Is there anything a person can do to justify torture?

[Puppycow]

Is there any act or series of acts that a person can do that would justify torturing that person as punishment?

For example, if that person himself tortured and then murdered dozens of innocent children, and this was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, would that not justify him being tortured as a punishment for his crime?

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Is there any act or series of acts that a person can do that would justify torturing that person as punishment?

For example, if that person himself tortured and then murdered dozens of innocent children, and this was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, would that not justify him being tortured as a punishment for his crime?

No, but convincing people not to torture themselves over their own lost opportunities and the choices they wish they could revisit is something not easily, if ever actually, accomplished, especially if we are forced to acknowledge their own independent freewill decisions to persist in that state.

[Tricky]

For almost any situation, there can be a case made. For example, if you knew for certain that a person had information that a nuclear bomb was about to be detonated in an urban area, but you didn't know where, you would be justified in trying to torture the information out of the person. Millions of lives are worth more than one person's civil rights. But of course, you'd have to know for certain, so this is a hypothetical situation.

But as punishment? No, I can't see any reason for torture. The only kinds of punishment should be for rehabilitation and to protect the public, though I am on record as saying that the "death penalty" is sometimes warranted when neither of these goals is clearly acheivable. But I wouldn't torture them to death even then.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Is there any act or series of acts that a person can do that would justify torturing that person as punishment?

Never
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_a...ual_punishment

Quote:

Cruel and unusual punishment is a phrase describing criminal punishment which is considered unacceptable due to the suffering or humiliation it inflicts on the condemned person.

These exact words were first used in the English Bill of Rights in 1689, and later were also adopted by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1787) and the British Slavery Amelioration Act (1798).

Very similar words ('No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment') appear in Article Five of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (A/RES/217, December 10, 1948). The right, under a different formulation ('No one shall be subjected to [...] inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.') is found in Article Three of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950). The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) also contains this fundamental right in section 12 and it is to be found again in Article Four (quoting the European Convention verbatim) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000). It is also found in Article 16 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Is there any act or series of acts that a person can do that would justify torturing that person as punishment?

A perfectly just punishment is equal to the crime committed. (If the punishment is more severe than the crime, then the legislation is partial against criminals, and if the punishment is less severe than the crime, then the legislation is partial in favour of criminals.)

If a person has tortured others, then it is a perfectly just punishment to torture the person equally as he had done to others.

Many people and legislations are against such punishments. They choose to hold something else than perfect justice as their highest priority in legislation and punishment policies. Interestingly, Hollywood movies cater sweet and cruel revenge and justice to people, while politicians cater very different principles of what-remains-of-justice to the same people, and people swallow these both with a great appetite.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Tricky

The only kinds of punishment should be for rehabilitation and to protect the public

So deterrence and/or justice are not sufficient reasons?

[nvidiot]

Deterrence? Punishing one to intimidate many? Doesn't sound like justice to me.

[Bob Blaylock]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

A perfectly just punishment is equal to the crime committed. (If the punishment is more severe than the crime, then the legislation is partial against criminals, and if the punishment is less severe than the crime, then the legislation is partial in favour of criminals.)

If a person has tortured others, then it is a perfectly just punishment to torture the person equally as he had done to others.

Many people and legislations are against such punishments. They choose to hold something else than perfect justice as their highest priority in legislation and punishment policies. Interestingly, Hollywood movies cater sweet and cruel revenge and justice to people, while politicians cater very different principles of what-remains-of-justice to the same people, and people swallow these both with a great appetite.

You said here what I wanted to say, but probably better than I would have said it. I see no problem at all with any punishment that is equal to the crime being punished.

We've become so “civilized” that when we put the very worst murderer to death, we are concerned that this be done as gently and humanely as possible, with the least suffering inflicted upon the criminal being executed. How often do you suppose it has ever been the case that the murderer showed any similar concern for his victim?

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

You said here what I wanted to say, but probably better than I would have said it. I see no problem at all with any punishment that is equal to the crime being punished.

We've become so “civilized” that when we put the very worst murderer to death, we are concerned that this be done as gently and humanely as possible, with the least suffering inflicted upon the criminal being executed. How often do you suppose it has ever been the case that the murderer showed any similar concern for his victim?

so you think a jump backwards 4000 years to Hammurabis "Eye for an eye" is required ?

really ?
I'm sorry, but you've learned nothing while civilised society has progressed around you

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

You said here what I wanted to say, but probably better than I would have said it. I see no problem at all with any punishment that is equal to the crime being punished.

We've become so “civilized” that when we put the very worst murderer to death, we are concerned that this be done as gently and humanely as possible, with the least suffering inflicted upon the criminal being executed. How often do you suppose it has ever been the case that the murderer showed any similar concern for his victim?

