NationStates Jolt Archive

the area of New York that i live in, was named (i belive) the 5th safest place in the United States last year. Since that time, i think we have lost that status. In the past year there has been a few bank robberies, a high-speed chase, and a shootout with the local PD. Also, last Friday, the aunt of someone I have known since grade-school, was raped and murdered in her home while her husband was at work, and her children were in grade school. The Guatamalan man was hired to powerwash her house, he then went in and raped and killed her


In extreme cases such as: terrorism, murder, rape (and any others you can think of), should a form torture (possibly televised) be allowed?

I think it should.. at least tax dollars would be going to a good cause. IF he gets a death sentence... a lot tax dollars are used for the chemicals that are injected into him... if we keep him alive.. tax dollars go to giving him food...


what do you think should be done?

No, because people will tell you anything when they are being tortured.

No. It's barbaric, desensitizes people further to violence, and is a pretty clear indicator of the degeneration and fall of a culture/government. See: Roman Empire.

Part of me wants to say yes, but I can't condone torture as punishment. Maybe to extract information that is needed immediately to save lives, but not as punishment.

No. Just no.

I cant beleive you guys sometimes. Would you have even thought about asking this question 5 years ago?

edit: televised, wtf?

No, makes you as bad as they are.

I wish I'd saved the address of the last thread we had on this...we could then just all save our breath:)

No. It's barbaric, desensitizes people further to violence, and is a pretty clear indicator of the degeneration and fall of a culture/government. See: Roman Empire.
Torture was used when the Roman nation was on the rise too.

No, for the same reason as Nadkor.

Televised torture? :D You're nuts. Would you watch that stuff? Even if it was a pedophile communist who just blew up a landmark full of children?

Execution by standard methods is OK. Torturing people to death is not.

No. It's barbaric, desensitizes people further to violence, and is a pretty clear indicator of the degeneration and fall of a culture/government. See: Roman Empire.
Whoa. Actually, the fall of the Roman Empire was closely related to the removal of violence and the disassembly of the Roman army. See: Constantine.

i didnt mean torture for info, since the creation of truth serum and polygraph tests, its unnecessary... just some plain old fashion pain... possibly a public flogging or something, whatever.

I mean, this guy did rape and kill an innocent woman... imagine if it was ur mother.. what wud u want?

I mean, this guy did rape and kill an innocent woman... imagine if it was ur mother.. what wud u want?
For him to be either locked away for the rest of his life, or executed if need be. But torture is a tad barbaric for my tastes. 'specially televised torture...

i didnt mean torture for info, since the creation of truth serum and polygraph tests, its unnecessary... just some plain old fashion pain... possibly a public flogging or something, whatever.

I mean, this guy did rape and kill an innocent woman... imagine if it was ur mother.. what wud u want?

Actually...I wouldn't be all that surprised if the yanks started doing that (This flaying and anal inserting of spiky objects is brought to you by pepsi)

i didnt mean torture for info, since the creation of truth serum and polygraph tests, its unnecessary... just some plain old fashion pain... possibly a public flogging or something, whatever.

I mean, this guy did rape and kill an innocent woman... imagine if it was ur mother.. what wud u want?
What would you be accomplishing?

[/SIZE]no

What would you be accomplishing?
simply to satisfy the victim's vengeance. laws have always taken into account the victims' feelings when deciding punishments, so it wouldn't be a stretch to apply torture for the most heinous criminals.

What would you be accomplishing?

while providing punishment and an example to others, it would be an excellent way of venting anger (epsecially for the innocent family and friends) in a healthy (i believe so b/c its targeting the perpetrator) way...

I know i sound a little psycho right now. but its an emotional situation when its someone you know, or someone related to a friend...

I honestly think he should be castrated, salt should be poured in the wound, and it should be cauterized..... but thats just how i feel.

In extreme cases such as: terrorism, murder, rape (and any others you can think of), should a form torture (possibly televised) be allowed?

Yes, in these situations and also in the case of really bad pop/country music. It is a terrible offense.

No.

