NationStates Jolt Archive

Just would like to hear (read?) people's views on this topic as I've had a couple of arguments about it with people and some say it is, others not.

Any killer (forget the unfortunate wording) arguments for or against?

Just would like to hear (read?) people's views on this topic as I've had a couple of arguments about it with people and some say it is, others not.

Any killer (forget the unfortunate wording) arguments for or against?

the punishment must be worse than the crime or else it makes the crime worth doing.(heheh, worse and worth) if someone kills someone, the punishment must logicly be worse than death.

Torture should be used for entertainment purposes only. :)

Define torture before we get started.

Only when sanctioned by the government.

Only if you're fairly certain the person being tortured is innocent and knows nothing. That makes the interrogation even more fun. Ask screwed up questions like "Is it safe?" over and over again. BTW, what movie was that quote from? I forgot.

Define torture before we get started.

"1) Infliction of severe bodily pain, esp. as punsihment or means of persuasion. 2) severe physical or mental pain"

Source: The Oxford Dictionary, 1997 Edition, p.813 (at the bottom)

No, I mean define "torture". Is it torture if I merely confine you in a soundproof room for 60 days, and you are fed regularly (but at irregular intervals) with a meal as bland and featureless as a block of tofu?

Where no human talks to you for 60 days, and the light is always on, and the room is perfectly white, and there are no windows, and you hear no sounds other than yourself?

Is that torture? Believe it or not, after 60 days, even the most hardened individuals are desperate to engage in conversation.

no not justified in any circumstances

the punishment must be worse than the crime or else it makes the crime worth doing.
No it doesn't, what do you lose if you don't kill someone, nothing, if you do, life imprisonment I don't see how that is worth doing.

if someone kills someone, the punishment must logicly be worse than death.
Thats revenge not justice.

For me, torture is never acceptable.

I believe sinking to the same level of the suspected criminals is no way for a sensible, measured and civil society to act or set standards.

No, I mean define "torture". Is it torture if I merely confine you in a soundproof room for 60 days, and you are fed regularly (but at irregular intervals) with a meal as bland and featureless as a block of tofu?

Where no human talks to you for 60 days, and the light is always on, and the room is perfectly white, and there are no windows, and you hear no sounds other than yourself?

Is that torture? Believe it or not, after 60 days, even the most hardened individuals are desperate to engage in conversation.

I'd settle for crayons. :)

No, I mean define "torture". Is it torture if I merely confine you in a soundproof room for 60 days, and you are fed regularly (but at irregular intervals) with a meal as bland and featureless as a block of tofu?

Where no human talks to you for 60 days, and the light is always on, and the room is perfectly white, and there are no windows, and you hear no sounds other than yourself?

Is that torture? Believe it or not, after 60 days, even the most hardened individuals are desperate to engage in conversation.

If it adheres to the definition, then its torture....in your scenario it sounds pretty traumatic to me....especially the Torfu...but seriously the Brits did something similar against suspected PIRA, just used white noise, not white light.....

I'd settle for crayons. :)
Well, they don't get crayons. Oh, and you're not wearing any clothes.

It's remarkable that you don't have to beat someone physically to get them to talk.

What are you talking about?
The American government has come to the conclusion that international law does not apply to it, and that torture and all other means of information extraction are all right and dandy! So your question is redundant.
If you're a white Christian you don't have to worry. You can't possibly commit a crime. But if you're a Muslim, well, say hello to Guantanamo!

Torture, Sexual Assault, Intimidatiom, all done at gun point with no evidence in the first place! Hurrah for America spreading freedom! Hurrah I say!

Only if you're fairly certain the person being tortured is innocent and knows nothing. That makes the interrogation even more fun. Ask screwed up questions like "Is it safe?" over and over again. BTW, what movie was that quote from? I forgot.


"Marathon Man"


Toture is justified if it involves drilling Dustin Hoffman's teeth with no anesthesia

Well, they don't get crayons. Oh, and you're not wearing any clothes.

It's remarkable that you don't have to beat someone physically to get them to talk.

I can paint lovely murals with bodily fluids. :)

"Marathon Man"


Toture is justified if it involves drilling Dustin Hoffman's teeth with no anesthesia
Thanks. But it's ok even if you're torturing someone other than Dustin Hoffman.

Well. It depends on the circumstances.

If you consider a life sentence in prison for a murderer to be torture- well they deserve it for taking a life anyway. The most torture they'll recieve is through their own guilt (well hopefully, anyway- depends how evil the person is) rather than the fact they have to spend a good few years in prison. (How long is a life sentence anyway? I forget)

It's not justified in any old circumstances, depends on the situation.

