punishment than (then) it is too bad. (You are providing state-sanctioned torture as an exception to this, essentially granting immunity to anyone in power. Saddam Hussein would be innocent then, because despite your assertation that we should all be held accountable, you exclude members of the state.)

Overall, this is an opinion piece, not an essay. It is not a position paper, as your position is unclear and ill-defined, and it is in no way backed up by any facts. You provide no justification, only scenarios, and you do not even acknowledge opposing viewpoints. This is not a moral or philosophical paper, as you provide no moral or philosophical grounds for your statements. If this was a freshman high school paper, I might be willing to give you a 50% because you managed to use topic sentences and somewhat organised paragraphs, as well as avoiding too many grammatical or spelling mistakes. However, you do not back up any of the information you present, nor do you offer a basis for your argument other than your own opinion, and it certainly wouldn't make it as a position paper. Frankly, as a University or College level paper, it is trash, and I highly doubt any reputable professor would give you a passing grade for it. By the way, unless you paid a copyright fee and registered your paper under the copyright act of your country, it is not copyrighted. If it has been covered under the copyright of your College, then you are not free to disseminate it without prior approval by the copyright department of that institution.

considering your government denounces countries that do just that.

You are assuming I am American. I am not.

Do you consider these crimes equal?
... You would lump jaywalkers in with murderers and rapists?
... For example, in Quebéc, Canada, it is illegal to make margarine look like butter. Is this a law we need to enforce?

No, that is why I added my addendum with the explanation that I believe in graded justice, depending on the severity of the crime. I do not believe that some grades are correct, however. For example, if an attempted murder was planned, plotted and executed (but failed, obviously), why should it be less of a crime than actually succeeding? That is ridiculous, it is exactly the same, except you just were not good enough to pull it off. You should still be punished just as harshly.

Many countries DO strip criminals of their civil rights and treat them like animals. These are the kinds of countries the United States feels justified in invading or calling 'barbarous'.

I detest US government policies. I even detest my own country's policies (I am Australian, for your information). That is why I don't vote for any of the worthless, left-wing, liberal parties that we have. Thus, this has no bearing upon my argument.

Jails are not meant to rehabilitate criminals, and the majority of judicial systems are set up to punish, not change. You can't know that rehabiliation is not a solution, because it has not been tried in most countries. We use jails to 'deter' criminals, not strip them of their criminality. In fact, jails are an excellent place to learn from other criminals. The penal system of punishment certainly is a drain on national resources...but don't get the two methods confused.

Ok, I confused the two, but both are an utter waste of time and money. Why pay money for the upkeep of someone who just sits in a jail cell for the rest of their life? Just kill them and be done with it. And yeah, sometimes they might get the wrong guy and kill an innocent. I would rather that then the revolving door systems that both Australia and America have, and I would rather that than paying for the upkeep of criminal scum. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Liberal trash, in my opinion.

That thing they hold in their head, does that include their political or religious beliefs?

No. Unless those beliefs are somehow hurting people, which they never really can, so again, no. If people are using terrorism/waging war/what have you in the name of those beliefs, it is still not those beliefs that are hurting people, it is the people using those beliefs. In which case, torture them for information on where those people are, but for beliefs? No.

Would you really want your law enforcement officials to have this sort of power?

Yes. I'm a reactionary authoritarian; the good citizens will have nothing to fear.

I just figure that if the government could torture you for crimes, people may think twice before they commit them. Correct me if im wrong, in some country some time ago(yes, yes, its very vague) if you were caught stealing they cut off your hand. Thus, the crime rate went down significantly becuase people were afraid to get thier hands cut off. Kinda the same idea here.

I don't think torture can ever be justified. After all it produces nothing in the way of information other than what the torturer already wants to hear.

Also, just think, if the government did have torture, the people who did it on a regular basis would just be walking around with the public on their off hours - instead of being jail where they belong as sick psycopaths. Do we really want that?

the good citizens will have nothing to fear.
I've heard that one before.


Torture is torture. I would never approve of government-sponsored torture. It would be nice to have the moral high ground over Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, etc.

Yes. I'm a reactionary authoritarian; the good citizens will have nothing to fear.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

I just figure that if the government could torture you for crimes, people may think twice before they commit them. Correct me if im wrong, in some country some time ago(yes, yes, its very vague) if you were caught stealing they cut off your hand. Thus, the crime rate went down significantly becuase people were afraid to get thier hands cut off. Kinda the same idea here.

That was in most countries of the world before liberal ideologies came in and ruined the ability to punish criminals.

I've heard that one before.

Sure, and the there are liberal ideologies that the presidential dictators of South America spun that were twisted and used in ways that you wouldn't like either. I'm not fascist, I'm a monarchist, and a state with a pervasive police force can work.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Not all authoritarian societies have to weed out opposition.

In certain situations, yes torture is justified. If a man has confessed to kidnapping someone and has said the person will die if he is not paid X amount of money but the cops get ahold of him I would have no problem in torturing him for the information of the location of that person at all. That, however, is really the only type of situation I would condone it. The person would have to let slip they knew something and it would have to be time critical.

Not all authoritarian societies have to weed out opposition.
Name them please. In theory you are correct, but I know of no concrete examples.

Name them please. In theory you are correct, but I know of no concrete examples.