1. We have moral standards. We should not lower ourselves to the level of murderers, rapists, terrorists, etc.

2. The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution forbid it.

3. It is counter-productive in several respects. Many, many studies have shown that increasing the chances of conviction and punishment are more effective deterents of crime than increasing the punishment. And many, many studies have shown that extreme punishments tend to decrease the chances of conviction. When rape was punishable by death, it was very difficult to convict. Among other factors, juries start worrying about the severe punishment and give extra leeway to the defendant re guilt.

4. It is sick, disgusting, and warped.

yes. Valuable information in times of crisis have been gained by the fear of negative reinforcement. Anticipation of the event is what causes a person to avoid the cause and effect relationship of torture.

Stress positions and psychological torture in use today cause no lasting bodily harm and usually break individuals who can be broken within 24 hours.

No. The day government condones torture is the day I take to the hills with an automatic weapon intent on bringing down that government.

That or move to a more civilized nation, which at that point would be any country from Zaire/Central African Republic on up. Then put all my time and energy into encouraging international backlash against the barbaric nation I came from.

I don't care how much a crime angers or saddens you, you become the criminal when you participate in or condone this kind of action. Protect the citizenry, don't be an evil vengeful douchebag.

Absolutely not. Reason one, because (like someone else said), people will say anything when tortured. Reason two, at what cost to our society, when we start resorting to medieval measures in the 21st century?

laws and rights aside...

whether we are stooping to the rapist's level or not, does not make us better or worse, we are simply engaging in a punishment for a crime. Hamurabbi's Code, the first set of written down laws in history (also which many governments since ancient times have modelled), stressed the importance of "an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth" (at least im pretty sure thats how it went). Maybe knowing this, premaditating rapists and murderers will think twice before committing the crime... They commit the crime: 1) thinking they wont get caught, or 2) thinking that if they do get caught, they will be killed humanely, or will be imprisoned and basically be "taken care of" for the rest of their lives.

torture... especially what is most likely the most humane, psychological, should be used in such extreme cases where there is absolutely no doubt that the sentenced person is not criminal .

Making someone stand with their legs bent in a 70 degree angle with their hands held above their heads is not the same thing as chopping civilians up with machetes. That is simply assinine to make that comparison.

Televised torture?

I can't believe you even suggested that...

Yes lets all go down to their level because we need more pain in this world.

Humiliation is another useful means of psychological torture. Islamofacists in Afghanistan had to endure females giving them food platters through bars.....oh the agony.....

no. death penalty isnt even justified. Actually, it costs less to keep a prisoner alive than to kill them

Humiliation is another useful means of psychological torture. Islamofacists in Afghanistan had to endure females giving them food platters through bars.....oh the agony.....

Do you have anything on topic to say?

Or do you just like to wax eloquent about the virtues of torture?

Torture for information and mild psychological torture are not what the first post -- or the subsequent discussion -- is about.

You've now made 3 posts off-topic without responding to anyone or the subject at hand.

You like torture. We get it. Move on.

When is the last time you saw an American soldier on TV scream "Jesus Saves" as he cuts off a struggling blindfolded civilians head on the airwaves?

Insert Islamofacists/Ba'ath Separatist/Al Qaeda instead of American soldier and "allah ackbar" instead of "Jesus Saves". And you get one of the best selling DVD ideas in the Arab world.

laws and rights aside...

whether we are stooping to the rapist's level or not, does not make us better or worse, we are simply engaging in a punishment for a crime. Hamurabbi's Code, the first set of written down laws in history (also which many governments since ancient times have modelled), stressed the importance of "an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth" (at least im pretty sure thats how it went). Maybe knowing this, premaditating rapists and murderers will think twice before committing the crime... They commit the crime: 1) thinking they wont get caught, or 2) thinking that if they do get caught, they will be killed humanely, or will be imprisoned and basically be "taken care of" for the rest of their lives.

torture... especially what is most likely the most humane, psychological, should be used in such extreme cases where there is absolutely no doubt that the sentenced person is not criminal .