No, I mean define "torture". Is it torture if I merely confine you in a soundproof room for 60 days, and you are fed regularly (but at irregular intervals) with a meal as bland and featureless as a block of tofu?

Where no human talks to you for 60 days, and the light is always on, and the room is perfectly white, and there are no windows, and you hear no sounds other than yourself?

Is that torture? Believe it or not, after 60 days, even the most hardened individuals are desperate to engage in conversation.

I think the "white room" treatment sounds like a valid alternative to solitary confinement. But what about the toilet? Wouldn't they just flush that repeatedly for sound? Because without a toilet the room wouldn't be perfectly white for long. ;)

Torture instead of the death penalty. Prisoners of war - no.

What are you talking about?
The American government has come to the conclusion that international law does not apply to it, and that torture and all other means of information extraction are all right and dandy! So your question is redundant.
If you're a white Christian you don't have to worry. You can't possibly commit a crime. But if you're a Muslim, well, say hello to Guantanamo!

Torture, Sexual Assault, Intimidatiom, all done at gun point with no evidence in the first place! Hurrah for America spreading freedom! Hurrah I say!

If that’s the case why demote the commander of Abu Ghraib, (or however its spelt), or any other recent charged and prosecuted American military personnel involved with such practices. Or indeed have the Army manual reviewed for interrogation techniques. If what you say is true, why change or listen to anyone else? I'm not saying it doesn't go on, but us Brits did dodgy stuff in Northern Ireland (and other places) but it wasn't an order coming from the top. In the American case I'm still not convinced it’s an order from the top....I'm assuming you're going to dsiagree with me on this one....

Only when sanctioned by the government.

Jesus. Isn't state-sanctioned torture worst of all?

If the state condones torture to achieve its ends surely that undermines any credibility of a country's security. When a suspect is tortured and a confession garnered who is to say whether it is true or not?

And if confessions under torture are the aim of the state then how could you guarantee the validity of any prosecution based on that confession?

Therefore the 'justice' system of the country is a joke as the tortured suspects confessions are not worth the paper they're written on and the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' is shat upon from a great height.

Plus, of course, its simply wrong to inflict terrible pain on someone to further your own ends or confirm your suspicions.

As for the idea of torture as a punishment (read: revenge), that is pure and simple evil.

no not justified in any circumstances


No it doesn't, what do you lose if you don't kill someone, nothing, if you do, life imprisonment I don't see how that is worth doing.


Thats revenge not justice.

it depends on the situation for the person, they might kill them because they found out about the person embezeling large amounts of money. or things like that.
though i agree, if noone does anything wronge in the first place there's nothing for them to worry about, but there is people who will do it anyways. stupid capitalist and libertarians pigs...

The torture problems is very situationnal... Of course nobody is for the concept of inflicting major pain to another human being. But, if you're the one on the battelfield and your and your soldier life depend on what a prisonner can tell you, you are gonna do it.

Fun but not funny fact... You probably know that at Gwantanamo base, US soldier used some torture to make theire afganistan prisonner speak. One of the technic consisted in locking them in a close cell while forcing them to listen to Barney's "I Love You, You Love Me" song for days and days...

It should be allowed and encouraged.

The torture problems is very situationnal... Of course nobody is for the concept of inflicting major pain to another human being. But, if you're the one on the battelfield and your and your soldier life depend on what a prisonner can tell you, you are gonna do it.

Fun but not funny fact... You probably know that at Gwantanamo base, US soldier used some torture to make theire afganistan prisonner speak. One of the technic consisted in locking them in a close cell while forcing them to listen to Barney's "I Love You, You Love Me" song for days and days...


Didnt the US Marines get Noriega out of his compound with the amplified tape of a baby crying?
That would work on me.

The torture problems is very situationnal... Of course nobody is for the concept of inflicting major pain to another human being. But, if you're the one on the battelfield and your and your soldier life depend on what a prisonner can tell you, you are gonna do it.

Fun but not funny fact... You probably know that at Gwantanamo base, US soldier used some torture to make theire afganistan prisonner speak. One of the technic consisted in locking them in a close cell while forcing them to listen to Barney's "I Love You, You Love Me" song for days and days...

I heard that...funny but not as well....also a song by White Snake dunno the song though.....

It should be allowed and encouraged.
yup. whatever is best for the whole. all is from the.

yup. whatever is best for the whole. all is from the.

So...anything is good as long as its good for the people?


commie

yup. whatever is best for the whole. all is from the.

...what?