There are Kings in history that didn't have to detain political opponents any more than, say, the US government does now. Queen Elizabeth I of England is a good example. She didn't condone the slaughter of Catholics or Protestants, she released enemies from the Tower of London and didn't put many in. Comparitively, it was a very peaceful reign (at least for the English people). Of course, in that day there were no standards as there are today. A modern day authoritarian society, at least in the Western world, would be far less brutal than those of the past.

NB: I'm not being racist saying "at least in the Western world". I'm sure they could exist in the Eastern world, but if I said that then people would just negate me with the mention of Saddam.

In certain situations, yes torture is justified. If a man has confessed to kidnapping someone and has said the person will die if he is not paid X amount of money but the cops get ahold of him I would have no problem in torturing him for the information of the location of that person at all. That, however, is really the only type of situation I would condone it. The person would have to let slip they knew something and it would have to be time critical.
And what if this man gives you a wrong address or location? You torture him a bit more? And he gives you another false answer etc etc
Torture is never justified. I can't believe so many of you think it's alright, in any situation.
I suggest that everybody should read atleast one Amnesty report. If you can.

Don't you guys have any respect of human inviolability (I'm not sure which word they use in declaration of human rights)

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

And what if this man gives you a wrong address or location? You torture him a bit more? And he gives you another false answer etc etc
Torture is never justified. I can't believe so many of you think it's alright, in any situation.
I suggest that everybody should read atleast one Amnesty report. If you can.

Don't you guys have any respect of human inviolability (I'm not sure which word they use in declaration of human rights)

I know, this lack of respect for basic priniciples makes me sick too. I just don't understand it. How could anyone think that the government torturing someone was okay. And more than that, who does the torture, do we just treat people who can act like that as mormal citizens, the whole concept scares me.



(BTW I am ok with the death penalty in certain circumstances.)

I know, this lack of respect for basic priniciples makes me sick too. I just don't understand it. How could anyone think that the government torturing someone was okay. And more than that, who does the torture, do we just treat people who can act like that as mormal citizens, the whole concept scares me.

Like I said before, the thought alone that anyone would NOT be opposed to torture...

(BTW I am ok with the death penalty in certain circumstances.)
I'm very against it too (hey, surprise!) but I can understand it better anyway. I think I would rather die than spend 48 years in jail. Or, I can't really say, I have to give it more sincere thought first.
Anyway in which cases you think it's alright? Hopefully not for raping as some have suggested.

I'm very against it too (hey, surprise!) but I can understand it better anyway. I think I would rather die than spend 48 years in jail. Or, I can't really say, I have to give it more sincere thought first.
Anyway in which cases you think it's alright? Hopefully not for raping as some have suggested.

Well, I have a very odd approach to the whole penal system. I think it is rotten from top to bottom as it now is in the United States.

Nevertheless, I cannot honestly say that had we caught someone like hitler alive I would not thought that the death penalty was unjustified. Also I feel likewise about some mass killers.

Saying that, it is a horrible thing - judicial execution - and I always wonder about the people who carry it out. I understand shooting a man who is breaking into your house, but the whole impersonal nature of modern executions frightens me.

Maybe I just have some kind of bullshit thing about killing in cold blood; I don't know. But honestly I can't say that in some cases that the death penalty is not warranted, it would have to be something extreme I think. (But not for rape).

In any event, torture is different, and sick. And anyone who thinks torture is justified is also sick. There, I said it.

Like I said before, the thought alone that anyone would NOT be opposed to torture...

Yeah, that actually creeps me out a little.

Well, I have a very odd approach to the whole penal system. I think it is rotten from top to bottom as it now is in the United States.

Nevertheless, I cannot honestly say that had we caught someone like hitler alive I would not thought that the death penalty was unjustified. Also I feel likewise about some mass killers.

Saying that, it is a horrible thing - judicial execution - and I always wonder about the people who carry it out. I understand shooting a man who is breaking into your house, but the whole impersonal nature of modern executions frightens me.

Maybe I just have some kind of bullshit thing about killing in cold blood; I don't know. But honestly I can't say that in some cases that the death penalty is not warranted, it would have to be something extreme I think. (But not for rape).

In any event, torture is different, and sick. And anyone who thinks torture is justified is also sick. There, I said it.
In those cases I'd like to at least try to understand why they think and act like they do. It could be really educational. (blame Thomas Harris)

But I have to admit I agree that I wouldn't think it unjustified. And then we end up to this problem you brought up. Who does it.

In those cases I'd like to at least try to understand why they think and act like they do. It could be really educational. (blame Thomas Harris)

But I have to admit I agree that I wouldn't think it unjustified. And then we end up to this problem you brought up. Who does it.


Yah, I know. Which is one of my huge worries about the whole thing. Like I said.

Frankly I don't know, but I am honest enough to admit that in certain cases the outcome ( of the death penalty ) wouldn't upset me that much.

On the other hand the recent set of "torture" threads round here makes me ashmed to be an American. We are better than that, and we even have an amendement about it. I am disgusted that anyone could think that way.

Nope, never, not under any circumstance.

A nation that permits torture deserves to be wiped out.
To the last man.

Yah, I know. Which is one of my huge worries about the whole thing. Like I said.

Frankly I don't know, but I am honest enough to admit that in certain cases the outcome ( of the death penalty ) wouldn't upset me that much.

On the other hand the recent set of "torture" threads round here makes me ashmed to be an American. We are better than that, and we even have an amendement about it. I am disgusted that anyone could think that way.

