Torture: Is it ever OK?

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 15 years ago

#11

Originally posted by: -Mystery-

Oh I see, so you're saying that by inflicting torture on criminals, there's no crime left in the world?! I for one didn't know that.

No, I'm saying that by torture we can gather information that can help in solving or preventing a crime.

Originally posted by: -Mystery-
Facts have it that some countries that don't have torture as a technique to get information actually have lower crime rates just like some US states who don't have capital punishment have lower crime rates.

So?? Does that prove anything??

Maybe there is less crime there and that's why they don't need to use torture as a technique. What you're implying, that no torture and no capital punishment actually results in less crime, can only be proved if you can compare the crime data of pre and post torture period (i.e. when torture was allowed and when torture was banned) given that all other conditions remained exactly the same in the two periods that are being compared.

Originally posted by: -Mystery-
Anyway, it seems like we are going round and round. Of course I believe in something and so do you and we are not going to change anyone's thinking and that's not the point anyway.

The discussion was good and healthy and that's what matters.

-Mahi

We were not moving in circles really. It'd have gone better if you had answered what I'm asking. As an example, I asked in the previous post that why don't the human rights activists go and preach to the criminals that torture is a bad thing?? You didn't answer that.

Quote

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 15 years ago

#12

Originally posted by: -Mystery-

That's why I had said that we are going in circles because ultimately it comes down to what I believe and what you believe.

What I believe and what you believe shouldn't prevent a debate. 😛

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Mahi

@-Mystery-

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 15 years ago

#13

Originally posted by: souro

What I believe and what you believe shouldn't prevent a debate. 😛

Right, and we had the debate, didn't we? :)

Quote

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 15 years ago

#14

Originally posted by: -Mystery-

Right, and we had the debate, didn't we? :)

Yes and we could have some more, till the time one of us proved the other wrong. 😛

Quote

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 15 years ago

#15

Originally posted by: -Mystery-
And I think almost always that information is false so there's no point.

Saying that information given under duress is almost always false doesn't prove anything. If you are so sure, let's see some proofs that support your views.

Originally posted by: -Mystery-
Yeah you're right, and that's one of the arguments that are made to defend capital punishment and torture. What I'm trying to say is that we are never 100% sure that someone has done something for which we are punishing them. There's always a doubt and for that reason no one should have to be punished so severely as capital punishment or torture. That's my whole point.

In life we are never 100% sure of anything. Beyond reasonable doubt is what is taken 100% sure. But no one stops living a life because of that. Life itself means that we have options and we have to judge and make a choice. Everything happens that way and there is nothing that can be done about it. Then why suddenly single out capital punishment or interrogation techniques.
We judge someone as a criminal and find his crime extremely heinous, we hang him. You're saying there's a small chance that we hanged an innocent.
The reverse is also true. Someone is arrested and we don't hang him. Chances are that he is actually a criminal and will harm someone else in future.
That's why, it's enough if we go by the reasonable doubt rule. If all proof points in one direction and every other option is impossible, then that must be it.

I'll give you another example. If you go for a job interview, there the interviewers will judge you based on some criteria. Lets assume that there is candidate A and candidate B. Both gave interviews, however the interviewers found that A is more suitable than B for the job and so appointed A. Now, obviously there is a chance that B might be more suitable than A and the interviewers made a mistake. So, should we ask for job interviews to be banned??

Originally posted by: -Mystery-
Anyway, I think I did answer it, if not, just because criminals do that, we don't have to go down to their level, do we? Wouldn't that make us criminals too? So what's the difference between then and us then? Just because we can put this torture under 'gathering information' category doesn't make it a whole lot different than a criminal using torture, or at least that's what I think and I'm sure you think differently.

That's why I had said that we are going in circles because ultimately it comes down to what I believe and what you believe.