So...anything is good as long as its good for the people?


commie

sorry it's a yopenese idiom, i figured it'd make enough sense in english that people would understand it though. well, it means what ever will help the progress of the country most, except that it can be used in other circumstances, i'm just using it for that. and i see what you wrote in white there.

If that’s the case why demote the commander of Abu Ghraib, (or however its spelt), or any other recent charged and prosecuted American military personnel involved with such practices. Or indeed have the Army manual reviewed for interrogation techniques. If what you say is true, why change or listen to anyone else? I'm not saying it doesn't go on, but us Brits did dodgy stuff in Northern Ireland (and other places) but it wasn't an order coming from the top. In the American case I'm still not convinced it’s an order from the top....I'm assuming you're going to dsiagree with me on this one....

Yes, we did do a lot of stuff in Northern Ireland. We did. But the Americans still do. As for whether it is coming from the top, I don't know, but I know that the people at the 'top' know about it.
The main point is that they imprison without charge when they try to spread 'freedom' around the world. It seem contradictory. I thought everyone had the right to a trial.

Wouldn't it be a little scary to live in a country where the good of society outweights the rights of an individual?

Regardless of what benefits may be incurred by torture basic human rights must prevail otherwise we lose anything worth fighting for.

Wouldn't it be a little scary to live in a country where the good of society outweights the rights of an individual?

have you ever heard of yopenya or north korea?

No it doesn't, what do you lose if you don't kill someone, nothing, if you do, life imprisonment I don't see how that is worth doing.

What do you lose if you don't kill someone? A hell of a lot of tax dollars that wind up being spent on supporting them for the rest of their lives in prison. Unless the legal system in question forces the prisoners into some form of productive work in exchange for food/clothing/etc, it's not cost effective.

But you're missing the point. If I steal something and my punishment consists of being flogged in front of everyone in my home town, other people are more likely to avoid committing the same crime than if my punishment is a $20 fine. This is the concept of deterrence - make the cost of crime more prohibitive than the value gained from it. It's not the ONLY factor involved with crime, but it certainly IS a factor to some degree. Introducing torture (or even simply "less-humane" methods of incarceration) would lead a number of people to think twice about committing crimes.

(of course, the effectiveness of actual law enforcement (what are my odds of getting CAUGHT in the first place?) and the societal factors which lead to crime (poverty, lack of education, etc) also effect crime rates... but we're not talking about those here.)

Or, to go directly back to your statement, if the average perception of prison is that it's little more than a country club for criminals, then why would anyone be afraid to be arrested? Therefore, there's more benefit to the quick cash crime provides than the risk of being caught. If, on the other hand, I know the government was going to sear me with red-hot branding irons for stealing a pack of gum, I'd really, REALLY think twice about stealing anything.

The Death Penalty definitely doesn't work as a deterrent, self-sacrifice is easy relatively easy.

There was once a gaulish tribe where the penalty for murder was to have your lover and/or children disemboweled in front of you...

Now that's one hell of a deterent...

By the way, the fact that US torture of captives was not state-sanctioned is no excuse. What was so wrong with the torturers that were doing it in the first place.

I feel the US media & gov't is just asking the wrong questions.

e.g. 9/11. i don't condone Al-Qaeda's actions (or whoever was really responsible) but the response shouldn't have been to bomb the hell out of who claims to have done. Why not ask why this has been done? What the US has done so wrong to make people hate it so much that they will sacrifice their lives to kill thousands of US citizens and think it a holy act?

Torture is the most hideous crime, as it is the deliberate harming of the defenseless. It is cowardly and a disgrace to any nation that tolerates it. It makes every citizen culpable when it is revealed and not ended.

It is never alright under any circumstances and torture nations are all equally the lowest rung of cowards and scum on the earth.

Yes, we did do a lot of stuff in Northern Ireland. We did. But the Americans still do. As for whether it is coming from the top, I don't know, but I know that the people at the 'top' know about it.
The main point is that they imprison without charge when they try to spread 'freedom' around the world. It seem contradictory. I thought everyone had the right to a trial.

I agree.

But we did setup the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland which had no jury, one judge and the say so of an officer in the RUC to verify that the suspect was PIRA or UVF (or anyother paramilitary group). The evidence needed to prosecute wasn't the same standard as of those on the British mainland.

Were we just as bad by bending the rules to such an extent compared to the Americans?

I agree.

But we did setup the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland which had no jury, one judge and the say so of an officer in the RUC to verify that the suspect was PIRA or UVF (or anyother paramilitary group). The evidence needed to prosecute wasn't the same standard as of those on the British mainland.

