Can torture be justified?

[Guest MattP]

torture one bad person to save one innocent person's life, most people would say it was justified

Most? Surely all?

Why kind of an evil warped person would allow an innocent person to die just so they didn't torture an evil one?

Some sections of society are beyond weird.

[foxfanazer]

I'm undecided on the matter but the one point I wonder is how can a state/country implement laws against murder and violence and then commit such violent acts themselves.

It opens too much room for justification for my liking. That being said if it was someone dear to me being affected I might change my stance on this

[lcfc1994]

Most? Surely all?

Why kind of an evil warped person would allow an innocent person to die just so they didn't torture an evil one?

Some sections of society are beyond weird.

Thing Is, I think most people would struggle although in hindsight they say they would be able to do it. When you think of an 'evil' person, you imagine them to look like they're a nasty piece of work. When in fact, age, sex, appearance and race would all contribute to whether someone could torture them. That being said, I reckon most men would struggle to torture an innocent and attractive looking woman, whatever she may have done or as evil as she may be.

[Guest MattP]

Speak for yourself mate you wanna see some of the stuff I wank over.

[DennisNedry]

I think the film Taken is a good example (yes, I know it's fictional) of when torture is necessary (and very satisfying!)

[ozleicester]

What is the acceptable level?

 

you can torture 1 to save 100...ok?

you can torture 10 to save 30..ok?

you can torture 100 to save 100..ok?

you can torture 100 to save 1...ok?

[Guest]

What is the acceptable level?

 

you can torture 1 to save 100...ok?

you can torture 10 to save 30..ok?

you can torture 100 to save 100..ok?

you can torture 100 to save 1...ok?

 

Trying to put finite numbers on what is and isn't acceptable without detailing a circumstance is pretty difficult for people to say one way or another I'd imagine.

[johnny the fox]

I've asked many Cov fans.. they are experts on this...they are still not sure..

[Rincewind]

I think the film Taken is a good example (yes, I know it's fictional) of when torture is necessary (and very satisfying!)

That is what I find wrong. Saying it is justified then getting pleasure from inflicting pain on another. When it is personal it is not justice but revenge. Two entirely different words.

Don't get me wrong if anything happened to any of my family members I would want retribution but it would not make it right.

[MPH]

You should be so lucky.

 

 

Better the devil you know!

[Alf Bentley]

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.

 

I agree that torture is very hard to justify. It should be avoided if alternative methods exist. It should only be used in extreme cases: e.g. where innocent lives depend on it. Any decision to use torture should be taken at the highest possible level and be subject to legal accountability: innocent torture victims should be compensated and abusers should be punished.

 

There would be multiple factors in any decision over using torture in extreme circumstances. How confident are you that lives are at stake? How confident are you that one or more of the people who might be tortured has information that would allow lives to be saved - and that you could obtain that information? Do you have alternatives? Do you have time?

 

If 1 of 3 people in custody almost certainly had information that would almost certainly save 9 lives, and there were no alternative means of saving them, then torture of those 3 people subject to accountability would be justified. It would gradually become less justifiable if it required the torture of more innocent people, if there was a lesser likelihood of those people having/providing the vital information or a lesser likelihood of lives being at stake.

 

I'll turn the rhetorical question round on you: would you be prepared to see 9 innocent people die in order to avoid soiling your personal morality by torturing 3 people, 1 of whom would have provided information to save them?

 

Years ago, I was doing a French drama course featuring an existentialist Sartre play. One character said "Il faut plonger les mains dans le merde et le sang" ("You need to plunge your hands in the blood and the shit"); essentially meaning that "the ends justify the means". The reader was supposed to disapprove of this and to believe that each individual should establish their moral essence by acting in a moral way. I took the opposite view and agreed with the sentiment that sometimes (only when necessary) you have to make dirty compromises in the general interest, even if they diminish you personally....provided that you take such decisions responsibly and accept that you'll be held accountable by society.

[Alf Bentley]

What is the acceptable level?

 

you can torture 1 to save 100...ok?

you can torture 10 to save 30..ok?

you can torture 100 to save 100..ok?

you can torture 100 to save 1...ok?

