Poll
Question:
Are there situations when tortures are justifiable?
Option 1: Yes
votes: 17
Option 2: No
votes: 14
Article 1 of Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment*:
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
*Ratified by the US, Canada and all EU member states.
Yes.
Well that is a stupid question [and not only because of the spelling]. Yes, obviously.
Is this a question of morality or law?
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:56:14 AM
Is this a question of morality or law?
Morality, of course. If it was a question of law, why would I make a poll?
And whoever voted no, what kind of murderous cretins are you?
Probably the same kind of idiots who think that "violence is never justified".
Quote from: Slargos on June 16, 2011, 07:05:16 AM
"violence is never justified".
I wonder what the city fathers of Detroit would say about that.
No, it's never justified. States and public officials should operate under deontological ethics, not utilitarian considerations.
"any" and "never". It is a bit trivial to refute an absolute.
Depends on how torture is defined. The definition in the opening post is not specific enough to make this judgement.
Quote from: Monoriu on June 16, 2011, 08:37:14 AM
Depends on how torture is defined. The definition in the opening post is not specific enough to make this judgement.
Forcing somebody to read one of those 40 page threads where somebody argues with grumbler.
Well someone has to read my posts. :hmm:
Quote from: Berkut on June 16, 2011, 08:24:43 AM
"any" and "never". It is a bit trivial to refute an absolute.
Yeah. I don't care for torture, but I can see times when it's justified. For instance, if the prisoner is Marty.
Absolutely.
Quote from: Monoriu on June 16, 2011, 08:37:14 AM
Depends on how torture is defined. The definition in the opening post is not specific enough to make this judgement.
Doesn't matter how you define it, I can come up with a theoretical scenario where it is morally justified as long as you couch the discussion in terms like "is it EVER...".
Person A has a knowledge of a device that when detonated is going to crack the crust of the earth wiping out all life. It is going to go off in 1 hour. I have a remote control for said device that can shut it off, but I need the access code. My remote lets me know if the device has been successfully de-activated or not.
I have the person here in the room with me, with a variety of torture devices, however you want to define torture. The person will not tell me the code, because he wants to destroy all life on the earth due to being a little deranged, but we know he doesn't handle pain well.
So...the options in my hypothetical are
1. Do not torture them, resulting in the deaths of all life on Earth, including the person in question, or
2. Torture him, in which case we know he will break and tell us how to turn it off, saving everyone's life on earth, including his own.
The issue of torture is not interesting when you speak of "ever" "any" or "never". The issue of torture, "enhanced interrogation techniques", etc., etc., is interesting when you have to consider question like the spectrum of interrogation, when does pressure become torture, and under what circumstances is driving up the pressure justified?
What if you have the wrong guy or in reality, there's no such device, it's the imagination of a deranged man?
Quote from: viper37 on June 16, 2011, 11:59:48 AM
What if you have the wrong guy or in reality, there's no such device, it's the imagination of a deranged man?
What's your point?
Quote from: The Brain on June 16, 2011, 12:29:19 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 16, 2011, 11:59:48 AM
What if you have the wrong guy or in reality, there's no such device, it's the imagination of a deranged man?
What's your point?
Torturing is like the death penalty. No problem when you got the good guy. Problem is, you never know if you have. And I doubt someone deranged enough to plan mass murder will break under torture & reveal the truth in just a few hrs.
I'd like to see the hackers who are acting all uppity get their nuts electroshocked.
And the Wikirapes guy. He deserves to have a glass bottle shoved up his ass.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 16, 2011, 12:32:27 PM
I'd like to see the hackers who are acting all uppity get their nuts electroshocked.
And the Wikirapes guy. He deserves to have a glass bottle shoved up his ass.
Lulsec sure is pissed off nowadays.
I downloaded the txt file with all the passwords/emails they release earlier today. Thankfully, I'm not in there.
13 people didn't think their answer through, or are complete and utter morons. It surprises me [well, not really] that a majority would be so reckless.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 16, 2011, 12:40:01 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 16, 2011, 12:32:27 PM
I'd like to see the hackers who are acting all uppity get their nuts electroshocked.
And the Wikirapes guy. He deserves to have a glass bottle shoved up his ass.
Lulsec sure is pissed off nowadays.
I downloaded the txt file with all the passwords/emails they release earlier today. Thankfully, I'm not in there.
I'm going to have the lulz when the FBI gets a hold few of them.
Quote from: viper37 on June 16, 2011, 12:31:09 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 16, 2011, 12:29:19 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 16, 2011, 11:59:48 AM
What if you have the wrong guy or in reality, there's no such device, it's the imagination of a deranged man?
What's your point?
Torturing is like the death penalty. No problem when you got the good guy. Problem is, you never know if you have. And I doubt someone deranged enough to plan mass murder will break under torture & reveal the truth in just a few hrs.
I hope you don't believe in an afterlife. You'll get about 6 billion "gee thanks, dude!".
Yes.
Quote from: viper37 on June 16, 2011, 12:31:09 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 16, 2011, 12:29:19 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 16, 2011, 11:59:48 AM
What if you have the wrong guy or in reality, there's no such device, it's the imagination of a deranged man?
What's your point?
Torturing is like the death penalty. No problem when you got the good guy. Problem is, you never know if you have. And I doubt someone deranged enough to plan mass murder will break under torture & reveal the truth in just a few hrs.
That is what is great about people saying things like "EVER" and "ANY CIRCUMSTANCE". It makes it easy to simply construct where you don't have to account for variables like "what if they aren't the right person???" Simple - I just stated they they ARE the right person.
This is actually useful, since it establishes that the opposition to torture is not fundamental, but practical - we can come up with a situation where ANY torture could be justified.