How many crimes and wrongs does it take to wipe the slate clean? Institutionalizing violence merely legitimatizes violence. It is hypocritical to make killing illegal and then kill those who violate that law.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Tricky

For almost any situation, there can be a case made. For example, if you knew for certain that a person had information that a nuclear bomb was about to be detonated in an urban area, but you didn't know where, you would be justified in trying to torture the information out of the person. Millions of lives are worth more than one person's civil rights. But of course, you'd have to know for certain, so this is a hypothetical situation.

But as punishment? No, I can't see any reason for torture. The only kinds of punishment should be for rehabilitation and to protect the public, though I am on record as saying that the "death penalty" is sometimes warranted when neither of these goals is clearly acheivable. But I wouldn't torture them to death even then.

Let's say in your hypothetical that after you torture a while he gives you an address and your bomb squad goes over and gets blown up by explosives placed there for just that purpose now you've lost time and your technicians.

The hidden premise in your hypothetical is that torture works and will produce reliable facts.

[The True Scotsman]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Is there any act or series of acts that a person can do that would justify torturing that person as punishment?

For example, if that person himself tortured and then murdered dozens of innocent children, and this was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, would that not justify him being tortured as a punishment for his crime?

Moral justification for actions in entirely based upon culture. Most people believe that torture as punishment is wrong, but that doesn't make them any more justified than someone who say it is right. If you want my personal view, I would disagree with the practice of torturing individuals as punishment, but I am not appealing to any supreme morality in my belief of such.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by tsig

Let's say in your hypothetical that after you torture a while he gives you an address and your bomb squad goes over and gets blown up by explosives placed there for just that purpose now you've lost time and your technicians.

Hypothetically. Well yanno, no great loss, they weren't very good bomb squad technicians were they

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

A perfectly just punishment is equal to the crime committed. (If the punishment is more severe than the crime, then the legislation is partial against criminals, and if the punishment is less severe than the crime, then the legislation is partial in favour of criminals.)

If a person has tortured others, then it is a perfectly just punishment to torture the person equally as he had done to others.

Many people and legislations are against such punishments. They choose to hold something else than perfect justice as their highest priority in legislation and punishment policies. Interestingly, Hollywood movies cater sweet and cruel revenge and justice to people, while politicians cater very different principles of what-remains-of-justice to the same people, and people swallow these both with a great appetite.

I am not unsympathetic to this POV. However, there are practical considerations. There will never be "perfect justice" in an imperfect world.

[Bob Blaylock]

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

How many crimes and wrongs does it take to wipe the slate clean? Institutionalizing violence merely legitimatizes violence. It is hypocritical to make killing illegal and then kill those who violate that law.

We put kidnappers in jail, don't we? Is this not equally “hypocritical”?

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

How many crimes and wrongs does it take to wipe the slate clean? Institutionalizing violence merely legitimatizes violence. It is hypocritical to make killing illegal and then kill those who violate that law.

Killing per se is not always illegal. It is illegal under certain circumstances.
Therefore, it is not hypocritical to kill murderers. Not every killing is a murder.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Killing per se is not always illegal. It is illegal under certain circumstances.
Therefore, it is not hypocritical to kill murderers. Not every killing is a murder.

The penalty for murder isn't always death,...the point still stands. If it is wrong to kill, then killing is wrong, and IMO, not something society should engage in. If we are quibbling over perspectives, rationalizations and conditionals, then these should never be worth a human life. When people kill other people, it is always wrong. That society is content to let some deal with that offense, guilt and self punishment without adding civil restriction and punishment on top of it, is an issue between society and its citizenry. A killing that isn't illegal is still wrong. If I choose to kill a person to save others, that is a choice I made and I must deal with the fact that I have taken a human life, regardless of society's assessment of my actions and motivations.

[phantomb]

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

It is hypocritical to make killing illegal and then kill those who violate that law.

It's also illegal to lock people up against their will, but we do that to criminals who break various laws (including that one) all the time. Is that hypocritical as well?

If you think of the law as an attempt to lay out some sort of objective moral code that applies to everyone then you'd be right, but I see the law as more of a set of pragmatic rules that we collectively set up in order to get a stable society with the personal protections and securities that we all want.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

The penalty for murder isn't always death,...the point still stands. If it is wrong to kill, then killing is wrong, and IMO, not something society should engage in. If we are quibbling over perspectives, rationalizations and conditionals, then these should never be worth a human life. When people kill other people, it is always wrong. That society is content to let some deal with that offense, guilt and self punishment without adding civil restriction and punishment on top of it, is an issue between society and its citizenry. A killing that isn't illegal is still wrong. If I choose to kill a person to save others, that is a choice I made and I must deal with the fact that I have taken a human life, regardless of society's assessment of my actions and motivations.

I disagree with your formulation. It is not always wrong to kill.
Do you think it is wrong to kill in self-defense or defense of the innocent?