If I remember right, Hamurabbi's code is the first recorded code of law. An eye for an eye was perfectly acceptable behavior back then. Somehow I don't think that sort of thing is appropriate for the 21st century, especially in a so-called civilized nation.

the area of New York that i live in, was named (i belive) the 5th safest place in the United States last year. Since that time, i think we have lost that status. In the past year there has been a few bank robberies, a high-speed chase, and a shootout with the local PD. Also, last Friday, the aunt of someone I have known since grade-school, was raped and murdered in her home while her husband was at work, and her children were in grade school. The Guatamalan man was hired to powerwash her house, he then went in and raped and killed her


In extreme cases such as: terrorism, murder, rape (and any others you can think of), should a form torture (possibly televised) be allowed?

I think it should.. at least tax dollars would be going to a good cause. IF he gets a death sentence... a lot tax dollars are used for the chemicals that are injected into him... if we keep him alive.. tax dollars go to giving him food...


what do you think should be done?

Yes

Oh and I heard this from somewhere and think this way too sentence and all linked to it shouldn't be revenge but a punishment and in prison or where you lie down there should be somekind of treatment trying to make you a more civiliced person. Ah my beautiful english. And what then when this criminal is sent to back to the world some day do you think tha he is going to smile and say "thank you sir" when had crap beaten out of him I would guess this makes him even more dangerous and angrier.

Yes

Could you maybe provide some reasons why you think that way?

went back and reread it. Just execute the guy if he's guilty and get it over with. Don't televise it don't drone on about it. Don't torture him...painless or not I don't care...he's just trash to be taken out.

When is the last time you saw an American soldier on TV scream "Jesus Saves" as he cuts off a struggling blindfolded civilians head on the airwaves?

Insert Islamofacists/Ba'ath Separatist/Al Qaeda instead of American soldier and "allah ackbar" instead of "Jesus Saves". And you get one of the best selling DVD ideas in the Arab world.
Err, perhaps if you feel so strongly about this you could post a thread on it instead of posting it in an unrelated thread?

The Parthians,

what ever you do (whispering) don't get off the topic. I would like to hear your arguement too.

In extreme cases such as: terrorism, murder, rape (and any others you can think of), should a form torture (possibly televised) be allowed?

I think it should.. at least tax dollars would be going to a good cause. IF he gets a death sentence... a lot tax dollars are used for the chemicals that are injected into him... if we keep him alive.. tax dollars go to giving him food...


what do you think should be done?

Wait... pointless torture of criminals is a 'good cause' that you'd want your tax dollars getting spent on?

The Parthians,

what ever you do (whispering) don't get off the topic. I would like to hear your arguement too.

Of course,

Seeing someone brutalized on live television, perhaps even shown on TVs placed in prisons would substantially help control crime. If every murderer knew they would be torn to shreds rather than given a soft little dose of painless death, that would be a much better deterrent. More brutal punishments, such as perhaps bastinado for theives and then placing them in prisons resembling gulags would also be much more effective.

Or make them even meanier. There will always be those who just can't adjust to rules.

The Mayor of Mosul, Iraq started televising some of the interrogation of insurgents. It did show them as weeping begging men instead of the daring do supermen Al Jazeera portrays them as. They show the insurgent video and the interrogation video immediately afterwards. Next is family confrontation. The bring in the relatives of the victims to confront the guilty party. Good in Iraq but I don't think it's well...I don't know man. I think the confrontation part might be good medicine for victims at home too. I'm torn on this one.

Haven't we been arguing that we invaded Iraq to stop among other things state sanctioned torture by Saddam? I really don't think legalizing torture is the right message to send right now. Putting an end to Hussein's regime is the only excu─ erm, I mean reason we have left for having invaded. :D

Or make them even meanier. There will always be those who just can't adjust to rules.

Then we isolate or eliminate them so they harm noone else.

Or make them even meanier. There will always be those who just can't adjust to rules.

Then they are punished if they do anything wrong.

No no I didnt mean that they just would laugh at torture and all, but when they someday will get out,like few fingers off and eye short,would they praise and help their goverment? Maybe some would be too scared to flip out anymore but some would still do it no matter what is going to cost them,they just try to be more sneakier.Btw is crime rate lower in those states that got death penalty than those that don't got it?