-Mahi

Even now you're avoiding my question. I didn't ask about who is stooping to who's level or any such thing. My question is simple, and I'll repeat it again and will explain it to you.
There are criminals who commit crimes and that's why there's a need to solve or prevent those crime; and to solve or prevent crime we need more information; and for that information torturing the criminal comes into picture.
Human rights activist goes to the criminals makes them understand that crime is bad and preaches them about whatever it is that they preach. Criminal stops crime. No crime means no need to solve. No need to solve obviously will mean no torturing of anyone for information.
Easy way to stop torturing of criminals won't you say. No criminal, no torture. Simple and perfect ain't it??
Yet the human rights activists prefer to preach their noble sermons to those who are already trying to control those criminals. My question is why don't they go and preach to the criminals?? Ain't that the ideal thing to do?? I just want a simple answer to this question.

Edited by souro - 15 years ago

Quote

Mahi

@-Mystery-

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 15 years ago

#16

Originally posted by: souro

Yes and we could have some more, till the time one of us proved the other wrong. 😛

That will never happen because opinions are never right and wrong. What I believe is right and I'll believe in it and what you believe is right for you and you believe in that. How can we ever prove each other wrong? THat was my point entirely. We'll always stick to our opinions regardless. Very few debates actually end up changing a party's mind about something... but especially not if someone feels too strongly about something like I do about this and I'm sure you do as well.

Quote

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 15 years ago

#17

Originally posted by: -Mystery-

Can you prove it's always true? And I'm talking about facts. I can't type up all the records, but historically it is true that most of the times information gained during torture is incorrect.

You're the one who claimed that information given under duress is almost always false. So, the onus is on you to prove it, not on me. For my side all I can say is that if a criminal is arrested then with the help of information gathered from him a crime is solved faster compared to crimes where noone is arrested.

Originally posted by: -Mystery-
The point is that THAT something else is not soooo disturbing and ruining like capital punishment and torture. I agree, if there are more chances than not that the person is a criminal then he/she should be locked up so no other person is hurt. But capital punishment and/or torture is never needed. I'm not saying let them go and commit more crimes. What I'm saying is that whenever there's a slight chance that someone's not guilty then they shouldn't suffer especially not from torture that destroys entire personalities and many times people can never be the same.

They can mastermind crimes in the lock up also. His band of brothers can hold someone to ransom to demand his freedom. And these things happen.

And I don't see any relation between torture and capital punishment. Torture is used to extract information and capital punishment to punish someone for his offences.

Originally posted by: -Mystery-
Right, but you are comparing such a trivial thing as a job to capital punishment and torture? Really? Those are small things in life and who cares if you don't get this job. I mean yeah you do and you will be disappointed for a while but life moves on! You'll probably get another job. But after torture and capital punishment, there is NO life to move on with.

Yes capital punishment is a far bigger issue and that's why each and every aspect is clarified before awarding it. Even if there is a small doubt, capital punishment is not awarded.

Originally posted by: -Mystery-
I'm not avoiding your question, you're just not being able to get my point. If a criminal has really done something like using torture then it's obvious that they are not humans anymore... or at least they lack humanity, and in that case there is no point in preaching to them. The reason why the human rights activists bother to preach others is that they hope that there is still some humanity left in them. And again back to my point that if we really stoop to their level, then what's the difference.

So, essentially what you're saying is that the human rights people don't have the courage to face the criminals. And on top of that the human rights people also don't want those who have the courage, i.e. the police, to handle things their (the police's) way. A coward advising someone is not very acceptable in my opinion.

Originally posted by: -Mystery-
Another reason I'm against torture is the fact that it also dehumanizes the people who are inflicting the torture. It kills something in them, most often than not these people have nervous breakdowns OR they just end up not caring about it and actually start enjoying the torturing as a way to prove they have power over others. I can't decide which is worse. Now, I'm sure you would want an example. If you want you can go look at the records of the German army before World War II. They started out as killing people by shooting. So each soldier would be asked to shoot a hundred so people everyday with ideally a single bullet. They started noticing that most of these soldiers were having seriously mental issues. Which is why they ended up with the gas chambers.

-Mahi

Nazis used to kill innocent people. You can't compare them with people who are trying to stop criminals from commiting crimes or trying to bring them to justice those who have committed a crime.