Have your opinion, stop forcing it upon others. I am sure you would strongly detest me trying to force my right wing perspective upon you, no? I could say the same, it makes me sick that so many people are willing to be so leniant upon filthy criminals, makes me ashamed to be a Human Being with so many liberal air heads running around. I don't say this, however, and I'm sure you understand why. You're entitled to your opinion as much as I am.

Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is, and I am against most Humanitarian laws, they are libertarian trash. I'm not afraid to admit it, I am remorseless and don't have consideration for my fellow Human beings that I don't know (i.e. I am considerate of friends and family, but beyond that I don't give two flips).

I make no excuses for it, it's not Human nature (though I will say that Human nature is to be callous rather than caring, I do not use it as an excuse), it's not due to education or external influences. I chose to be like this, and I chose to agree more with right wing policies than left wing. In the exact same way:

In those cases I'd like to at least try to understand why they think and act like they do. It could be really educational. (blame Thomas Harris)

Criminals cannot blame Human nature, genetics, education, social conditioning or what have you. Oh so many times I have heard the whine, "Oh... I was brought up poorly... I had a bad family... my Dad beat me up... it's not MY fault." My closest friend had all that, and she doesn't resort to a life of crime. YOU choose your own actions, other things might mould you in a certain way, but you can break the mould, that is also your choice.

Have your opinion, stop forcing it upon others. I am sure you would strongly detest me trying to force my right wing perspective upon you, no? I could say the same, it makes me sick that so many people are willing to be so leniant upon filthy criminals, makes me ashamed to be a Human Being with so many liberal air heads running around. I don't say this, however, and I'm sure you understand why. You're entitled to your opinion as much as I am.


Good, then you won't complain when I smash your face in when you are in the checkout line holding me up becuase you are paying with food stamps.

Well done and carry on. I approve.

Have your opinion, stop forcing it upon others. I am sure you would strongly detest me trying to force my right wing perspective upon you, no?
I thought this was a forum where we can discuss about opinions and share thoughts on several issues. If it's too much for you I suggest that you stop visiting NationStates.

Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is, and I am against most Humanitarian laws, they are libertarian trash. I'm not afraid to admit it, I am remorseless and don't have consideration for my fellow Human beings that I don't know (i.e. I am considerate of friends and family, but beyond that I don't give two flips).

You can keep your opinions but remember that these humanitarian laws have been written in the Declaration of Human Rights which your country has signed too.

Criminals cannot blame Human nature, genetics, education, social conditioning or what have you. Oh so many times I have heard the whine, "Oh... I was brought up poorly... I had a bad family... my Dad beat me up... it's not MY fault." My closest friend had all that, and she doesn't resort to a life of crime. YOU choose your own actions, other things might mould you in a certain way, but you can break the mould, that is also your choice.
We were talking about Hitler and mass murderers, not ordinary criminals. I would like to learn how their mind works. I don't think Hitler would have blamed his parents for the things he did.

Good, then you won't complain when I smash your face in when you are in the checkout line holding me up becuase you are paying with food stamps.

Well done and carry on. I approve.

Excuse me? I have never paid with food stamps, and I don't see what this has to do with anything I've said.

I thought this was a forum where we can discuss about opinions and share thoughts on several issues. If it's too much for you I suggest that you stop visiting NationStates.

It is. Expressing your opinion is one thing, shoving it down people's throats is another.

You can keep your opinions but remember that these humanitarian laws have been written in the Declaration of Human Rights which your country has signed too.

Like I've already said, I despise the policies of my country.

You are assuming I am American. I am not.
No, actually I was assuming that you were from a nation that denounces the use of torture, as most do. If you are from a country that does not, you have my apologies.

No, that is why I added my addendum with the explanation that I believe in graded justice, depending on the severity of the crime. I do not believe that some grades are correct, however. For example, if an attempted murder was planned, plotted and executed (but failed, obviously), why should it be less of a crime than actually succeeding? That is ridiculous, it is exactly the same, except you just were not good enough to pull it off. You should still be punished just as harshly.
Before I reply to this, let me include the part of your post to which I was referring:

Once a law is broken, the person breaking that law should be putting themselves outside of it. You know the law, you CHOOSE to break it, you choose to remove yourself from its protection. You should be stripped of all civil rights and treated as nothing better than an animal.

Yes, you go on to say you believe in graded punishments. However, this doesn't change the fact that you think anyone who commits a crime, whether they steal a loaf of bread or murder someone, should be stripped of all their rights and treated like an animal. That is not graded punishment, that is blanket punishment. Your idea of 'graded' punishment would just be an additional punishment on top of that. In saying someone should be treated like an animal, you are in essence stripping them of their humanity, and saying that they no longer need to be treated humanely.

I detest US government policies. I even detest my own country's policies (I am Australian, for your information). That is why I don't vote for any of the worthless, left-wing, liberal parties that we have. Thus, this has no bearing upon my argument.
Alright, I won't judge you based on your government's policies. I would like to know, however, if you feel that the torture, rape and 'disappearances' of citizens is justified? Does every country have the right to apply torture, according to their needs? Or do you think that torture would only be used 'correctly' in your own? Your argument seems to be based on the idea that torture is a lesser evil, yet you have not defined the boundaries in which it would be contained.

