Is the use of torture ever ok?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

I have read many posts here that say that some people just deserve capital punishment as well as some posts that outright say "let em' burn". My belief is that two wrongs never make a right. I feel great sympathy for the victims and their families. However, the death of the criminal does not ease their pain in most cases.

Capital punishment has come up because the founder of the crips is up for execution. Some say he should die. Some say he should live because he is reformed and some are just against the death penalty. I fall into this last category. It is irrelevant to me whether the criminal has reformed or not. I do not advocate putting him back on the streets. But we as a society do not benefit by lowering ourselves to the level of the criminal.

And now the point. As I said, there were posts that said "some people just deserve death". So, since there are some that believe this, do some believe that torture is ok in certain circumstances as well? Please don't say that the execution is different because it is painless, because at very least it is psychological torture.



On Edit: Also, some say that capital punishment offers comfort the family of the victim. Im sure some of these families would love to see the criminal tortured. So why isn't that ok?

[Chicago Democrat]

1. It is never 'ok' to do harm to anyone

pretty much the only rule there is.

[undergroundpanther]

2. NO

Torture is NEVER ok.
Killing can be ok.Killing quickly is not torture.

“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) Economist and Philosopher

A torturer harms people that's all a torutuer exists to do.I think it is in your right to destroy him if you cannot stop his harming..


“Was there ever any domination that did not appear natural to those who possessed it?”]John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) Economist and Philosopher

[SemiCharmedQuark]

6. But capital punishment isn't quick.

It takes years and years.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

15. And, even then, it gets it wrong

Read this - http://tinyurl.com/9yjbt - and then wonder why it's not on the front page of the Washington Post intead of splattered hugely on the front page.

[reichstag911]

3. In the cases of people like Bush, Cheney...

...and their ilk, I'd be hard-pressed to oppose torture -- you just know they would whimper like little schoolgirls with skinned knees, and wouldn't that be fun to see?!? :evilgrin: Seriously, though, I oppose it on principle for many reasons, not least of which is that's it's generally not too effective, and utterly ineffective against unwitting innocents, many of whom have been snared in AmeriKKKa's "GWOT" nets.

[Just Me]

4. no no NO NO NO!!! It is ILLEGAL and INEFFECTIVE and BARBARIC!

I don't advocate the death penalty, either, because it FAILS TO DETER VIOLENT CRIME, it is in itself CRIMINAL, it is a reflection of revenge rather than the "civil" belief human beings can change, and death is NOT necessarily a punishment compared to life in prison. AND, no innocent life is worth sacrificing for revenge against those who are repugnant to our moral and social beliefs.

[warrens]

5. Only on Republicans. For kicks.

[Demit]

7. I read your whole post but I can't get past that thread title.

I don't know how you can, or why you would want to, conflate the death penalty and torture. Your question makes me cringe. It suggests you want to argue the point.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

11. I do.

I find it odd that people say no to torture, but yes to the death penalty. Both are for the sake of revenge. If you needed any proof of that, all you need do is see that the families are invited to watch the criminal die.

Why is allowing one form of revenge ok and another not ok? Is it because we have the idea of "death penalty" so ingrained that we no longer see it for what it is?

[Demit]

21. You want to talk about the death penalty, talk about the death penalty.

Starting off the thread with a question about is torture ok is a cheap trick.

For one thing, the death penalty is a sentence passed after someone has been found guilty, in a court of law, by a jury of peers. Your idea that both torture and the death penalty are forms of revenge is a perfect example of a tautology, of begging the question. That these two things are equal and can be debated as such is purely ridiculous.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

27. Why? Many countries in the west view the death penalty as torture

Which is why they no longer do it. And as OldLeftieLawyer pointed out, there are many instances where the death penalty has been administered to innocent victims.


It's exactly your reaction that puzzles me. People are so sure that the death penalty is perfectly ok and so sure that torture is not. Yet other countries see both as wrong. Why don't we?

[Just Me]

35. There is no logical basis for the death penalty. Revenge is the only,...

,...remaining rationale for instituting the death penalty because it has been proven to fail as a deterrent. What other logical basis is there for the death penalty? Punishment? Most people would rather die than live in prison for the rest of their lives. Hell, we don't even know what "death" brings; not really. Moreover, our system does NOT guarantee justice,...innocent people HAVE been found guilty.

The wager of death is an absolute moral and ethical crime unless it involves immediate protection from imminent death. Otherwise, it is merely another calculated act of killing. Plus, although they may be few, aren't those who are actually innocent AND those who truly transform and have a positive impact upon society even within the walls of prison worth saving?