According to your logic even locking someone up is actually stooping to the levels of criminals as that also involves mental torture because it involves taking away someone's freedom. But the fact remains that there has to be a mechanism in place by which we should be able to prevent crime or deliver justice. And for that we should be able to lock criminals up and force them to give up information. Force needs to be dealt with force, that's a simple truth. Noone can counter brute force with sermons of peace. It is not stooping to their level as stooping to their level would require that the police should also kill and exploit innocent people, but on the contrary the police are trying to safeguard the interest of the common people. In simple terms it is just making the criminals understand in the language that they understand best.

Edited by souro - 15 years ago

Quote

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 15 years ago

#18

Originally posted by: -Mystery-
Aren't you also claiming that by the means of torture the information should be gathered? Then until you have enough proof that information is true how can you use torture?

I already supported my argument in the previous post. I said 'if a criminal is arrested then with the help of information gathered from him a crime is solved faster compared to crimes where noone is arrested'. But you haven't proved what you claimed - information given under duress is almost always false.

Originally posted by: -Mystery-
Yeah for some reason, capital punishment came into the discussion but the point remains the same.

Okk, then let's forget about capital punishment for now and concentrate on torture.

Originally posted by: -Mystery-
That's not true. Here for example I know that all the jury members need to agree if capital punishment will be given but when they discuss, each is so much influenced by others' opinions and sometimes even feel the pressure to give a certain decision.

I can't comment on what happens elsewhere. I was talking from the context of what happens in Indian courts.

Originally posted by: -Mystery-
Where does courage come in all this? My point is that someone who does something like this lacks humanity and how can you talk about human rights to people who lack humanity? Where does courage come in this picture?

So, you are saying that because the criminals lack humanity so humanitarian issues shouldn't be preached to them. Then how do you expect to control with humanity those same people who lack humanity. You yourself are saying that humanity won't have any effect on them, then why waste it on them while trying to control them??
And if the human rights people are so corageous and feel that criminals can be controlled with humanity then why don't they themselves give it a try?? Why not get involved directly instead of preaching to innocents or waving placards?? Not getting their hands dirty and preaching from the sidelines doesn't speak of much courage.

Originally posted by: -Mystery-
Again you're comparing two totally different things. As I said before as a reply to your point that yes in life we have to make decisions and mostly the results are not as drastic as this. Yes, you have to lock up people, sometimes even when their crime is not proven to prevent any crime that could happen. But the effects of torture are far worse. When you're prove not guilty, you are let go. But when a person is actually proven innocent after torture then there remains nothing that was there before. It completely destroys the person.

All I'm saying is that whenever there's a chance of an innocent having to go through such drastic technique, we shouldn't use it. The countries who don't use torture do extract information from criminals as well and they seem to be doing just fine. I don't know their strategies since I'm not in the police force. To me, torture seems like an easy way out. Torture people, make them sign anything you want to sigh and there you go. Done, time to go home and have a wonderful meal.

How was I comparing two different things?? After imprisonment a person lives and same with torture. In torture their is physical pain and also mental trauma to some extent. In imprisonment there is mental trauma and also some physical pain given by other prisoners and because of the harsh conditions. Quite similar as both causes mental & physical trauma. So, if you're against torture then you're against imprisonment too.

Quote

149722

Suspended

Posted: 15 years ago

#19

I haven't read all the posts in this topic, but my take on this issue is:

Being at the wrong place at the wrong time can make a criminal. In such circumstances, torture is too harsh a punishment and all criminals are 'innocent' until proven otherwise. Torture before a court trial should not be the usual way to go.

It follows that if you want to make a criminal confess, regardless of whether he has committed a crime or not, torture is the means.

I would like to refer to the case of many people who have been arrested illegally and kept without any charge and any trials at the court for as long as six years in the Guantanamo prison. This indeed says all about the abuse of power which will result, if torture is legalised.

But in special cases, where there is irrevocable proof against a terrorist and there is evidence of further danger to human life, torture might be the only attempt/chance the police will have to prevent that tragedy. Use of torture to get a criminal confess his acts or divulge further information about his accomplices are futile efforts.

Quote

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 15 years ago

#20

Originally posted by: Ms.Pooji
Use of torture to get a criminal confess his acts or divulge further information about his accomplices are futile efforts.

Strangely that is exactly how they open up. Haven't heard of any criminal giving up information after listening to a speech on humanity.