And since we know that "torture" is a spectrum (after all, interrogation is about trying to get someone to tell you something they would rather not, hence implies some kind of force being exerted), then it illuminates the REAL question - how much and under what circumstances?
We can look at both extremes, and know that with the rights ends, any means can be contemplated. And we know that we tolerate plenty of things that include "pressure" on a subject, so we know that some *means* are tolerated even if the ends are not radical....
Torture sometimes may be necessary and the only realistic option, but it is never justifiable.
Meaningless distinction.
Quote from: DGuller on June 16, 2011, 01:36:04 PM
Torture sometimes may be necessary and the only realistic option, but it is never justifiable.
Disagree. It is difficult to justify, but not impossible. I don't think that it should ever be legal; I think that anyone who decides that the situation justifies torture should do so with the understanding that they will suffer the full legal penalties for torturing; if that tradeoff isn't worth it to them, then the torture wasn't justified anyway.
Quote from: grumbler on June 16, 2011, 02:04:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 16, 2011, 01:36:04 PM
Torture sometimes may be necessary and the only realistic option, but it is never justifiable.
Disagree. It is difficult to justify, but not impossible. I don't think that it should ever be legal; I think that anyone who decides that the situation justifies torture should do so with the understanding that they will suffer the full legal penalties for torturing; if that tradeoff isn't worth it to them, then the torture wasn't justified anyway.
I was actually trolling. :blush:
Although, I guess, you can make an argument that torture should be illegal under all circumstances, since legalizing it is a very dangerous window to open, but if it is necessary, then you'll just ask someone to kamikaze themselves in a legal sense for the common good. I'm not sure how morally justifiable that position is, and whether it opens a can of worms of its own.
I'd like to add that the persons responsible for changing Mickey D's BBQ sauce should have their toes broken.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 16, 2011, 04:38:14 PM
I'd like to add that the persons responsible for changing Mickey D's BBQ sauce should have their toes broken.
They changed it? :( No more mcnuggets for me :cry:
Quote from: Zoupa on June 16, 2011, 04:46:21 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 16, 2011, 04:38:14 PM
I'd like to add that the persons responsible for changing Mickey D's BBQ sauce should have their toes broken.
They changed it? :( No more mcnuggets for me :cry:
It seems so.
I don't know what I'm going to nibble on while the kids are in the Playland of doom. FRUIT? Please.
I also have the feeling that by the time the month is out, my torture list will be two pages long.
I think there are situations where tortures are justifiable.
1 - Ticking bomb situation, where torture can be used to save lives, e.g. the location of a bomb or an attack.
2 - On people who deem torture to be an acceptable activity in cases excepting the above.
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:50:00 PM
I think there are situations where tortures are justifiable.
1 - Ticking bomb situation, where torture can be used to save lives, e.g. the location of a bomb or an attack.
2 - On people who deem torture to be an acceptable activity in cases excepting the above.
So I guess you fall under #2 then. :hmm:
Quote from: grumbler on June 16, 2011, 02:04:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 16, 2011, 01:36:04 PM
Torture sometimes may be necessary and the only realistic option, but it is never justifiable.
Disagree. It is difficult to justify, but not impossible. I don't think that it should ever be legal; I think that anyone who decides that the situation justifies torture should do so with the understanding that they will suffer the full legal penalties for torturing; if that tradeoff isn't worth it to them, then the torture wasn't justified anyway.
You just saved me a shitload of typing. I could totally see how my sentencing at The Hague would go down:
"For the crime of shooting the victim in the knee cap with a roofing nail gun and then telling him that 'his [genitalia] is next' we hereby sentence C.C.R. to three months in prison plus time served.
"For the crime of calling us all a bunch of 'squeamish, snail eating, mayonnaise chugging, pillow biting pussies' and then proceeding to stand on the courtroom defense table and (poorly) sing 'The Star Spangled Banner' we hereby sentence C.C.R. to serve twenty years in a maximum security penitentiary with no possibility of parole."
Quote from: Slargos on June 16, 2011, 05:05:29 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 16, 2011, 04:50:00 PM
I think there are situations where tortures are justifiable.
1 - Ticking bomb situation, where torture can be used to save lives, e.g. the location of a bomb or an attack.
2 - On people who deem torture to be an acceptable activity in cases excepting the above.
So I guess you fall under #2 then. :hmm:
:lol:
Yes. It was good enough for Braveheart, it's good enough for me.
Quote from: DGuller on June 16, 2011, 02:43:41 PM
Although, I guess, you can make an argument that torture should be illegal under all circumstances, since legalizing it is a very dangerous window to open, but if it is necessary, then you'll just ask someone to kamikaze themselves in a legal sense for the common good. I'm not sure how morally justifiable that position is, and whether it opens a can of worms of its own.
Yeah...
It's OK if my religion tells me to torture. Then you must get an exemption.
Quote from: The Brain on June 17, 2011, 12:47:16 PM
It's OK if my religion tells me to torture. Then you must get an exemption.
Are we really bringing up the circumcision argument again?
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2011, 01:26:03 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 17, 2011, 12:47:16 PM
It's OK if my religion tells me to torture. Then you must get an exemption.
Are we really bringing up the circumcision argument again?
No, he's bringing this here from the slaugherhouse thread.
Quote from: DGuller on June 16, 2011, 02:43:41 PM
Although, I guess, you can make an argument that torture should be illegal under all circumstances, since legalizing it is a very dangerous window to open, but if it is necessary, then you'll just ask someone to kamikaze themselves in a legal sense for the common good. I'm not sure how morally justifiable that position is, and whether it opens a can of worms of its own.
I believe that was McCain's position.