[jiggeryqua]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

We've become so “civilized” that when we put the very worst murderer to death, we are concerned that this be done as gently and humanely as possible, with the least suffering inflicted upon the criminal being executed. How often do you suppose it has ever been the case that the murderer showed any similar concern for his victim?

I have no numbers for assisted suicide, the gentle and humane ending of a life as an alternative to continued suffering. 'More than once' - will that do?

Is 'an eye for an eye' one of those recurring arguments here, like the circumcision thread?

[I Am The Scum]

Puppycow, you haven't yet explained what the supposed goal is of torturing this bad person. Is it to cause him to suffer? If that's the case, then I would question why you feel he is deserving of punishment: Because he had the same goals as you?

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

How often do you suppose it has ever been the case that the murderer showed any similar concern for his victim?

How often do you suppose it has ever been the case that this argument has been the slightest bit relevant?

[Professor Yaffle]

If that's justice, I guess I don't care for it.

[Mirrorglass]

I think the entire concept of "perfect justice", or "deserving" punishment, or even "punishment" itself is nonsense. They are an integral part of most cultures, to be sure, and they're very likely an integral part of human nature. But still nonsense.

The logic behind punishment is basically that by inflicting pain on the criminal, somehow the original crime will be wiped away, or that a victim of a crime, for some reason, has the "right" to inflict similar pain on the criminal. But what on Earth is the use in that? The original crime won't go away - all a punishment does is cater to the sadistic desire for revenge that most of us unfortunately display.

Of course, deterrent is a whole another thing. It makes perfect sense to have harsh punishments in place for crimes, because that way people will have much less incentive to commit them - and it's clear it's in our common interest to make crimes as unappealing as possible. That's why it's perfectly sensible to punish criminals according to their crimes.

That also happens to be the reason why it's sensible to punish criminals humanely and attempt to rehabilitate them. After all, a rehabilitated prisoner is worth much more to the society than one incarcerated for life is. Death penalty is another matter, of course, but there are several reasons why it's also a bad idea, and not all of those are moral issues.

But wanting to kill, torture or imprison for life a criminal because "they deserve it" or because "justice demands it" is nothing but sadism, the primitive desire to destroy or subjugate anyone perceived as an enemy. It's archaic, it's disgusting, it's ineffective and it's illogical - yet otherwise logical and moral people still defend the practice.

Still, it is my hope that one day people will realize that a crime is not a crime when, and only when, it causes more good than it does harm. And, of course, that causing pain in itself is never "good", although it can sometimes be necessary.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Is there any act or series of acts that a person can do that would justify torturing that person as punishment?

In my view, absolutely and emphatically NO.

[brenn]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Is there any act or series of acts that a person can do that would justify torturing that person as punishment?

For example, if that person himself tortured and then murdered dozens of innocent children, and this was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, would that not justify him being tortured as a punishment for his crime?

Seems like just a personal opinion question. OK - yes, plenty of things justify torture. What kind of torture would depend on its purpose.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Tricky

For almost any situation, there can be a case made. For example, if you knew for certain that a person had information that a nuclear bomb was about to be detonated in an urban area, but you didn't know where, you would be justified in trying to torture the information out of the person. Millions of lives are worth more than one person's civil rights. But of course, you'd have to know for certain, so this is a hypothetical situation.

Even that example presupposes that torture is an effecctive way to extract information unknown to the questioner, which is far from proven. You would certainly be justified in using whatever was the most likely means of eliciting the information, however unethical in isolation that means might be, but there's no particularly good reason - as far as I'm aware - to believe that torture is that means.

Dave

[tsig]

Originally Posted by brenn

Seems like just a personal opinion question. OK - yes, plenty of things justify torture. What kind of torture would depend on its purpose.

What kind of things?

[brenn]

Originally Posted by tsig

What kind of things?

Assuming you are addresssing the "torture as punishment" theme, disregarding torture for other purposes, I'd say any crime that inflicts pain would justify at least equal pain in return.

[I Am The Scum]

Originally Posted by brenn

Assuming you are addresssing the "torture as punishment" theme, disregarding torture for other purposes, I'd say any crime that inflicts pain would justify at least equal pain in return.

Why?

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Is there any act or series of acts that a person can do that would justify torturing that person as punishment?

For example, if that person himself tortured and then murdered dozens of innocent children, and this was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, would that not justify him being tortured as a punishment for his crime?

No give him a trial and sentence to the maximum punishment. We have to be civilized even to the type of scum you just described.

Dennis Rader killed ten people including an 11 year old girl whom he hung while she was begging for her life and while she was choking to death he pulled her panties down. Does he deserve to be tortured? Well the system didn't do it but it wouldn't bother me if he got some of what he gave out at the hands of his fellow inmates.

In his case and in other cases like him we'll just have to satisfy ourselves that he is living in a closet sized cell for the rest of his worthless life. We're civilized and we can't torture him.