Ok, I confused the two, (punishment and rehabilitation: sinuhue) but both are an utter waste of time and money. Why pay money for the upkeep of someone who just sits in a jail cell for the rest of their life? Just kill them and be done with it. And yeah, sometimes they might get the wrong guy and kill an innocent. I would rather that then the revolving door systems that both Australia and America have, and I would rather that than paying for the upkeep of criminal scum. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.

So you are willing to have mistakes be made at the costs of other people's lives. Does that include your own? Would you quietly accept your execution under an erroneous conviction because it's better than all the money that would be spent otherwise? Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth? So if someone steals from you, you steal from them and justice is done? Someone rapes you, so you rape them, and all is well? This is a very simplistic, and under-analysed concept of justice on your part.


What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Liberal trash, in my opinion.

This just makes me laugh. So you should be considered guilty until proven innocent? If someone accuses you of a crime, you should have to prove you didn't do it, rather than the accuser proving you did? Interesting. I doubt you'd be singing the same tune if you were ever charged with something. Oh, and be careful, because if you are caught jaywalking, you'll be assumed guilty and stripped of your civil rights and treated like an animal. Under your system.

No. Unless those beliefs are somehow hurting people, which they never really can, so again, no. If people are using terrorism/waging war/what have you in the name of those beliefs, it is still not those beliefs that are hurting people, it is the people using those beliefs. In which case, torture them for information on where those people are, but for beliefs? No.

How nice of you to not torture people for their beliefs...only for information. So again, I ask, what are the boundaries? How would you make sure that torture was used 'legitimately'? A government may decide that all Japanese people are the enemy (as was done in Canada during WWII, where they were forced into internment camps), and probably have information that needs to be 'tortured' out of them. Do you support this? Torture a hundred Arabs with the hope one of them has information about terrorism? Or hope one of them will just admit they know something, but won't tell, so you don't accidentally torture the wrong ones?


Would you really want your law enforcement officials to have this sort of power?

Yes. I'm a reactionary authoritarian; the good citizens will have nothing to fear.

How wonderfully naive of you. "If you're good, you'll be ok, because law enforcement (given their mandate by the same government you despise) is never wrong!" Hitler and Stalin would have loved you.

That was in most countries of the world before liberal ideologies came in and ruined the ability to punish criminals.

Sure, and the there are liberal ideologies that the presidential dictators of South America spun that were twisted and used in ways that you wouldn't like either. I'm not fascist, I'm a monarchist, and a state with a pervasive police force can work.

Uh-oh, your ignorance is showing. Hate to burst your bubble, but the 'presidential dictators of South America' did not have 'liberal ideologies'. They were hard-nosed right wing dictators who took over their countries by force. Pinochet in Chile: military coup of 1973, backed by the CIA. A string of military dictatorships in Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay, all taking power from governments that were too 'liberal' for the U.S. Brazil elected some of their dictators, but again, their ideologies were extremely right wing. In fact, Brazil was proudly fascist for quite some time under Vargas. Frankly, I doubt any of these dictators would appreciate you labeling them 'liberal'. As for a state with a pervasive police force 'working', define how it 'works' and provide an example of an actual country that has done it.

Not all authoritarian societies have to weed out opposition.

Main Entry: au•thor•i•tar•i•an
Pronunciation: o-"thär-&-'ter-E-&n, &-, -"thor-
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people

Actually, unless you brainwash everyone to agree with you, there will always be opposition, and unless you have a way to control that opposition, they will constantly demand change and reform. Ignoring them and hoping it will go away won't work, so unless you intend to give into their demands, then yes, as an authoritarian society, you will have to weed them out. But hey, you already have given yourself permission to use torture, so go ahead and weed.

Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is, and I am against most Humanitarian laws, they are libertarian trash. I'm not afraid to admit it, I am remorseless and don't have consideration for my fellow Human beings that I don't know (i.e. I am considerate of friends and family, but beyond that I don't give two flips).

If you want to be that insular, then you should revoke your membership in the society you are a part of, and go somewhere to live in isolation with the people you DO give two flips about. However, doesn't it worry you that there might be others out there who don't give two flips about you and your family and friends, because they don't know them? If we really thought about each other this way, why wouldn't we just kill everyone besides ourselves so that we had access to all the resources on Earth, rather than sharing them with people we don't need? That lack of consideration you mentioned...does that mean you defecate on the streets, because have the urge, and could care less if someone finds it disgusting? Or do you NEED rules to govern your behaviour because you don't have the control or the interpersonal skills to do it yourself? I don't mean that as a personal attack...I am questioning the reasoning behind your need for authority and it seems to stem from a lack of socialisation.

Excuse me? I have never paid with food stamps, and I don't see what this has to do with anything I've said.

You missed his point. Ok, say he smashed you in the face just for the heck of it. Since he has no consideration for people he doesn't know, (like you) then you should have no problem with being assaulted for no particular reason.


I thought this was a forum where we can discuss about opinions and share thoughts on several issues. If it's too much for you I suggest that you stop visiting NationStates.

It is. Expressing your opinion is one thing, shoving it down people's throats is another.

Unless you have a real need to do as others say, I can't imagine how you could call a discussion 'shoving' ideas down a person's throat. No one is brainwashing you, or threatening your safety if you don't toe the party line. In an authoritarian regime, this would be much more common...but then again, a forum like this would not be welcome under such leadership. Develop a thicker skin to deal with opposing opinions.

Like I've already said, I despise the policies of my country.
Yes, yes, so we've heard...and what are you doing about it exactly?