 

I've given my view in my response to Captain Pancake Face, but what's your view?

 

Is your personal morality worth so much more than other people's lives that you'd stand by and watch 1, 30 or 100 innocent people die rather than soil your hands by torturing 1, 10 or 100 people?

[Rincewind]

If it was your son or daughter being torture would you agree to it?

Maybe i was hasty with my  reply but I agree with Alf somewhat. I could not do it myself though so so how could I let someone else do it for me?

[Guest MattP]

If it was your son or daughter being torture would you agree to it?

Maybe i was hasty with my  reply but I agree with Alf somewhat. I could not do it myself though so so how could I let someone else do it for me?

 

If my son or daughter had information that was going to cause misery or death to untold amount of innocent people and they would allow that to happen of course I would torture them to get it out, I'd do it myself if I had to.

 

I don't think I've ever seen such selfishness in a thread on here.

 

Would you feel proud you had defended your own evil so the innocent could suffer?

[Merging Cultures]

I've given my view in my response to Captain Pancake Face, but what's your view?

 

Is your personal morality worth so much more than other people's lives that you'd stand by and watch 1, 30 or 100 innocent people die rather than soil your hands by torturing 1, 10 or 100 people?

 

I think this is a great point. People who say that they could never justify torture are putting their moral high ground above the life of innocent people, which is immoral and selfish in my view.

 

If it was your son or daughter being torture would you agree to it?

Maybe i was hasty with my  reply but I agree with Alf somewhat. I could not do it myself though so so how could I let someone else do it for me?

 

If my son or daughter knew something that would save the lives of many others then yes, I think I would agree to it. For sure, I wouldn't like it.

[DennisNedry]

Maybe it should be reserved for the cocky sort of criminal who boasts about knowing vital information, such as the location of a bomb or when and where a mass murder is planned to take place. These sort of criminals often take great joy in mocking police investigators and having that feeling of power and importance. I definitely wouldn't object to horrible torture on these sorts to get them to talk.

 

As others have said, if the suspect genuinely has no knowledge of what you are after then torturing him would be unnecessarily cruel and probably lead to false information being given.

 

It's not black and white by any means. 

[ozleicester]

I've given my view in my response to Captain Pancake Face, but what's your view?

 

Is your personal morality worth so much more than other people's lives that you'd stand by and watch 1, 30 or 100 innocent people die rather than soil your hands by torturing 1, 10 or 100 people?

 

 

The effects of torture reach much further than just for the people involved in the event.

 

Many people here are referring to "retribution".... torture is "state approved or performed"  its not some guy beating another guy until the  "criminal" tells him what he wants to know.

 

The societal impact goes a whole lot further.. a society the approves torture  can create an enviroment that leads to an increase in antisocial and criminal behaviour as well as a reduction in economic results it has an overall negative result.

 

The effect on human rights and the rule of law is huge, basically, by approving of torture we are making the law irrelevant. which can possibly lead to the complete breakdown of our "normal" society, corruption and violence will increase, especially for the weakest and most vulnerable people in our society.

 

It will reduce the opportuntiy for all in society to openly discuss and express their opinions

 

Public supported violence will probably lead to an increase in violence, both private and state sponsored. It increases fear and distrust, handing more control of our lives over to governments.

 

The right to protest and defy governments will be reduced even further... all of these things will just alienate the weak (read, poor)... the final possible outcome is uprising and therefore yet more violence and danger to the whole of society and finally its the loss of human rights.... and we have already lost far too many of those.

[Guest MattP]

Problem with your explanation there is you have taken it upon yourself to automatically assume that the public have no common sense and are incapable of making a decision based on an individual case.

 

Despite your thinking if torture was used and it saved the Nigerian schoolgirls or stopped a bomb going off that killed hundreds whilst some people would be uncomfortable people wouldn't automatically start flocking to get these practices used as punishment, most moderate people understand sometimes you have no choice and thats what you do.

 

If a situation occured where you blocked the torture of someone because you believe the above and hundreds of being were going to die and I was your deputy I would take the moral decision to kill you as I believe it would be completely justified if numerous innocent lives depended on it.