Frankly, it's not the torture f one human being that bothers me, it's the fact that it breeds the illusion in the rest of society that that solves anything at all. Far healthier for us all to try and understand why attrocities happen, than appease ourselves by naming one individual evil and watching him/her suffer.

Frankly, it's not the torture f one human being that bothers me, it's the fact that it breeds the illusion in the rest of society that that solves anything at all. Far healthier for us all to try and understand why attrocities happen, than appease ourselves by naming one individual evil and watching him/her suffer.
Yes this is exactly what was on my mind well not like that but exactly

I gotcha...torture would make rehabilitation (which doesn't exist anyway in American prisons or anywhere else) impossible. Noone came out of the Gulags or Laogai (chinese slave labor camps) any more loyal than they went in. Pretty much has the opposite effect. Good point.

I met Harry Wu who spent 13 years in a coal mine for writing a college paper criticizing the Soviets for invading Hungary in 1956. This did not break him it changed his mind about Communism and he's still crusading against Human Rights Abuses in Communist China.

Cat-Tribe is probably a little puzzled at my concern for those trapped in the laogai. But it's true. See I'm not all bad...

Of course,

Seeing someone brutalized on live television, perhaps even shown on TVs placed in prisons would substantially help control crime. If every murderer knew they would be torn to shreds rather than given a soft little dose of painless death, that would be a much better deterrent. More brutal punishments, such as perhaps bastinado for theives and then placing them in prisons resembling gulags would also be much more effective.

Untrue.

I'd love to see evidence that barbaric punishments deter crime -- rather than deterring reports of crime, arrests, and convictions.

You think it is hard to accuse Bobby the local football hero of rape now? Wait until the punishment is brutal torture.

And state endorsed barbarism tends to have the effect of encouraging barbaric behavior.

So, beyond being sick and unconsitutional, your proposal is counter-productive.

I gotcha...torture would make rehabilitation (which doesn't exist anyway in American prisons or anywhere else) impossible. Noone came out of the Gulags or Laogai (chinese slave labor camps) any more loyal than they went in. Pretty much has the opposite effect. Good point.

I met Harry Wu who spent 13 years in a coal mine for writing a college paper criticizing the Soviets for invading Hungary in 1956. This did not break him it changed his mind about Communism and he's still crusading against Human Rights Abuses in Communist China.

Cat-Tribe is probably a little puzzled at my concern for those trapped in the laogai. But it's true. See I'm not all bad...

:D

Didn't think you were all bad. You were advocating for relatively mild torture as an interrogation technique. I disagree with that, but it is a respectable position.

Very different from what is being advocated here -- which is disgusting, foolish, and wrong. (Upon which we seem to have at least some degree of agreement.)

Frankly, it's not the torture f one human being that bothers me, it's the fact that it breeds the illusion in the rest of society that that solves anything at all. Far healthier for us all to try and understand why attrocities happen, than appease ourselves by naming one individual evil and watching him/her suffer.

Excellent point.

The torture of one human being does bother me, but you provide additional reasons why it is wrong.

Let's get this straight: Punishments do not stop people!

The US has some of the harshest punishments in the Western world(long prison sentences and death) yet it is also one of the most troubled by crime. I think that, say, Scott Peterson didn't care about the punishment. He expected not to get caught at all.

Torture in Iraq would mean that the US would lose its current moral high ground. If the suicide bombers sat down in front of the media and burned themself to death without harming others, they might have gotten Bush out of office! Torture is terrible.

The death penalty is used to punish. It is nothing else than punishment. In China they will cut down(they expect a 30% decrease) on the use of it since it has been proven that it doesn't stop people from committing crimes.

Can you imagine being falsly accused of a crime and getting your eye plucked out? It is bad enough when people serve years in prison when innocent. Death of mutilation would be worse. Even if Americans seem generally vengeful, I doubt even they will approve of that sort of punishment.