[undergroundpanther]

26. Not revenge

A pedophile cannot be cured. They are dangerous. You can lock them up but they escape.
Sometimes when a person becomes so dangerous to a community it is better to kill them. Some people can be so barbaric they cannot be trusted with freedom.All of us becoming a nation of babysitters for the few of us humans who are criminals is not an answer either.
Death is not torture.The dead body feels nothing and it can't harm the living either.
Torture fixes nothing.Torture is wrong.Vengeance seeks to inflict suffering.
Death just wants to stop the problem from causing more suffering..
There is a difference.
For some people prison is like torture.and I myself would rather die than spend the rest of my days with torturers rapists pedophiles and asshole bullies.

Death can be merciful compared to life in prison.
But I don't expect some people blinded by religion or ideology to understand my point.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

28. If death is merciful, why isn't it carried out in a back room, in private.

Why is it done like a sideshow?


And I suppose Britain, Canada, etc etc etc are also blinded by ideology?

[undergroundpanther]

39. I don't know

I think sometimes victims of violent crime want to know he will never get them.It's motivated by fear.

[Taverner]

8. Except in the case of Scott Stapp from Creed, no. Absolutely not

[darkmaestro019]

19. AHAHAHA

:rofl: I like you. Oh how I like you. (gives you a virtual present of some shiny kind) Thanks, I needed that.

[AlCzervik]

9. if i were being tortured i'd probably admit i was the 3rd gunman on the

grassy knoll. I don't think torture has been proved helpful and i don't think the death penalyt has done anything to deter crime, i'm against both.

[Coastie for Truth]

13. So would I - and I would admit that George HW Bush

and some drunk Texas Air Guard 2nd LT told me to do it.

[Road Scholar]

10. It's worthless information. Why even do it, even if it werent mean

as hell? :shrug:

[Ian David]

17. Operatives are given fake information to reveal under torture...

that way, they already have a carefully rehearsed lie to give their torturers.

Innocent people have to make shit up on the spot-- revealing, for example, plans to attack cities using toy airplanes loaded with chemical weapons.

If someone tortured me, I'm sure I would be able to invent one or two "credible threats" worthy of a blurb on Fox News. I even know a couple of acquaintances I'm not to fond of I'd be happy to implicate as a co-conspirator.

[Ian David]

12. Only when investigating whether senior officials authorized torture

Or perhaps when investigating whether or not someone who advocates torture was involved in blowing the cover of a CIA operative.

[0rganism]

14. No. Why would it be okay?

It's completely useless, except for instilling additional fear and loathing in a repressed population. And that is not okay, so torture is not okay.

[Coastie for Truth]

16. One case

if the torturer and the torturee both consent - and get some kind of thrill, and are both adults .....

[sui generis]

18. the reality is complicated

No to what we think of as torture, absolutely. But the idea that torture is just physical is where we get kind of mushy, because what physically hurts you may hurt me but what psychologically doesn't bother me at all might drive the next person crazy.

We are going to be left with things that are "almost torture" no matter where we set the bar on either, and people willing to exploit the boundary.

The premise behind extraction of information is that once you have a subject in custody you have a right to know what that subject knows, however that may be achieved. We have to address that premise before we can even start to talk about what is the proper means of obtaining information. As long as we have unshakable faith that everyone we capture knows something important, we will continue to find a way to get them to talk through legal, quasi legal, and outright inhumane means.

Torture doesn't work and isn't reliable even when you do acquire information. If the point is to keep someone in custody because they are a danger, then merely having them in custody means you have achieved a major goal. If we have further goals of supposing that there is useful information we can coerce out of someone, then we have to figure out what our values are in this regard.

There is nothing we can do to extract information from someone (whether it's good or just made up on the spot) that doesn't make us exactly like the people we claim to be better than. This administration and a significant number of Americans have completely lost any human moral compass.

[undergroundpanther]

30. Su Generis

Good points! Good post.
I think we have as a nation to decide if the tools of confinement is our goal. Confining the threat makes it cease to be a threat.
I look at death as a confinement although permanent.

Torture is wrong always if a confined person does not speak it is his right,and if we think beating him will loosen his lips torture has been pr oven ineffective if what you are after is information.

So it comes to this I think Bush and his ilk truly want vengeance and domination. They want to cause pain to who they think gave them pain and force them to submit,in this case submission entails speaking.And if submission is their goal anyone can fake compliance with a bully to make that bully satisfied.
For bullies like bush stopping the danger by confinement or death is not enough.. So they gotta hurt them like a dominator would that is telling there is a problem , the right wings thirst for dominance.

If domination was not the real hidden motive to rationalize torture, than imprisonment or death would be enough to fix things.
The fact that confinement or death for some people isn't enough that is pointing to a problem in THEIR moral character.

[MarianJack]

20. No, Torture is NEVER justified!

It doesn't accomplish anything except getting the person being tortured to say anything that the torturer wants him to say!

It will also take away any reasons that our adversaries have to not torture our soldiers.