Wow, I had no idea people actually thought this way... (I'm referring to the scarily right-wing people here)
All I have to say is: you'll be glad the system is built with a concern for other members of the human race when you screw up. Because with the general level of intelligence I'm seeing in your posts, I have no doubt you will.
A little compassion, anyone? Since when does the crime of a moment or the mistake of a lifetime deprive anyone of their basic humanity? We would not be human if we did not err.

Wow, I had no idea people actually thought this way... (I'm referring to the scarily right-wing people here)
All I have to say is: you'll be glad the system is built with a concern for other members of the human race when you screw up. Because with the general level of intelligence I'm seeing in your posts, I have no doubt you will.
A little compassion, anyone? Since when does the crime of a moment or the mistake of a lifetime deprive anyone of their basic humanity? We would not be human if we did not err.
you cant reason with the unreasonable

these are the people that think anyne against the US is inhuman and not worth their own life

you cant reason with the unreasonable

these are the people that think anyne against the US is inhuman and not worth their own life

Hey, don't be so regional! There's an Aussie here who thinks that too!
Edit: Not me.

Erm, innocent until proven guilty, anyone?

You can't torture a suspect, full stop. And I don't think you should torture anyone - if they're not supposed to behave that way, why should you? Also, any statements extracted under torture are unreliable anyway.

..."Oh, I stole that loaf of bread because my family was starving." - Tough luck...

...You should be stripped of all civil rights and treated as nothing better than an animal. Rehabilitating criminals isn't the solution, it's only a drain on national resources...

...Regardless, if there is something the criminal holds in their head then they should be tortured if they're not giving it up...
These are the most frightening of the comments I saw in this post.

Good grief.

Erm, innocent until proven guilty, anyone?


I said that too....here is the reply:


Liberal trash, in my opinion.

For anyone who would like to read the United Nations Convention against Torture:

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Yes, you go on to say you believe in graded punishments. However, this doesn't change the fact that you think anyone who commits a crime, whether they steal a loaf of bread or murder someone, should be stripped of all their rights and treated like an animal. That is not graded punishment, that is blanket punishment. Your idea of 'graded' punishment would just be an additional punishment on top of that. In saying someone should be treated like an animal, you are in essence stripping them of their humanity, and saying that they no longer need to be treated humanely.

True. In which case I should modify my statement. If you commit any serious crime involving the disregard of any Human rights, then you should have them stripped. That includes rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder etc. Anything less than that should still be punished, and harsher than they are now, but not to such a degree. The "slap on the wrist" punishment system for minor crimes is not enough to deter them. And where do major criminals start? With minor crimes. You don't see twelve year olds raping or murdering, but the ones who start stealing incessantly, spray painting and vandalising then are the ones who end up commiting the major crimes later in life.

Alright, I won't judge you based on your government's policies. I would like to know, however, if you feel that the torture, rape and 'disappearances' of citizens is justified? Does every country have the right to apply torture, according to their needs? Or do you think that torture would only be used 'correctly' in your own? Your argument seems to be based on the idea that torture is a lesser evil, yet you have not defined the boundaries in which it would be contained.

There should still be a legal proceeding to it. No, even under an authoritarian government, a citizen should not simply dissapear, they should be arrested and put through trial, and if they are convicted then, assuming they commited a major crime with disregard to Human rights, be stripped of their rights, at which point anything can be done to them. It is nothing about a lesser evil, it is about people having flagrant disregard to the law, and sensible laws that are in place to stop society from collapsing around our heads. People like that have no right to live or procreate, they should be removed from society like the cancerous cells that they are.

So you are willing to have mistakes be made at the costs of other people's lives. Does that include your own? Would you quietly accept your execution under an erroneous conviction because it's better than all the money that would be spent otherwise?

Yes. I believe in the system, I would have it implemented, therefore I would suffer the repurcussions if I were to come under that unfortunate circumstance.

Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth? So if someone steals from you, you steal from them and justice is done? Someone rapes you, so you rape them, and all is well? This is a very simplistic, and under-analysed concept of justice on your part.

I'll acquiesce there. In fact, when I think about it more clearly, it does not work for my concept either. Seeing as I believe that rape and kidnapping should entail execution just as much as murder, I believe in more severe punishments to deter crime.

Hitler and Stalin would have loved you.

I don't doubt it, and I am not ashamed of the fact. I find more in common with Fascists than I do Liberals.

Uh-oh, your ignorance is showing. Hate to burst your bubble, but the 'presidential dictators of South America' did not have 'liberal ideologies'. They were hard-nosed right wing dictators who took over their countries by force. Pinochet in Chile: military coup of 1973, backed by the CIA. A string of military dictatorships in Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay, all taking power from governments that were too 'liberal' for the U.S. Brazil elected some of their dictators, but again, their ideologies were extremely right wing. In fact, Brazil was proudly fascist for quite some time under Vargas. Frankly, I doubt any of these dictators would appreciate you labeling them 'liberal'. As for a state with a pervasive police force 'working', define how it 'works' and provide an example of an actual country that has done it.

Truly? My apologies in that case, I am misinformed. There is nothing I hate worse than an ignorant person speaking as if they know what they are talking about, so I offer no rebut to this point. You win hands down.

Actually, unless you brainwash everyone to agree with you, there will always be opposition, and unless you have a way to control that opposition, they will constantly demand change and reform. Ignoring them and hoping it will go away won't work, so unless you intend to give into their demands, then yes, as an authoritarian society, you will have to weed them out. But hey, you already have given yourself permission to use torture, so go ahead and weed.

