Kilgore Trout
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#1
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.
0
reply
Longshoredrift80
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2
Report 13 years ago
#2
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.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report 13 years ago
#3
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.
0
reply
Zoecb
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#4
Report 13 years ago
#4
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.
0
reply
ouijaouija
Badges: 0
#5
Report 13 years ago
#5
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.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#6
Report 13 years ago
#6
(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.
0
reply
ouijaouija
Badges: 0
#7
Report 13 years ago
#7
let me be devils advocate, why is physical punishment so wrong?
0
reply
Zoecb
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#8
Report 13 years ago
#8
(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.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report 13 years ago
#9
what is wrong?

heh...
0
reply
halloweenjack
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#10
Report 13 years ago
#10
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.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#11
Report 13 years ago
#11
(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?
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#12
Report 13 years ago
#12
(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.
0
reply
ouijaouija
Badges: 0
#13
Report 13 years ago
#13
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.
0
reply
poltroon
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 13 years ago
#14
(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.
0
reply
Nefarious
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#15
Report 13 years ago
#15
(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."
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report 13 years ago
#16
(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.
0
reply
Zoecb
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#17
Report 13 years ago
#17
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?
0
reply
Chumbaniya
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#18
Report 13 years ago
#18
(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.
0
reply
Champagne Breakfast
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#19
Report 13 years ago
#19
(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?
0
reply
Zoecb
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#20
Report 13 years ago
#20
(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.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Why do you want to do a masters?

Great for my career (51)
35.92%
I really love the subject (39)
27.46%
I don't know what else to do (19)
13.38%
I can't get a job (8)
5.63%
My parents want me to (3)
2.11%
I don't know... I just do (22)
15.49%

Watched Threads

View All