Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Merging Cultures

Can torture be justified?

Recommended Posts

Posted

This really, there have been a number of cases where tortured people have said whatever the torturers wanted to hear, and I'm sure in doing so have implicated innocent people.

 

Can it ever be justified, of course, like justified murder, if you kill someone who is going to kill someone else, then it is justified. If you can prevent deaths of innocents, then it can be justified.

 

In the case Matt described above though, trying to extract information about the whereabouts of the kidnapped girls, if you know he has information, then you would try any means possible, whether physical torture would be the most effective, or mental torture, sleep deprivation, torture doesn't always mean getting the hot poker out.

 

...but how would you know they knew? How could you justify the torture of an innocent man on a suspicion?

 

What if the same situation as described by Matt, but you have 2 suspects, you know one of them knows where the girls are, but you don't know which one, can you torture both of them? What about 5 men? 10? 100?

 

That's where the intelligence communities come in. Even in dodgy areas like North Nigeria, information can be gathered.

Posted

This really, there have been a number of cases where tortured people have said whatever the torturers wanted to hear, and I'm sure in doing so have implicated innocent people.

Can it ever be justified, of course, like justified murder, if you kill someone who is going to kill someone else, then it is justified. If you can prevent deaths of innocents, then it can be justified.

In the case Matt described above though, trying to extract information about the whereabouts of the kidnapped girls, if you know he has information, then you would try any means possible, whether physical torture would be the most effective, or mental torture, sleep deprivation, torture doesn't always mean getting the hot poker out.

...but how would you know they knew? How could you justify the torture of an innocent man on a suspicion?

What if the same situation as described by Matt, but you have 2 suspects, you know one of them knows where the girls are, but you don't know which one, can you torture both of them? What about torturing 5 innocent men before you get to the guilty one? 10? 100? 1000?

Theres quite an interesting psychology experiment in which this question is put to you:

You are a train driver hurtling along the track at 100mph, you cannot brake and have to switch track, down one end is a man who is tied to the track, down the other end is 5 men tied to the track.

The average man's answer is the first option right?

I think the principle is the same, but this time with torture, if you had to torture 1 guilty man to save 5 innocents, you probably would. If you had to torture 5 (possibly) guilty men to save 1 innocent, would you?

Posted

Only in extreme circumstances.

 

An example would have to be like someone had information about where a bomb was going to go off and probably kill numerous people and all other options of getting the information out of them have been exhausted.

 

I'd agree with that, but would add that the decision should be taken at a reasonably senior level - and there should be some accountability: i.e. if someone was wrongly tortured due to an honest mistake, they should be compensated, and if someone tortured a prisoner without justification, they should be severely punished.

 

 

I'd go a step further (probably on my own here) and allow torture as a punishment for the Ian Huntley's or Michael Adabalajo's of this world.

 

A hypothetical situation: a terrible miscarriage of justice has occurred (it happens) and a certain Mr. Dennis Nedry has been wrongfully convicted of a terrible crime. Should he then be tortured as further punishment?

 

 

What if the same situation as described by Matt, but you have 2 suspects, you know one of them knows where the girls are, but you don't know which one, can you torture both of them? What about torturing 5 innocent men before you get to the guilty one? 10? 100? 1000?

 

We're getting flippant and hypothetical here, but if innocent lives were at imminent risk, I think an evens bet (2 suspects) could be justified - save lives, torture an innocent man and compensate him afterwards? 5-1 would probably be a bridge too far, and certainly 10-1, 100-1 or 1000-1....but I'd be quite happy with them torturing 1000 if it was my sorry hide that was rescued!  :whistle:

Posted

Only in extreme circumstances.

An example would have to be like someone had information about where a bomb was going to go off and probably kill numerous people and all other options of getting the information out of them have been exhausted.

Have you beenwwatching that Samuel L Jackson film 'unthinkable' ? lol
Guest MattP
Posted

NO

Same question to you then I put to Ozleicester at the top.

Have you beenwwatching that Samuel L Jackson film 'unthinkable' ? lol

I haven't! It's a coincidence if my scenario is similar :)

Posted

in times of war I suppose you could. The aim should be to do whatever's necessary to make sure the war is as short as possible and results in as little loss of life on your side, if torture will achieve these then it is justified.

I do doubt how reliable the information you'll get from subjecting someone to physical pain is though. 

Posted

Only in extreme circumstances.

 

An example would have to be like someone had information about where a bomb was going to go off and probably kill numerous people and all other options of getting the information out of them have been exhausted.

Threaten them with a Kylie Minogue CD.

You'll have all the information you could ever want. And some made up stuff too, probably.

Posted

Threaten them with a Kylie Minogue CD.

You'll have all the information you could ever want. And some made up stuff too, probably.

 

You should be so lucky.

Posted

About time they developed truth drugs that worked, that would save all the liberals getting on their high horses. And if it didn't work then use torture

Posted

Explain why it is not OK to torture a fellow human being?

 

Now you're just stalling. Just explain your reasoning, that's all.

Posted

No. I'm not surprised while 30% of the UK population supports torture, more like 90% of FT seems to support it.

Posted

No. I'm not surprised while 30% of the UK population supports torture, more like 90% of FT seems to support it.

 

It's not black and white like that for many people. The people that don't have so far just said "No." Whereas the people that aren't in that camp have generally reasoned that they would in extreme circumstances where innocent lives are at risk.

 

So are you going to contribute or just make digs at people?

Posted

I've not made a dig at anyone. I don't believe torture can be justified.

 

Why not? You're not giving any explanation at all? Or is that literally it, you think it's completely wrong in every situation imaginable? Can I ask why you think (for example) a terrorist who is proven guilty of the murder of many innocent people and is arrested for planning more attacks should not be tortured for information?

 

I believe that it certain situations it is justified because innocent people could be killed by monsters but you seem to value their lives or your morals above and beyond anything. I'm interested why that's all.

Posted

 

We're getting flippant and hypothetical here, but if innocent lives were at imminent risk, I think an evens bet (2 suspects) could be justified - save lives, torture an innocent man and compensate him afterwards? 5-1 would probably be a bridge too far, and certainly 10-1, 100-1 or 1000-1....but I'd be quite happy with them torturing 1000 if it was my sorry hide that was rescued!  :whistle:

 

Hypothetical yes, flippant no, Torture one person to save 100, no brainer, torture one bad person to save one innocent person's life, most people would say it was justified, but how many innocent people can you justify torturing to save lives? you said an evens bet is ok, but how about torturing 3 people to save 9, good odds?

 

I think that using certain persuasive techniques is fine, but brutality and torture is very hard to justify, and the chance that an innocent person can be brutally tortured does not sit well with me.

Posted

I guess the almost negligible numbers of lives likely to be saved by torture is outweighed by the harm done to the victims of the torture and the harm done to the reputation of the country and organisations committing the torture.

 

I do think morals are worth keeping. In total war where the result is in the balance I think it easier to justify using torture, or bombing of civilians etc. A good example being the atomic bombing of Japan. However, we aren't even close to that sort of situation.

 

I don't believe in "monsters" either.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...