If you cut off a man's fingers he might just decide to strike back and kill a judge or prosecutor. I can assure you that if I was falsly convicted and lost a hand I would go for payback!

I cannot believe the amount of people that actually support mutilating people.

As for getting confessions, deprive them of sleep for a few days and they sign anything. That's what the NKVD did.

Not even a person that tortured and raped people deserve getting tortured. How can a society be better if they use the same barbaric methods?

I won't comment on if it would happen to my mother. Justice is blind, you can't go personnal. If you do, justice goes right out the window and vengence takes over.

everyone keeps bringing up the fact that "it wont change their mind", or "wont make the any better".. the fact is, it doesnt have to make them better... the person is either getting the death sentence (eventually), or is spending the rest of his life behind bars (hopefully in solitary confinement.. or if he's with other ppl, i hope he gets raped by a big dude named BUBBA)

it doesnt matter whether he hates the givt more or not.. hes not gonna be a part of the govt or soceity ever again.

Destruction is the only key.
You will be destroyed if you do not become a part of me.

"That which does not become a part of the one, shall become one with the void."
Understand?



Yes I do, but you got the quote wrong. It's:
"We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own; your culture will adapt to service ours. Freedom is irrelevant. Self-determination is irrelevant. Resistance is futile. You must comply."

Yeah and that helps out of sight out of mind. Yeah go that road.To under Bobbys reply

It is odd that you obviously feel that rape is okay when it is against a criminal. That is hypocracy.

"If you use the weapon of your enemy, you become your own enemy."

I see the reason of punishment to be the safety of society. You lock the criminals up so they can not committ crimes against other people. If you murder someone you get locked up for many years or all life to protect other people from you.

End of story.

I think that torture should be allowed, but maybe all the really gross stuff shouldn.t be aired on television, think about the children. on the other hand, the torturee's family wont agree. So i'm kind of stuck in the middle.:confused:

Torture wouldn't help anything. First we critisize the middle east for torturing people and then turn around and do it here?! I DONT THINK SO! Torture doesnt do anything and it lowers the government to petty torturers. I dont want to give MY money to torturers or murderers, i dont know about u.

In extreme cases such as: terrorism, murder, rape (and any others you can think of), should a form torture (possibly televised) be allowed?No. Two wrongs don't make a right.

This goes to General of general. i resent the way that you have catergorised communists in the same ranking of subhumanity as paedophillia and terorism. please apologise. 9other than that your right, televised torture is crazy) :)

Torture should only be used for fun and profit. :)

Maybe a game show. *ponders*

Let's get this straight: Punishments do not stop people!


I don't think of the death penalty as a punishment. I think of it as a foolproof guarantee that the felon will never commit another crime.

no. death penalty isnt even justified. Actually, it costs less to keep a prisoner alive than to kill them
That's only because of the extensive appeal process.

Now let me get this right. You want criminals to stop hurting people, so to achieve this, you will promote the idea that hurting people is a good thing and provides emotional release?

Judge: What you did to that women was morally wrong.

Accused: No it wasn't, it was entertainment. Don't you watch Prime Time Torture?

laws and rights aside...

whether we are stooping to the rapist's level or not, does not make us better or worse, we are simply engaging in a punishment for a crime. Hamurabbi's Code, the first set of written down laws in history (also which many governments since ancient times have modelled), stressed the importance of "an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth" (at least im pretty sure thats how it went). Maybe knowing this, premaditating rapists and murderers will think twice before committing the crime... They commit the crime: 1) thinking they wont get caught, or 2) thinking that if they do get caught, they will be killed humanely, or will be imprisoned and basically be "taken care of" for the rest of their lives.

torture... especially what is most likely the most humane, psychological, should be used in such extreme cases where there is absolutely no doubt that the sentenced person is not criminal .

Actually, Hammarabi's code wasn't an eye for an eye.

If a man put out the eye of a noble his eye shall be put out.
If a man put out the eye of a free man he shall pay a fine of 1 gold mina
If a man put out the eye of a slave he shall pay the owner 1/2 of its value.

The code is much lighter on manslaughter

If during a quarrel one man strike another and wound him, then he shall swear, "I did not injure him wittingly," and pay the physicians.