[jiggeryqua]

Originally Posted by brenn

Assuming you are addresssing the "torture as punishment" theme, disregarding torture for other purposes, I'd say any crime that inflicts pain would justify at least equal pain in return.

So long as you're sure to use metric units of pain on both sides (or both imperial, of course), since those conversion tables are never accurate.

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Is there any act or series of acts that a person can do that would justify torturing that person as punishment?

For example, if that person himself tortured and then murdered dozens of innocent children, and this was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, would that not justify him being tortured as a punishment for his crime?

them harmed should own you.


ie.. when i was a kid, if you stoled something from the store, the parent takes you back and makes the kid face the accounting directly, asking to be forgiven and often spending the day sweeping the floors with a sign on their back.

What few do not comprehend of being humbled is the lesson to themselves and to others.


Torture is not necessary but if the life wants to think it is cancer (of self) and continue being cancer, then cut it out.


compassion is not allowing monsters to continue as they harm others (children) who live their whole lives with that 'torture' (the experience of the event).


but if you really want to see the bad old nasty in action, then 'lies' or false witness, is the most prevelant 'torture' to mankind. They harm us all by sending us to a false direction of knowing (an experience).


as far as i can tell, the irresponsibility of human being to believe they can lie by choice, is about as cruel as anything that ever was 'created' by the words, mankind created.


i look at the dichotomy of freedom being so dear and the evil it enables.

can and able; conscious life

[LTC8K6]

Ahh...hypotheticals...

Okay. We have this fellow on film kidnapping a child, and we have this fellow on film burying the child alive in a small pine box. We are certain we have the right fellow. He is clearly visible on film committing the acts. However, the film does not tell us where the child has been buried. We can see what happened, who did it, and who the victim is, but we cannot determine where from the film.

We have captured the perp, the child is slowly dying in the pine box, and he won't talk.

Do you try torturing him? Will he give you the correct info, or just toy with you?

[Professor Yaffle]

The irony is that (IME) those that would condone this sort of eye for an eye punishment are also the ones who shriek the loudest when there is any hint of sharia law coming to their country.

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Ahh...hypotheticals...

Okay. We have this fellow on film kidnapping a child, and we have this fellow on film burying the child alive in a small pine box. We are certain we have the right fellow. He is clearly visible on film committing the acts. However, the film does not tell us where the child has been buried. We can see what happened, who did it, and who the victim is, but we cannot determine where from the film.

We have captured the perp, the child is slowly dying in the pine box, and he won't talk.

Do you try torturing him? Will he give you the correct info, or just toy with you?

start with a professional who can talk to folks capable of such cruelty, if that dont work, then give him to the family members to feed em to their dogs!

put that doggy eatin' scream on film and lets see how many think compassion means 'i can claim insantity'.


when people see what cruelty does to others, then each will be less cruel

until the population begins to understand liability to their own actions, then justice may seems cruel

but be certain; justice is right, when justice is done

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

The irony is that (IME) those that would condone this sort of eye for an eye punishment are also the ones who shriek the loudest when there is any hint of sharia law coming to their country.

sharia is religiously based.

i rather like the idea of each seeing it as if the damage was done to themselves.

ie... what if that was your kid in the box? (YOUR NEXT GENERATION).... Sure, ill let the pro do his part, if that dont work, then what i do, is my business and any within "community" should have the same right and know it.

[Professor Yaffle]

My only answer to the ticking time bomb case is to keep it illegal. If you are that sure, and it is that important, it would be worth breaking the law over, and suffering the punishment for it.

[Professor Yaffle]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

sharia is religiously based.

i rather like the idea of each seeing it as if the damage was done to themselves.

ie... what if that was your kid in the box? (YOUR NEXT GENERATION).... Sure, ill let the pro do his part, if that dont work, then what i do, is my business and any within "community" should have the same right and know it.

The torture as punishment idea is a completely seperate one from the ticking time bomb scenario, please don't conflate them.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

The irony is that (IME) those that would condone this sort of eye for an eye punishment are also the ones who shriek the loudest when there is any hint of sharia law coming to their country.

Blah what a non-argument. The problem with sharia is not "eye for eye" or "life for life", it is "life for sexual immorality", "life for sacrilege", "hand for stealing", "maximum 4 wives per husband, maximum 1 husband per wife", etc.

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

We're civilized and we can't torture him.

Good to have an authoritative definition of what "civilized" is, we can add it to our encyclopedia next to "holy" and "righteous".

A penny for your thoughts what USA is doing in Guantanamo, and by proxy in numerous other countries around the world.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

We put kidnappers in jail, don't we? Is this not equally “hypocritical”?

more ironic than hypocritical, but there is a big difference between depriving someone of their freedom for a limited time period, and killing a human being.