Turn on thread page Beta

Torture watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    My dad said something interesting last night.

    We were watching the news, and the story about the animal rights protestors came on, saying that a few people had given themselves in and admitted to digging up and removing that family's grandmother. But they wouldn't reveal the whereabouts of the body.

    Then my dad said that they should be tortured until they revealed that information. Which I considered for a bit, and then agreed with. Because in these situations, all the arguments against torture don't really apply. There's the slight human rights issue involved, but apart from that, is there any good reason why not to torture these people? After all, they've admitted to taking the body, so it's not like the police would be coercing them into saying that they did something that they didn't.

    Discuss.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well, I woudn't apply it in these circumstances. But what the people whom oppose torture NEVER want to notice when they scream about false confessions and unreliable information is that quite often you KNOW the person is guilty and has the information and you can check if they're lying or not, so it is a useful device.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    One possible argument might be that it de-humanises society and has knock on effects.

    A sense of value for rights, and non-violence in our government is supposedly infectious.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    They did something a bit nasty. Hardly a life-threatening crime. What a disgusting suggestion.

    Personally, I am completely against torture of ANYONE in ANY SITUATION ever.

    At least those arguing for it possibly to be used in an emergency against terrorists with imminant devices of mass destruction have some kind of utilitarian leg to stand on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    torture is wrong in our society, which focuses on humane treatment of all humans, as humans have a basic human right which is compromised in this example, will have a backlash.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    I am completely against torture of ANYONE in ANY SITUATION ever.
    How can you be so absolute?

    Of COURSE you can construct a situation where any sane person would condone torture.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    let me be devils advocate, why is physical punishment so wrong?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    How can you be so absolute?

    Of COURSE you can construct a situation where any sane person would condone torture.
    I just am. Hurting others is wrong. Hurting them because they have hurt others is still wrong. *Digs up Ghandi's eye for an eye and everyone's blind quote* - Criminals hurt others. In a civilised world we need a civilised justice system.

    Torture is unnacceptable no matter who does it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    what is wrong?

    heh...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If they had kidnapped a live person then yes you could justify it and it would probably happen even if you could not. This situation has happened all over the world and has often resulted in the torture of the kidnapper who has always broken and always confirmed the location of the kidnapped victim.

    I dont think you could justify it in this case though. The person is already dead so nothing is to be gained from finding the body except for peace of mind. However, that said, i would expect the Judge to pass a significantly increased sentance for failing to cooperate with the police investigation.

    I am suprised they cannot find some old law to do with graverobbing that gives them a significant period of time behind bars.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    I just am. Hurting others is wrong. Hurting them because they have hurt others is still wrong. *Digs up Ghandi's eye for an eye and everyone's blind quote* - Criminals hurt others. In a civilised world we need a civilised justice system.

    Torture is unnacceptable no matter who does it.
    So the obligatory terrorist/nuclear bomb example wouldnt apply?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by halloweenjack)
    I am suprised they cannot find some old law to do with graverobbing that gives them a significant period of time behind bars.
    7 years apparently. Not too shabby.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    why is physical pain wrong? why is it so different from modern forms of punishment?

    Punishment of the body, punishment of freedom and liberty. Please do tell. They are both just different forms of rationality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    They did something a bit nasty. Hardly a life-threatening crime. What a disgusting suggestion. .
    The crime committed was disgusting. If someone dug up and removed, out of sheer spite, the remains of one your closest relatives, how would you feel?

    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Personally, I am completely against torture of ANYONE in ANY SITUATION ever.
    As Lawz- has already pointed out, this is a quite preposterous position.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    So the obligatory terrorist/nuclear bomb example wouldnt apply?
    Alternatively the Evil maniac situation. "Either you torture this man or I will kill him and 5000 other people."
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nefarious)
    Alternatively the Evil maniac situation. "Either you torture this man or I will kill him and 5000 other people."
    Obviously anyone who is totally anti-torture has never seen 24.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I tend to base my morals on the pretty straightforward "Treat others as you would like to be treated" principle. Causing non-consensual pain to another being is not very civilised.

    (Original post by Lawz-)
    So the obligatory terrorist/nuclear bomb example wouldn't apply?
    Morally wrong, imo.
    Might be tempted to condone it though, in an emergency.

    Just like going back in time and killing Hitler before he got powerful would be morally wrong (killing is fundamentally wrong within my pattern of reasoning), but you could empathise with someone if they did it, couldn't you?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kilgore Trout)
    Because in these situations, all the arguments against torture don't really apply. There's the slight human rights issue involved, but apart from that, is there any good reason why not to torture these people?
    What do you mean "slight human rights issue"? How can a human rights issue involving torture be slight. The reasons for not torturing people under these circumstances include but are not limited to the following:

    1. Torture is disproportionately severe when compared to the crime.
    2. Everyone has human rights, no matter who they are or what they've done. Unless of course you think human rights are worthless?
    3. Torture evidence is notoriously unreliable.
    4. Even condoning torture in one situation can do huge damage to the way society feels about the police. People should feel safer thanks to the police, and knowing that the police have the power to torture will not feel safe.

    The idea that you can torture people to get the information you want is downright offensive to the idea of human rights. Would you think torture justified if a theif would not reveal the whereabouts of his hoard of stolen cash? Or how about a school child who refuses to tell the police which of his friends he obtained drugs from? You see, it's just absurd.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Personally, I am completely against torture of ANYONE in ANY SITUATION ever.
    Scenario: There is currently one terrorist held captive and under interrogation. There is a near 100% chance he knows exactly where a certain bomb is located on a... plane. Your father/mother/sibling/other relative happens to be on that plane. The only way he will tell you where that bomb is, so that somebody can defuse it in time (far-fetched I know but I'm not thinking straight right now), is if he is tortured. You have the final say.

    What's the verdict? His temporary physical pain, or the life of your relative?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poltroon)
    The crime committed was disgusting. If someone dug up and removed, out of sheer spite, the remains of one your closest relatives, how would you feel?
    No one I care about has ever died, so I can't directly empathise. Still, I imagine that yes I would be rather pissed off. I'd hardly call for torture of the perpetrators, I'm not a lunatic. I'm not a vengeful person, I feel that the need for retaliation implies weakness and a lack of self-control.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 22, 2006
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.