[Merging Cultures]

The effects of torture reach much further than just for the people involved in the event.

 

Many people here are referring to "retribution".... torture is "state approved or performed"  its not some guy beating another guy until the  "criminal" tells him what he wants to know.

 

The societal impact goes a whole lot further.. a society the approves torture  can create an enviroment that leads to an increase in antisocial and criminal behaviour as well as a reduction in economic results it has an overall negative result.

 

The effect on human rights and the rule of law is huge, basically, by approving of torture we are making the law irrelevant. which can possibly lead to the complete breakdown of our "normal" society, corruption and violence will increase, especially for the weakest and most vulnerable people in our society.

 

It will reduce the opportuntiy for all in society to openly discuss and express their opinions

 

Public supported violence will probably lead to an increase in violence, both private and state sponsored. It increases fear and distrust, handing more control of our lives over to governments.

 

The right to protest and defy governments will be reduced even further... all of these things will just alienate the weak (read, poor)... the final possible outcome is uprising and therefore yet more violence and danger to the whole of society and finally its the loss of human rights.... and we have already lost far too many of those.

 

I think in a dodgy country, some of the ones I've lived and worked in, then yes, the widespread use of torture can lead to all those things. However, I think we are applying it to the UK and saying in extreme cases it can be justified to better the majority.

 

I don't see the British Government bringing in torture to stop Rincewind from posting anti-government youtube videos, but it does happen across many parts of the world, and that should indeed be condemned. 

[Guest MattP]

I don't see the British Government bringing in torture to stop Rincewind from posting anti-government youtube videos, but it does happen across many parts of the world, and that should indeed be condemned. 

 

They wouldn't dare, Ken would start reciting his poetry back and I think he'd see off even the hardest soldier in the torture stakes.

[MPH]

Show them Kens contribution to the funny photos thread and you'll have all the information you need.

I just want to point out I think very highly of ken and mate if you ever think my banter goes too far please message me and let me know!

[Guest]

Show them Kens contribution to the funny photos thread and you'll have all the information you need.

I just want to point out I think very highly of ken and mate if you ever think my banter goes too far please message me and let me know!

But message him in free verse

[Captain...]

I agree that torture is very hard to justify. It should be avoided if alternative methods exist. It should only be used in extreme cases: e.g. where innocent lives depend on it. Any decision to use torture should be taken at the highest possible level and be subject to legal accountability: innocent torture victims should be compensated and abusers should be punished.

There would be multiple factors in any decision over using torture in extreme circumstances. How confident are you that lives are at stake? How confident are you that one or more of the people who might be tortured has information that would allow lives to be saved - and that you could obtain that information? Do you have alternatives? Do you have time?

If 1 of 3 people in custody almost certainly had information that would almost certainly save 9 lives, and there were no alternative means of saving them, then torture of those 3 people subject to accountability would be justified. It would gradually become less justifiable if it required the torture of more innocent people, if there was a lesser likelihood of those people having/providing the vital information or a lesser likelihood of lives being at stake.

I'll turn the rhetorical question round on you: would you be prepared to see 9 innocent people die in order to avoid soiling your personal morality by torturing 3 people, 1 of whom would have provided information to save them?

Years ago, I was doing a French drama course featuring an existentialist Sartre play. One character said "Il faut plonger les mains dans le merde et le sang" ("You need to plunge your hands in the blood and the shit"); essentially meaning that "the ends justify the means". The reader was supposed to disapprove of this and to believe that each individual should establish their moral essence by acting in a moral way. I took the opposite view and agreed with the sentiment that sometimes (only when necessary) you have to make dirty co

mpromises in the general interest, even if they diminish you personally....provided that you take such decisions responsibly and accept that you'll be held accountable by society.

