Bobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 7 Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1055 times:
Some highly idealised - and very emotive - scenarios.
Yes, we capture somebody alive, somehow we're already certain that they have vital information about something that will kill many people (presumably you're not making a case for doing nasty things to every possible terrorist, after the fact, a la Guantanamo Bay), and we know that the only way to get this information is to force it out of them. How often does that happen?
Here are the results of an informal poll about a third, hypothetical, case. Suppose a terrorist group kidnapped a newborn baby from a hospital. I asked four mothers if they would approve of torturing kidnappers if that were necessary to get their own newborns back. All said yes, the most "liberal" adding that she would like to administer it herself.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1047 times:
Torture can have its place in extracting information like it is described in this article, but where do we set the limits and how do we enforce them?
Strict rules are needed to prevent a slide towards the use of torture to extract confessions like is the practice in many countries.
I see a better use for torture as a means of execution, replacing the lethal injections and gas chambers now in use.
Used judiciously and aired on public television it can be a magnificent deterrent.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1012 times:
Neither am I UFO... If executions were public and the criminals seen to suffer during them that might deter others from crime.
As it is it's too clean and invisible. "pour encourager les autres" as they used to say during the French revolution...
I'm all in favour of killing people the way they killed others.
Have drugsdealers injected with their entire supply of goods at once, serial killers strangled slowly over several hours, someone who killed others by burning their house with them inside be burned at the stake.
CrewChief32 From Germany, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 418 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 998 times:
What is so sick about showing torture broadcatss on TV?????
It`s most likely not more violent than the average "Thriller" or Horrofilm like "Scream" or "Hellraiser".......
And before you ask, hell yes, I wish we would have a justice system like Saudi Arabia here in Germany!
It makes me sick when you see how much they care about the criminals instead of their victims.........
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7898 posts, RR: 13 Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 992 times:
Torture (to stick to the topic) shown on TV. This indeed reminds me of Odai Hussein who probably enjoyed to watch bodies bending from electrical shocks while having some beer and a cigar.
No, you would not prevent potential murders from killing for fear of being tortured. The only result would be a brutalized public, thus leading to an increase in violence.
The death penalty in the U.S. (pardon this shift) exist, because people want revenge. There is hardly a politican or attorny left who believes in the deterrence of the death penalty. Same would go for torture.
Typically enough, you mentioned the French revolution, where people became more and more used to public executions and finally demanded to see more. The whole situation turned into a "panem et circensem"-thing which has had nothing to do with a proper legal system.
American_4275 From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 1076 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 902 times:
The author of this article did not say that torture should be used as a form of punishment. Instead, he said it was a way of minimizing the risk of "further evil". I think it's a good idea - I agree with a lot of what he said. However, as other people have mentioned, it seems that in such a case, the line would be thin. Where do we draw such a line without taking circumstance into consideration? Who makes such a decision?
Racko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4853 posts, RR: 20 Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 817 times:
Actually, there was a very similar case in Frankfurt last year. A guy had kidnapped a young boy, and was caught by the police, but without the boy. The police had evidence that made it 99,9% clear that he was the one who kidnapped the kid. However, at the police office, he refused to name the place were he has hidden the child. The vice police president of Frankfurt, assuming little Jakob was still alive, threatened the kidnapper to torture him, telling him that a fight-sport expert was on the way and would give him "incredible pain". Suddenly, the mouth of the kidnapper was wide open and he disclosed the place. It turned out that he had already killed the boy. The policeman later said that he was fully aware that this could mean the end of his career.
The murderer has recently been sentenced to prison for lifetime.