No, a government only needs a majority to remain in power. Absolutely every government in the world has its opposition, democratic societies included. I am a perfect example of that, I would see my democratic society toppled and the Queen of England sat upon the throne. Once you have a majority, you can weather the opposition of political opponents peacefully and continue to rule. Of course, there is the chance they will rise against you, but there will always be opposition, no matter how many you remove. There are non-violent methods to ensure you keep that majority too, such as making the people happy and showing them that having you around is actually beneficial to them.

If you want to be that insular, then you should revoke your membership in the society you are a part of, and go somewhere to live in isolation with the people you DO give two flips about. However, doesn't it worry you that there might be others out there who don't give two flips about you and your family and friends, because they don't know them? If we really thought about each other this way, why wouldn't we just kill everyone besides ourselves so that we had access to all the resources on Earth, rather than sharing them with people we don't need? That lack of consideration you mentioned...does that mean you defecate on the streets, because have the urge, and could care less if someone finds it disgusting? Or do you NEED rules to govern your behaviour because you don't have the control or the interpersonal skills to do it yourself? I don't mean that as a personal attack...I am questioning the reasoning behind your need for authority and it seems to stem from a lack of socialisation.

Given the chance I would form my own society. As for killing everyone on earth, I'm not a massochist, I don't get pleasure from killing, and if I killed the whole world it wouldn't be too much fun. Who would wage wars and make interesting history for me then? As well as culture, music, movies, so on and so forth. I do not care what anyone else in this world thinks of me, no, I only care what I think of myself. Seeing as I respect well bred, well mannered, gentle folk, I guide myself in the same manner, thus I would never do anything demeaning such as defecating in the streets. The sheer majority of people in this world do not have such discerned tastes as I, however, and would be inclined to do such things were there a lack of order. In fact, it does happen, in India people will defecate in the streets. With enough order, this would be prevented. I am selfish, and I want the world to be at my standard, and thus I hail strict laws so that it would be as such.

You missed his point. Ok, say he smashed you in the face just for the heck of it. Since he has no consideration for people he doesn't know, (like you) then you should have no problem with being assaulted for no particular reason.

Ok, I get the point now. But no, that is lawlessness, and I despise that. I have no consideration for people, but I do not break the law, regardless.

Unless you have a real need to do as others say, I can't imagine how you could call a discussion 'shoving' ideas down a person's throat. No one is brainwashing you, or threatening your safety if you don't toe the party line. In an authoritarian regime, this would be much more common...but then again, a forum like this would not be welcome under such leadership. Develop a thicker skin to deal with opposing opinions.

You have missed my point. I might not be considerate of other people, but I do believe in respect. While I might despise Liberalism, I respect Liberals that can intelligently argue their point of view as valid and worthwhile opponents. His comment, "oh, this makes me sick that anyone could think this way", was uncalled for and disrespectful. I can deal with it, it does not affect me, but I would prefer if he was respectful of other people's ideals.


Yes, yes, so we've heard...and what are you doing about it exactly?

I do what I can. I speak out against the government, and were there a political party that represented my ideals I would vote for them.

Wow, I had no idea people actually thought this way... (I'm referring to the scarily right-wing people here)
All I have to say is: you'll be glad the system is built with a concern for other members of the human race when you screw up. Because with the general level of intelligence I'm seeing in your posts, I have no doubt you will.
A little compassion, anyone? Since when does the crime of a moment or the mistake of a lifetime deprive anyone of their basic humanity? We would not be human if we did not err.

I have a high level of intelligence in everything that I compose, thankyou. I may be, in fact I know full well that I am, as you put it, "scarily" right-wing, to left-wing idealists, but that does not make me un-intelligent. I have been in situations where I could have flown off the hinge, devolved into a pile of rage and beat the hell out of someone, or worse. I did not, because I have something called self control and respect for the law. If you cannot maintain a handle on your own emotions then you don't deserve any compassion. However, if it comes to the case of defending yourself against a criminal, either one that is assaulting you, robbing you or any other illegal activity, then I do not believe in any punishment for killing the criminal.

you cant reason with the unreasonable

these are the people that think anyne against the US is inhuman and not worth their own life

Like Sinuhue said, I am from Australia, and I do not think that people against Australia are inhuman. I am against Australia, at least the government. Moreover, I am a very reasonable person, I have reasons for each and every ideal that I have. Maybe you can't see, or identify with, these reasons, but that does not mean they are not present. I explain them in my posts, so if you cannot see them that suggests something like your emotion getting in the way. Do not stereotype; sure, there are right-winged people who are unreasonable and ignorant, but there are also left-winged airheads that are unintelligent and inarticulate. That does not represent all left-wing ideologists, however, and it is just the same for right-wing.

Liberal trash, in my opinion.

I should explain a little here. I believe that if there is strong evidence towards you there should be no need to continue proving it, it should be up to the accused to prove themselves innocent. If someone walks up and baselessly accuses you of something, it should hold no weight. And while I disagree with many Humanitarian laws, I believe in and understand the importance of treating your fellow citizens right in order to maintain the fabric of society. This does not include breakers of serious crimes, they should not be citizens, and neither does it mean I have to be considerate of my fellow citizens, it just means I have to not kill, harm or torture them, which I do not wish to do. Like I already said, not a massochist, I only believe in treating serious criminals like animals as they are a blight on society.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4021659.stm

Ok, a similar topic happened not so long ago, but now there is a high profile example of it.