Would I let 9 people die to avoid torturing 3 people, 2 of which are innocent? If there was a guarantee of saving those people and the torture inflicted on the innocent could be suitably compensated and not, for example leave them physically disabled or mentally fvcked up, then no I wouldn't, but I can't imagine there ever being such a situation. Torture is never a guarantee of extracting accurate information and you can never guarantee they have the info you want. If you ask if it is justifiable to torture Bin Laden, or known active terrorists to save lives then yes I think it can be justified, but we have seen what it has lead to with Guantanamo Bay, where associates or family of terrorists are being detained and tortured when most likely they know nothing.

A suitable hypothetical would be this, a terrorist has kidnapped some school girls, you have a video showing them alive but he has threatened to kill them if his demands aren't met. The terrorist has family, mother and 3 brothers and you know he is providing money for them, so you know they are in contact, most likely one of them knows where the terrorist is, or knows how to find him.

They have the same beliefs as the terrorist and are possibly involved, but they could also have no information, or only be able to provide the name of their contact. There is also the risk that torturing his family could put his hostages lives at risk, or they could already be dead.

Would you torture them to find out? Or give in to his demands, which for the sake of argument is £100 million pounds, which could fund his terrorist cell for years and cause countless deaths? Or let the hostages die?

[Beliall]

toture is a very broad spectrum, electrocuting balls  or inserting things under fingernails might not be necessary when waterboarding (to me) seems more humane, amutating fingers could be a bit extreme, there are many methods, some worse than others. 

 

 

personally i would avoid things that mutilate the victim, other than that, play ball

[Alf Bentley]

The effects of torture reach much further than just for the people involved in the event.

 

Many people here are referring to "retribution".... torture is "state approved or performed"  its not some guy beating another guy until the  "criminal" tells him what he wants to know.

 

The societal impact goes a whole lot further.. a society the approves torture  can create an enviroment that leads to an increase in antisocial and criminal behaviour as well as a reduction in economic results it has an overall negative result.

 

The effect on human rights and the rule of law is huge, basically, by approving of torture we are making the law irrelevant. which can possibly lead to the complete breakdown of our "normal" society, corruption and violence will increase, especially for the weakest and most vulnerable people in our society.

 

It will reduce the opportuntiy for all in society to openly discuss and express their opinions

 

Public supported violence will probably lead to an increase in violence, both private and state sponsored. It increases fear and distrust, handing more control of our lives over to governments.

 

The right to protest and defy governments will be reduced even further... all of these things will just alienate the weak (read, poor)... the final possible outcome is uprising and therefore yet more violence and danger to the whole of society and finally its the loss of human rights.... and we have already lost far too many of those.

 

 

These seem to be potential consequences of a culture/regime where torture takes place as a matter of routine. I'd be absolutely opposed to that - as I would be to the use of torture for "retribution" or punishment. The case under discussion was an exceptional one, where innocent lives hypothetically depended on torture - and I've described the exceptional and highly qualified circumstances in which, regrettably, I'd see that as justifiable.

 

If, say, a captured Boko Haram fighter was tortured to prevent the murder of 100+ kidnapped schoolgirls, and that action was properly accounted for, I don't think that it would lead to the consequences that you suggest. In those circumstances, would you uphold the Boko Haram fighter's human rights and your own morality, and accept the death of those schoolgirls? I don't think such a purist stance is ultimately the moral choice - a dirty (but accountable) compromise is.

 

I'm not advocating the routine use of torture - it should be avoided wherever possible - but it wouldn't "make the law irrelevant" under the conditions I've described; on the contrary, it would be accountable under the law and would have to be justified by extreme circumstances. 

 

Captain Pancake's scenario is far too convoluted for my brain to deal with at this time of night! Re. ransoms, while I would doubtless want the ransom paid if it was my loved ones involved, in theory I absolutely support the traditional stance of not giving in to the demands of kidnappers so as not to perpetuate the cycle and fuel further attacks. Certain negotiations and compromises might be possible, provided they didn't reward or encourage terrorism.

 

Under the specific scenario CPF describes, I'd have thought that there would be other means of persuading, pressurising or tricking the relatives into providing the information required; if not, then as before it would depend on various factors whether torture might be admissible - if the kidnapped girls were almost certainly alive but would almost certainly be killed, and if you were likely to get information that would allow you to rescue them, then torture might well be justifiable.