If the man die of his wound, he shall swear similarly, and if he (the deceased) was a free-born man, he shall pay half a mina in money.

If he was a freed man, he shall pay one-third of a mina.

However, the code wasn't jus tabout punishment. It was also about reasonable medical costs.

If a physician make a large incision with an operating knife and cure it, or if he open a tumor (over the eye) with an operating knife, and saves the eye, he shall receive ten shekels in money.

If the patient be a freed man, he receives five shekels.

If he be the slave of some one, his owner shall give the physician two shekels.

If a veterinary surgeon perform a serious operation on an ass or an ox, and cure it, the owner shall pay the surgeon one-sixth of a shekel as a fee.


Incidently, there were a lot of things punishable by death. However, the big ones were theft and perjury.

If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.

If the purchaser does not bring the merchant and the witnesses before whom he bought the article, but its owner bring witnesses who identify it, then the buyer is the thief and shall be put to death, and the owner receives the lost article.

If the owner do not bring witnesses to identify the lost article, he is an evil-doer, he has traduced, and shall be put to death.

the area of New York that i live in, was named (i belive) the 5th safest place in the United States last year. Since that time, i think we have lost that status. In the past year there has been a few bank robberies, a high-speed chase, and a shootout with the local PD. Also, last Friday, the aunt of someone I have known since grade-school, was raped and murdered in her home while her husband was at work, and her children were in grade school. The Guatamalan man was hired to powerwash her house, he then went in and raped and killed her


In extreme cases such as: terrorism, murder, rape (and any others you can think of), should a form torture (possibly televised) be allowed?

I think it should.. at least tax dollars would be going to a good cause. IF he gets a death sentence... a lot tax dollars are used for the chemicals that are injected into him... if we keep him alive.. tax dollars go to giving him food...


what do you think should be done?
Um... NO!
Sorry, but torture is disgusting and useless (in terms of gathering information). It's also vengeance for vengeance's sake, which is abhorrent. An even though torture does extract loads of false confessions, there are those out there who think it's ok to use, or turn a blind eye to in the case of the Australian government.

I do't believe this is even up for discussion.

Now, this is just from a military standpoint, Yes, In cases of Terrorism, insurgency and unconventional warfare torture meathods should be allowed to procede, hopefully with the least painful and with the least amount of damage first. But, yes, In certin aspects, Torture should be legal. If you can hang a spy under Genieva Convention laws, why cant you torture an out of Uniform soldier?

Now, this is just from a military standpoint, Yes, In cases of Terrorism, insurgency and unconventional warfare torture meathods should be allowed to procede, hopefully with the least painful and with the least amount of damage first. But, yes, In certin aspects, Torture should be legal. If you can hang a spy under Genieva Convention laws, why cant you torture an out of Uniform soldier?

Because if you torture hteir guys they'll torture your guys. I'd rather not condem my own allies to torture just to get my jollies.
Second, it is difficult to extract reliable information from torture. If you press too hard they say exactly what you want to hear to get you to stop. People commonly make false confessions due to completely legal and possibly reasonable police interrogations.
If most people will agree to a lie to make a realitivly mild police interrogation stop then information extracted through torture cannot be considered reliable.

torture as punishment?
No!

torture as revenge?
Sure!

We're talking about two different things here. If that had happened to my mother, I'd want to torture the guy. I'd want to witness it, or even do it myself. It would be a great emotional release. But that would not be punishment for him. It would be revenge for me. They are different.

And, overall, revenge is a bad thing. Just punishment is usually a good thing.

So...the guy should be killed. Or locked up. Or whatever the appropriate punishment is, and hopefully never allowed to threaten another person again, and hopefully denied enough that he is appropriately punished.

And, while the family and friends suffer the mental anguish that will never be properly healed, they don't get revenge. Which is a pity for them, but a good thing for our society overall.

I'd hate it if anything happened to my family, and I'll be out there wanting revenge. Doesn't mean I'd be doing the right thing. My emotions would be what is ruling me in that situation, not my logic.