Regarding the death penalty, I used to be for it, but have since modified my views. Before Timothy McVeigh was executed, I remember seeing the parent of a murder victim interviewed. He made a point of saying that if the families of Oklahoma City victims expected any closure or healing from watching McVeigh die, they were going to be sorely disappointed.

If I had committed a capital crime, I think that I'd find it much worse to hear "life without parole" coming out of a judge's mouth than "death"!

Thank You, SemiCharmedQuark, for a thought provoking post!

[darkmaestro019]

22. Between consenting adults for pleasure. Though amusingly enough

or not so amusingly in my particular career, Gonzales and the new FBI church-squad are going out of their minds to put a stop to THAT as obscene, at least when filmed for entertainment, or featured in a videogame, or written up in a book in which no real people of any kind got so much as a noogie.

Humans ARE violent, bloodthirsty, etc--and if it were me, I'd rather this sort of no-longer-necessary drive be expressed in ways that don't involve people who don't want to play. :shrug:

I'm toying with writing up some kind of post-article on the absurdity of this.

Real people, real harm, nobody gets up and takes a bow after=ok--no, heroic--no, necessary! (makes pious face and stares adoringly at imaginary American flag)
BENEFITS: None, unless you're a twisted fuck who can't get the bang you wanted out of probably-banned entertainment versions.
DISADVANTAGES: World hates us. Oh yeah, and that whole dead and maimed innocents thing.


Real people, no harm, everybody laughs afterwards and wanders off to grab a drink and maybe a shower, before wandering back to jostle over who gets to see the film--the evil must be stopped!
BENEFITS: Fun had by all, and occasionally money results. Getting paid for fun is IMHO a good thing. People who dig this sort of thing get their rocks off without anyone needing a hospital or a morgue after.
DISADVANTAGES: None I can see. People argue that this leads to the sort of torture above, but I've had no urge to IRL maim anyone and I don't know of any entertainer in any medium who deals with this subject matter who dropped the flogger or the keyboard and ran off to Iraq to get or give a dose of the real thing.

:banghead:


MULTIPLE EDIT: cos I'm picky

[OneBlueSky]

23. not in civilized nations . . . but whoever said we were civilized? . . n/t

.

[libodem]

24. No

This is my brain twist trying to figure out a way to prove it to our governing bodies. I think the FBI, CIA and Homeland security ought to have a plan. A secret plan. Designate a few powerful people like the vice-president, Rummy, Woolfie, some members of the house and the senate, oh, and maybe the supreme court and various and sundry republicans to be kidnapped for 24 hours. Just step up behind them (an agent of course) drop a hood over their head, pop them in the car trunk and drive them somewhere unknown. Then since I am not a proponent of torture, a small dark box to cause a non-torturous 'stress' position, with perhaps their hands tied gently behind their backs, let them languish 24 hours with no bathroom, food, water, or explanation. When the learning experience is over in 24 hours simply drop them back off in their hoodie and leave. They would not have been hit, kicked, threatened verbally, or beaten. How many of them do you think would want to keep the 'program'? How many would not want revenge? How many would not want to sue somebody for damages? Just thought I'd share my bizarre little world when I'm not on the underground. Just my 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' stance:)

[Warpy]

25. It's never OK, and here is why

First, it never works. It becomes a guessing game guessing which lies will make the torment stop, hoping to issue some random BS that your torturers want to hear.

Second, although psych studies have shown that many people are quite willing to inflict pain on strangers once they've been given permission to by an authority figure, it tends to brutalize the tormentors even more than the tormented. Do we want people like that to be unleashed?

Third, and most important, we, as a nation, decided a very long time ago that we would stick to the Geneva Conventions and avoid torture because that is who WE are. It has nothing to do with who THEY are and doesn't depend on any set of hypothetical circumstances. That standard saved many lives in WWII, as German soldiers would find Americans to surrender to for humane treatment, rather than fighting to the death to avoid being tortured.

Think about that. Think very hard. Then understand that what the Bush gang are doing should lead to their trial, conviction, and imprisonment. The abandonment of the Geneva Conventions and the destruction of an international reputation that took over 100 years to build is their biggest crime of all.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

29. Are you talking Milgram?

We, as a nation, once decided we would stop the death penalty. Then we went back to it.

My question is not posed to make people believe that torture is good. But to ask why we as a society accept the death penalty without much thought.

[Rageneau]

31. Only if used against officials of the current administration.

Everybody who works for Bush is a crook. Since we know that, it's okay to behave like a large American police force, or an intelligence agency, and torture the truth out of them.

It would be very wrong to torture anybody who is opposed to torture.

But people who already BELIEVE in torture don't mind it so much.

[Xithras]

32. There is, I think, only one situation where it's appropriate.

When you have an extremely time sensitive and life threatening risk to avert and you have 100% proof that the tortured person has the information needed to resolve it.