Were we just as bad by bending the rules to such an extent compared to the Americans?

I'd say yes, we shouldnt have done it and were wrong, but not to the extent that the American administration is now. Torturing people for 3 years without trial is not as bad as getting rid of jury.

What do you lose if you don't kill someone? A hell of a lot of tax dollars that wind up being spent on supporting them for the rest of their lives in prison. Unless the legal system in question forces the prisoners into some form of productive work in exchange for food/clothing/etc, it's not cost effective.
Lives are more important then money to me.


But you're missing the point. If I steal something and my punishment consists of being flogged in front of everyone in my home town, other people are more likely to avoid committing the same crime than if my punishment is a $20 fine. This is the concept of deterrence - make the cost of crime more prohibitive than the value gained from it. It's not the ONLY factor involved with crime, but it certainly IS a factor to some degree. Introducing torture (or even simply "less-humane" methods of incarceration) would lead a number of people to think twice about committing crimes.

But that depends on why you stole that something. To feed an addiction then rehabilitation is the best way. If it's because you're poor then education in prison so that you can get a job is the best way.
If you did it to hurt others then there is probably something wrong with you mentally. Deterence isn't always the best way.


(of course, the effectiveness of actual law enforcement (what are my odds of getting CAUGHT in the first place?) and the societal factors which lead to crime (poverty, lack of education, etc) also effect crime rates... but we're not talking about those here.)

Or, to go directly back to your statement, if the average perception of prison is that it's little more than a country club for criminals, then why would anyone be afraid to be arrested? Therefore, there's more benefit to the quick cash crime provides than the risk of being caught. If, on the other hand, I know the government was going to sear me with red-hot branding irons for stealing a pack of gum, I'd really, REALLY think twice about stealing anything.
They should be made see what they've done to their victims, if they have no feelings then there's something wrong with them and no matter how much deterence they might do it anyway. Again prison is about rehabilitation not deterence, well it should be like that anyway.

Well I am against torture but not entirely. If the torturers are completely certain (in that big old perfect world) that the to be tortured has information that will save lives, 2 or more, then it should only just be justifiable. I say 2 people or more becuase ruining this one persons life to save anothers life, (especially with the white room idea, that I think will lead to insanity, ruining a life) will just be one for one, and not worth it.

I hope you understand that becuase even im not sure about it ;)

Well I am against torture but not entirely. If the torturers are completely certain (in that big old perfect world) that the to be tortured has information that will save lives, 2 or more, then it should only just be justifiable. I say 2 people or more becuase ruining this one persons life to save anothers life, (especially with the white room idea, that I think will lead to insanity, ruining a life) will just be one for one, and not worth it.

I hope you understand that becuase even im not sure about it ;)


On one hand, I believe that opening the door to tortue is a guarantee that people without such information will be tortured, as has been the case in every country that has ever been documented to allow torture.

I think that the intense moral wrong committed by torturing people outweighs the exceptionally small chance that lives would be saved by it.

Also, i do not believe that in the majority of cases, saving lives takes precedence over a person's right not-to-be-tortured. Doing wrongs in the hope of some advantage is still wrong. Slavery is good economic policy, but it is morally wrong, &c.

But you're missing the point. If I steal something and my punishment consists of being flogged in front of everyone in my home town, other people are more likely to avoid committing the same crime than if my punishment is a $20 fine. This is the concept of deterrence - make the cost of crime more prohibitive than the value gained from it. It's not the ONLY factor involved with crime, but it certainly IS a factor to some degree. Introducing torture (or even simply "less-humane" methods of incarceration) would lead a number of people to think twice about committing crimes.


This became extremelly true in case of fraud where fine are more common than jail time, and when you consider about 90% of crime (all type of crime) remains unresolved.

You can basically make 100 000$ - 200 000$ with multiple gimick before being caugth for one of them and pay a 20 000$ fine

Prison is torture, to a degree. It's not about allowing or disallowing torture, it's about drawing the line between legal discomfort/removal of luxury amenities, and unnecessary barbarism. And as with everything in life, generalisations are doomed to failure - it depends on the crime, the situation, the value of any information which the treatment may help extract, the intentions/motivations for the crime, etc.

Prison is torture, to a degree. It's not about allowing or disallowing torture, it's about drawing the line between legal discomfort/removal of luxury amenities, and unnecessary barbarism. And as with everything in life, generalisations are doomed to failure - it depends on the crime, the situation, the value of any information which the treatment may help extract, the intentions/motivations for the crime, etc.