In my opinion, although i can see the reason behind what the police chief did, i don't think you could ever torture someone from withholding information. I mean, it violates their own human rights amongst other things, and in my opinion its makes us as bad, if not as barbaric, as the criminals themselves, which would no longer give us the moral high ground from which we base justice systems around the world on.

But what do you think? Is the torture of criminals ever justified?

Easy for you to say. What would your kids say if you were in duct tape, and the chain saw was coming, LIVE ON I'M A JERKA.

I just figure that if the government could torture you for crimes, people may think twice before they commit them. Correct me if im wrong, in some country some time ago(yes, yes, its very vague) if you were caught stealing they cut off your hand. Thus, the crime rate went down significantly becuase people were afraid to get thier hands cut off. Kinda the same idea here.
You're thinking of Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban. Would you really want to live in such a place?

Getting back to the original post, I'm surprised to see no-one's mentioned how much the case sounds eerily like part of the plot to 'Dirty Harry'. Don't you remember? After he shot Scorpio in the Stadium, Callahan tortured him into revealing the location of the kidnapped girl, but unfortunately she was already dead by that time. In the movie Scorpio goes free as a result of the torture. Great movie. Watch it if you haven't seen it. And watch it again if you have.

And I have to ask: What US country are some of these posters from? The US I know has some of the most draconian imprisonment laws of any country - including the infamous '3 strikes and you're out' law, which invariably catches petty crims who are now in for life. It also has the effect of making crims with two convictions more likely to murder their next victim instead of just robbing, as they're going away for Life either way if they're caught and a dead person can't be a witness. The fact that the US has experienced falling crime rates over the last decade while the imprisonment rate has soared (it now has the highest # of prisoners per capita for any country) indicates that they're aren't letting ppl out after serving only a small portion of their time.

Easy for you to say. What would your kids say if you were in duct tape, and the chain saw was coming, LIVE ON I'M A JERKA.

Everything is subjective, of course from the point of view of the individual it could be horrible. Society is about what's best for all, however, not what's best for the individual.

I answered YES, taking into account the condition of being a Sadist, that has become so popular these days.
BRING US A HANGIN'
YEEEEHAWWW!!!

I want to start by saying that this post is worded in a much more reasonable manner, and I'm glad that you've given evidence of actually having thought these issues through, rather than having responded in a purely emotional manner. I don't agree with you, but I respect that. Now, to delve in deeper:

If you commit any serious crime involving the disregard of any Human rights, then you should have them stripped. That includes rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder etc. Anything less than that should still be punished, and harsher than they are now, but not to such a degree.

Human rights also include:

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.(sinuhue: including criminals)
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.
I included these specific rights to deal with some points you brought up. However, I first want to deal with the idea that a criminal should be stripped of their civil rights. Not only would you be stripping the criminal of his or her civil rights, but in condoning torture, you would also be removing human rights. No where in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does it say that any of these rights can be taken away because a person has broken a law. Of course, since this document is not legally binding, you are free to disagree with it:).

Now, you raise a serious issue with the idea of removing human rights from criminals. Many people would support you in this, (though I would not be one of them) but here is what I would like you to consider:

1) What is the purpose of the judicial system? Is it set up to 'deter' criminals by using the threat of harsh punishments to keep them in line, and therefore create a more lawful state? Is it set up to 'punish' people, without thought to deterrence, in order to maintain control and order? Is it set up to 'rehabilitate' criminals in order to reintroduce otherwise useful (contributing) citizens back into society?

2) In considering the above, do you believe that humans are essentially good (law abiding, with a social conscience) or evil (unable to make good moral judgments without guidance or the threat of consequences)?

3) Are human rights actually rights, or are they privileges bestowed by a society?

If you see human rights as inalienable, you cannot condone the stripping away of these rights, no matter the situation. If you consider them to be privileges, in what way are these privileges bestowed upon us? Are certain rights negotiable, depending on the society? If so, which ones?

4) What is the function of society? Is it merely a meeting place of individual personalities, or is it a method of control? What goal are we trying to reach with the formation and maintenance of societies? This goes back to your opinion on the basic good or evil of human nature.

These issues (which no doubt you have explored before) lay at the base of this particular situation (re: sanctioned torture). At the heart of this seems to be your perception of society and the judicial system, so I'm trying to get clarification of your argument:) In my case, I would answer in the following way:

1) I believe the function of the judicial system should be rehabilitation. Society as a whole does not benefit from punishment or deterrence alone. There is little evidence to suggest that extreme sentences actually DO deter criminals from committing crimes. As well, the punishment-focused approach does not address the root of the person's criminality, nor does it create the conditions for that person to continue contributing to society. It in effect removes them from society, and keeps them in limbo. I know that you feel they should be removed permanently, based on the crime, but what system would be set in place to deal with the ramifications of this? For example, if criminals (major crimes) are all executed:

- what programs would be offered to help members of the family or friends deal with this death? If the criminal was the breadwinner in the family, what will be put in place to support that family? Or should they be punished as well for the actions of another? How would wrongful convictions and erroneous executions be dealt with?