Example: Kidnapper steals child. Kidnapper gets caught and admits stealing kid, but says that the kid will be dead "shortly" and they'll never find the body. In this situation, guilt has been admitted and the life of an innocent victim may be ended if the information isn't quickly extracted.

Example #2, aka the Jack Bower example: There's a nuclear bomb loose in Los Angeles and we've captured one of the terrorists who knows where it is. We have 24 hours to identify its location before several million people get vaporized. If there is solid (not cicumstantial) proof that the person knows where the bomb is and that person refuses to speak, I again wouldn't be averse to using torture to extract that information.

Should it be the FIRST method used to extract it? Of course not, you'd have to be a rethug to agree with that. But to be entirely honest, when that counter started winding down to the last few hours the "lesser of two evils" argument has to kick in.

I think you'll find that most people agree with me.

[Warpy]

33. In both cases, the men will simply lie

especially in the second case. After all, he's going to be gone in a flash of heat and light soon enough, and his tormentors with him. What's he got to lose by sending them on some wild goose chase?

Again, it doesn't work. It brutalizes those who do it. And we're better than that (at least some of us are).

[Xithras]

34. But in that case, what would it hurt?

Seriously, if the guy was going to die in a few hours anyway, and take me with him no less, I fail to see the harm in making those last few hours as uncomfortable as possible. As for brutalizing the torturers, they'd be dead if they didn't, so that argument doesn't work.

Sorry to say it, but it is one of the only situations I'd support torture in. It's all academic anyway, since nothing like that has ever happened, and it doesn't justify any of the torture that's occurred in Iraq or elsewhere.

[Just Me]

36. Your soul, two human beings and the human environment. nt

[sproutster]

37. Examples=excuses.

Example: Kidnapper steals child. Kidnapper gets caught and admits stealing kid, but says that the kid will be dead "shortly" and they'll never find the body. In this situation, guilt has been admitted and the life of an innocent victim may be ended if the information isn't quickly extracted.

--If he admitted it, says kid will be dead shortly... why do you think he would be asking to be tortured to tell?? Sounds like he wants a deal. But nope, let's torture him, follow his answer, find out he lied the first time, and told truth second time - kid dead, parents happy? Better yet, did he really kidnap her? Or was he an easy suspect? Was he mentally ill?

Example #2, aka the Jack Bower example: There's a nuclear bomb loose in Los Angeles and we've captured one of the terrorists who knows where it is. We have 24 hours to identify its location before several million people get vaporized. If there is solid (not cicumstantial) proof that the person knows where the bomb is and that person refuses to speak, I again wouldn't be averse to using torture to extract that information.

--Solid information? Then where the hell is the bomb?? Go back through the chain. If someone soley had that information then they aint gonna tell and chances are they have a cyanide tooth.

*Any more EXCUSES for torture?

[Xithras]

38. I did say as a last resort.

In your first example, if the guy was looking to deal, he should be given that opportunity. If he's just a sicko who knows he's screwed anyway, and the choice is between preserving his life and the life of the child, I'm afraid that the child wins in my book.

Again though, I reiterate that you would need SOLID proof that the person did it. My example wasn't intended to suggest that the confession was sole proof, but simply a confirmation of other evidence.

As to the second one, we'll just have to diverge in opinions. If the person is willing to kill themselves, there's nothing we can do about that. The thing is, doing NOTHING is a death sentence to everyone in the blast radius. Torturing the terrorist may only have a small chance at actually working, but doing nothing has a ZERO chance of working.

[dchill]

40. If I did advocate torture...

I would only advocate torture for those who advocate torture. But if I did, I'd be advocating torture - which I can never do. Besides, if I advocate torture for those who advocate torture, then I'd be advocating torture on myself, for advocating torture.

[Peter Frank]

41. Torture is never acceptable...

...nor will it ever be as effective as intelligent tactics.

Case closed.

[U4ikLefty]

42. So we have sunk this low???

I recall in the first Gulf War that we paraded the videos of soldiers with bruises on thier faces to ignite the rage against the Iraqis. We talked how Saddam was such a brute because he beat our soldiers. Now, ten years later, we are trying to justify the VERY thing (and more) that Saddam did to our soldiers in order to sleep at night. We are only asking this question becasue we now KNOW us Americans have done the same thing & have a need to justify our disgusting acts in terms of intellectual curiosity. I don't buy it. We have done WRONG & the US was supposed to be better than this...LOL, it almost seems funny to say this nowadays.

Pretty sad times for the ole US...don'tcha think???

[SemiCharmedQuark]

43. I think you misunderstood me.

I am not justifying torture. What I wish to know is, why do we justify the death penalty with such ease? We DON'T justify torture, but we justify the death penalty? Across the world, the two tend to go hand in hand.

[newyawker99]

44. NO....it is never OK IMHO!

:thumbsdown: