Torture: Is it ever OK? - Page 3

Created

Last reply

Replies

27

Views

4.2k

Users

6

Likes

10

Frequent Posters

149722 thumbnail
Posted: 15 years ago
#21
Does the end results justify the means?

That means, go through torturing every criminal even though he might be innocent, he might actually be a victim of circumstances. Being pressurised to confess crimes against torture will most likely make even the innocent confess his supposed crimes.

In normal circumstances, I don't think torture is okay.
-Mystery- thumbnail
17th Anniversary Thumbnail Stunner Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 15 years ago
#22

Originally posted by: Ms.Pooji

Does the end results justify the means?

That means, go through torturing every criminal even though he might be innocent, he might actually be a victim of circumstances. Being pressurised to confess crimes against torture will most likely make even the innocent confess his supposed crimes.

In normal circumstances, I don't think torture is okay.



Exactly, completely agree with you.

-Mahi
souro thumbnail
18th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 15 years ago
#23

Originally posted by: Ms.Pooji

Does the end results justify the means?

That means, go through torturing every criminal even though he might be innocent, he might actually be a victim of circumstances. Being pressurised to confess crimes against torture will most likely make even the innocent confess his supposed crimes.

In normal circumstances, I don't think torture is okay.


We don't live in Utopia, so whether End justifies the Means or vice versa depends on the situation. But yes mostly End justifies the Means.
And btw, people are not straight away tortured for information, at least it's not legal. Only if there is sufficient proof they are tortured. Usually they are interrogated first and only if it is found out that they are linked to the crime and are trying to hide facts are they tortured.

Edited by souro - 15 years ago
149722 thumbnail
Posted: 15 years ago
#24
Any kind of torture is not legal, according to international laws.

The accused may be linked to the crime by being at the wrong place at the wrong time. The police may think that the criminal is hiding facts, but actually he isn't.

As said before, there is really no regulation about violence/torture used by the police against criminals. Example given above: The Guantanamo prison which was used to torture some kind of people - not even all accused. What is more baffling is that it still being done officially. [Still waiting for Obama to fulfill his promise of closing it down]

There have been also deaths in prisons following torture of some criminals. There are some examples which I found through google in Angola but two specific examples in the last ten years in Mauritius.
Kaya, a singer, having participated in an anti-government rally and accused of having drugs in his possession [only marijuana, which is even legal in some countries] was killed through police torture in prison.
http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2008/02/21/kaya-died-9-years-ago-but-his-songs-are-still-here/
I can't find a link for this case but still I am mentioning it: A person (Rajesh Ramlagun) is arrested in the case of the murder of two women at some village. Note that there are also other suspects which are imprisoned at the same time. They are all tortured. Rajesh Ramlagun doesn't sustain to his inuries/physical abuse and passes away.

The wives of Kaya and Rajesh Ramlagun obtained huge compensations from the government when they sued the latter, but can the worth of a life be expressed in monetary terms? I don't really think it is okay to torture criminals... especially suspects who can turn out to be innocent afterwards.
Edited by Ms.Pooji - 15 years ago
xyler thumbnail
Posted: 15 years ago
#25
torture for me is for COWARD people and want to make a speedy investigation, they are not following rules....meaning people who have narrow mind..
souro thumbnail
18th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 15 years ago
#26

Originally posted by: xyler

torture for me is for COWARD people and want to make a speedy investigation, they are not following rules....meaning people who have narrow mind..

Wanting a speedy investigation doesn't imply that the person is a coward. It implies a wish to deliver quick justice. Not caring about the investigation as long as police doesn't torture anyone is nothing noble either.
If for you the first scenario might be bad but at least it helps in delivering justice.
souro thumbnail
18th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 15 years ago
#27

Originally posted by: Ms.Pooji

Any kind of torture is not legal, according to international laws.

Is the international community ensuring that there ain't any terrorist attacks or murders happening?? If not, then let the countries handle their own problems in their own way. Let's not bring International laws in the debate because just because someone made a law doesn't make it correct.

The accused may be linked to the crime by being at the wrong place at the wrong time. The police may think that the criminal is hiding facts, but actually he isn't.
As I had said earlier, a person is not straight away tortured. First they are interrogated. Only if it is found out that they are lying (through inconsistencies in responses) or only if more eveidence is found linking the person to the crime, is the person tortured for more information.

As said before, there is really no regulation about violence/torture used by the police against criminals. Example given above: The Guantanamo prison which was used to torture some kind of people - not even all accused. What is more baffling is that it still being done officially. [Still waiting for Obama to fulfill his promise of closing it down]
What happens in that prison is the concern of the people of that country. Let them be the judge of that. Atleast I won't comment on something that I don't know half about.

There have been also deaths in prisons following torture of some criminals. There are some examples which I found through google in Angola but two specific examples in the last ten years in Mauritius.
Kaya, a singer, having participated in an anti-government rally and accused of having drugs in his possession [only marijuana, which is even legal in some countries] was killed through police torture in prison.
http://www.noulakaz.net/weblog/2008/02/21/kaya-died-9-years-ago-but-his-songs-are-still-here/
I can't find a link for this case but still I am mentioning it: A person (Rajesh Ramlagun) is arrested in the case of the murder of two women at some village. Note that there are also other suspects which are imprisoned at the same time. They are all tortured. Rajesh Ramlagun doesn't sustain to his inuries/physical abuse and passes away.

The wives of Kaya and Rajesh Ramlagun obtained huge compensations from the government when they sued the latter, but can the worth of a life be expressed in monetary terms? I don't really think it is okay to torture criminals... especially suspects who can turn out to be innocent afterwards.
So, you come up with two cases in 10 years where two people died in custody. Maybe, you should search for how many cases goes unsolved where police find it difficult to solve a case because of such restrictions placed. Those people who were murdered, according to you their life is less valuable as you're not bothered about finding the real criminal and your only concern is that the noone even if they are related to the crime shouldn't be tortured for information.
Yes even a suspect shouldn't be tortured to an extent where s/he dies, but that doesn't mean cutting out torture altogether as a means to get information. There are other ways of torturing too where the life of the suspect is not put into danger.

Btw, you didn't reply to what I asked. How else do you propose to extract information??
149722 thumbnail
Posted: 15 years ago
#28
The lives of victims are not less valuable. They do deserve justice but not at the cost of torture for all suspects.

Confessions against torture are wrong because they can compel even innocent suspects to take the easy way out, not fight for themselves and simply accept what they will consider their "destiny" in conditions of extreme torture.

In normal circumstances, where the police suspects a person of a crime, they should not take the easy way out, but rather carry out more thorough investigations and keep an eye on the person they suspect.

If they have enough evidence that the person has committed the crime, present him before the court and get him imprisoned! What's the purpose of torture? And does it really hurt to keep questioning the criminal without having to beat him black and blue. Psychologically, the criminal will weaken and if he is guilty, he may even denounce his accomplices.

I am for torture only when there is imminent danger to human life, without irrevocable proof against the person concerned.

Related Topics

Top

Stay Connected with IndiaForums!

Be the first to know about the latest news, updates, and exclusive content.

Add to Home Screen!

Install this web app on your iPhone for the best experience. It's easy, just tap and then "Add to Home Screen".