- what benefits would this have to the overall society? Would criminality be decreased? (provide examples of where this has been the case) Would it be cheaper than life sentences (take into account the price of appeals etc)? Would it 'cut out the cancer' as you say, or would it render a percentage of the population forever non-productive? Is a murder (though heinous) incapable of contributing to society, in a guided setting? (ex: has to make reparations to the family of the deceased, in effect supporting them. The mechanics of this would be tricky however.)

- does the punishment really fit the crime? You list some obvious crimes that horrify everyone: murder, rape, kidnappings etc. Are those the only ones you would consider the death penalty for? What about fraud, which may ruin the livelihoods of many, just as terribly as if someone killed a family member. Is this a less heinous crime because it appears to be non-violent?

2) I believe that humans are essentially good, but when surrounded by circumstances beyond their control, we can stray. I DO believe that poverty and ignorance are factors in criminality, though I do not believe in genetic influence. I believe this because I put myself in the place of a person who's social systems has failed them, and I believe I could be pushed to commit crimes for the sake of the survival of my family. That being said, I can not envision a situation where I would be pushed to commit murder (unless in a case of self defense, including resistance to an oppressive regime that threatens my existence), rape or a kidnapping.

3) I believe human rights ARE rights, not privileges. That being said, I also believe that they are rights because we give them to ourselves as a species. I do not believe they stem from any higher power other than our own reason. Nonetheless, if we as a species define ourselves by the rights we possess, then we can not simply wave a wand and undo it. A criminal is not transformed into a non-human, no matter how inhumane their actions. Destroy this, and we destroy the precarious balance on which all our human-made systems rest. As soon as well start designating some people human, and others non-human because of their actions, it raises the specter of having to 'earn' our humanity. Humanity is bestowed upon us the second we take our first breath, and is taken away only when we die. If we start bestowing or removing this humanity based on a particular society's expectations, our humanity itself becomes subject to the whim of others.

4) I believe the function of a society is to maximise the human potential. Not in simple terms of input and output, but rather in terms of moral currency. I believe that as a species, we strive to improve ourselves, to create the conditions which every individual can realise their full creative, moral, and interpersonal potential. A utopia, which though scorned, we all long for. Is it realistic? Perhaps not, but it makes it no less an important goal to reach for. We want to get as close as possible. When a society starts spending up its moral currency by stripping the humanity from its own members, it can't ever gain it back. You can not hold your people up to an ideal you yourself do not strive to attain. The mechanisms of a society, whether they be the judicial or political or economic system, should all function at a level much higher than the common denominator. It should be the example to follow, and be so in a positive, rather than negative way.


The "slap on the wrist" punishment system for minor crimes is not enough to deter them. And where do major criminals start? With minor crimes. You don't see twelve year olds raping or murdering, but the ones who start stealing incessantly, spray painting and vandalising then are the ones who end up committing the major crimes later in life.

This would seem to suggest that punishment does not deter criminals. Ah, you will say, but the punishment was not severe enough for these people to take it seriously! How severe can you then make the punishment, without debilitating the criminal? Would you lock at 12 year old up for 5 years for minor theft, and have that person come out of the penal system a much more hardened, street-wise criminal? Would you 'slap them on the wrist' and teach them there are no consequences? Or would you devise a way for the youth to see why what they did is wrong, and help them to restitute themselves in order to right that wrong? That may sound mumbo-jumbo liberal, but when a community gets involved and shows that as a community, they will censure this criminal, but also offer them a way to make things right, human nature suggest the person would rather be 'in' than 'out'. No one wants to be isolated completely from others, unless they suffer from some sort of illness. This comes back to my belief that people are essentially good, and want to belong to a society.

There should still be a legal proceeding to it.
Back to the original case, where torture was threatened in a time sensitive case. What sort of legal proceedings would be put in place to monitor state-sanctioned torture? Would those proceedings be curtailed because of time constraints? How would misuse of this tool be dealt with?

I don't doubt it, and I am not ashamed of the fact. I find more in common with Fascists than I do Liberals.
This was said in response to me suggesting that Hitler and Stalin would have liked your viewpoint. Before I address that, I'll quote your ideas on authoritarianism:

a government only needs a majority to remain in power. Absolutely every government in the world has its opposition, democratic societies included. I am a perfect example of that, I would see my democratic society toppled and the Queen of England sat upon the throne. Once you have a majority, you can weather the opposition of political opponents peacefully and continue to rule. Of course, there is the chance they will rise against you, but there will always be opposition, no matter how many you remove. There are non-violent methods to ensure you keep that majority too, such as making the people happy and showing them that having you around is actually beneficial to them.

Firstly, Hitler and Stalin are both responsible for the murder of millions of their 'subjects'. In what was this authoritarian system a benefit to society as a whole?

Secondly, you mention the need for a majority, and then go on to talk about removing democracy and replacing it with a monarchy. I assume you mean an absolute monarchy, not a blended monarchy and parliamentary system. If that is the case, there is no forum for opposition, as a change in government is not decided by majorities or minorities, but rather by 'divine right'. The basis of 'divine right' monarchy is that a mandate set by a higher power is given to a chose few only. Opposition is not taken into account. Keeping them 'happy' is well and fine, but you are taking away the human right to equality by setting the 'rulers' above the 'ruled'. In a democratic system, our leaders are meant to simply be our agents. WE THE PEOPLE create the mandate. In an authoritarian system, or a monarchy, our involvement in the government of our society effectively removed. Do you truly support this? If so, how do you think leaders should be chosen?

*sigh...enough for now...*