So if its situational, and you have the right situation, than you're saying it can be justified.

no not justified in any circumstances
Thats revenge not justice.


Precisely... i dont think anyone with a head on their shoulders thinks that torture is for the purpose of justice... its for therapy of, lets say, the victim's friends and family. Revenge should not be frowned upon.. remember that old saying "dont get angry, get even"

Precisely... i dont think anyone with a head on their shoulders thinks that torture is for the purpose of justice... its for therapy of, lets say, the victim's friends and family. Revenge should not be frowned upon.. remember that old saying "dont get angry, get even"
So what if someone kills all your familly, to be even you would have to kill them and their familly even if their familly is innocent. If we're going by old sayings how about, forgive and forget?

Is Torture justified in any circumstances?

no.

While I don't believe in physical torture (unless the captive in question is known to have vital information and is exceptionally "hard") I think intimidation/humiliation/sensory deprivation and/or overload (and possibly even psychoactive drugs) are perfectly acceptable ways to gather information.

Remember the officer that was practically crucified at the beginning of the Iraq war for firing a pistol right next to the terrorist's head in order to scare him into giving information (which the terrorist gave up...and which saved a large number of our soldiers' lives)? I think that is perfectly acceptable in order to obtain life saving information.

What if the terrorist had an earache as was so scared that he pissed his pants? Too fucking bad. Cry me a river. We got the information and he didn't get the shit beat out of him. That should be good enough.

The fact that any society considers torture for anything is an affront to democracy and justice as we know it. Confessions are already routinely obtained under duress bordering on torture, and we have already begun treading upon a slippery slope twoard despotism. Beware.

If you're a white Christian you don't have to worry.

Then please explain why a "white Christian" such as myself was kicked out of a public school - in TEXAS, one of the most conservative states in the US - for 'refusal to conform'.

Wouldn't it be a little scary to live in a country where the good of society outweights the rights of an individual?

Sounds like paradise to me.

Regardless of what benefits may be incurred by torture basic human rights must prevail otherwise we lose anything worth fighting for.

Heinous criminals, by knowingly and willingly committing horrible crimes, forfeit their rights as humans and become little more than animals. They therefore deserve whatever punishments they receive.

Lives are more important then money to me.

And that's a perfectly valid point of view... though many would argue the point that, since the recidivism rate in the US is something like 80%, that the money that IS being spent is being wasted, and that in many cases, admitted and confirmed killers with no hope of rehabilitation are living at the expense of others. People like Charles Manson have effectively been rewarded for their crimes.

To be honest, a lot of this is based more on the amount of amenities a prisoner has - if most prisoners were living in a 3x3 cell and eating nothing but bread and water, the perception would probably be a lot more sympathetic.

Personally, I don't advocate jumping DIRECTLY to torture... but, at the same time, I'd be willing to advocate it in certain instances. Child sexual abuse is definitely a crime which I consider to invalidate whatever "human rights" the offender possessed beforehand. But, as others have suggested, it is a very difficult stance to push for in the real world, where guilt is difficult to prove 100%...


But that depends on why you stole that something. To feed an addiction then rehabilitation is the best way. If it's because you're poor then education in prison so that you can get a job is the best way.
If you did it to hurt others then there is probably something wrong with you mentally. Deterence isn't always the best way.

This is actually already supposed to be an aspect of the court system - someone who is an addict is sentenced to rehab, not jailtime. Someone who is clinically insane is remandered over to treatment instead of prison. But there are most certainly criminals who are not driven to their acts by much more than the benefits crime offers (the mob would be a prime example), and in such cases, many of them are most certainly unrepentant of their crimes.


They should be made see what they've done to their victims, if they have no feelings then there's something wrong with them and no matter how much deterence they might do it anyway. Again prison is about rehabilitation not deterence, well it should be like that anyway.

Deterrence isn't for the criminal. It's for people who might want to do the same things the criminal did in the future. It's for showing Little Johnny that if he steals things when he grows up, then something bad will happen to him. This is one of the reasons why crime is so bad in the Inner Cities - because the punishment is hardly worse than normal life, and most certainly doesn't counterbalance the benefits of crime.

As for rehabilitation, that was one of the "other factors" I mentioned - the ability of a prison to serve as a system which transforms a criminal into a productive citizen. At this point in time, it's not even an issue - prison is more likely to turn criminals into WORSE criminals than it is to reform them.

Basically, I'm not entirely for the idea of torture as a legal tactic (mostly because I can see how it could be perverted and used against ME), but that doesn't mean I'm willing to discard its effectiveness as a psychological tool.