Guest MattP Posted 16 May 2014 Posted 16 May 2014 I'm sure those millions of pounds mean a great deal to the family of an innocent man taken away from them. They obviously do considering 99% of the time they take it. I know I wouldn't if offered it in a similar situation, I'd never be able to look myself in the mirror again.
Merging Cultures Posted 16 May 2014 Author Posted 16 May 2014 They obviously do considering 99% of the time they take it. I know I wouldn't if offered it in a similar situation, I'd never be able to look myself in the mirror again. Not taking it is not going to bring them back though. So, might as well take it and look after the rest of the family.
Guest MattP Posted 16 May 2014 Posted 16 May 2014 Not taking it is not going to bring them back though. So, might as well take it and look after the rest of the family. Course not but I still find the concept quite warped. The way the Japanese use blood money in their system for leniency on sentencing always struck me as rather sickening.
Merging Cultures Posted 16 May 2014 Author Posted 16 May 2014 Course not but I still find the concept quite warped. The way the Japanese use blood money in their system for leniency on sentencing always struck me as rather sickening. I understood it to be to pay off the family to prevent revenge attacks but I don't know enough about that to comment. I'll do some reading.
leicsmac Posted 16 May 2014 Posted 16 May 2014 You gave a pretty good account of why you never believe torture was justified, but you didn't answer the hypothetical question I raised. In that hypothetical situation I would use whatever method would be the most likely to reveal the correct information. I think usually psychological pressure in one form or another can get the job done before physical pain is resorted to. Believe me, the problem I have with physical torture is it's effectiveness, not the ethics of it. I agree, they will still feel loss and aggrieved. I would be sad to lose my family members. But good to see we are on the same page. I also am not fanatical about giving Governments and Intel communities information. Unfortunately, it just happens. Talking about this subject has probably got GCHQ scanning FT! I reckon Zing has got them scanning here long before this. Exactly, despite what people say about torture if you read a lot of military literature the "I'd say anything to make them stop" is actually not really an argumment against it as it barely has happened. You aren't just released after it you know, the information would be checked and probably acted upon and if you were found to be lying it would be even more unpleasent than what you had just received. In one of McNabs books he explains there comes a time when you realise someone doesn't know anything, the guys who do this probably know that more than we do, it's not like the movies. If a very specfic, totally verifiable timely fact (such as a location or a time) was the information to be extracted, then I'd agree with you. But it would be reasonably easy to make up a story that would either be unable to be verified or could not be verified until the information was out of date (such as the Boko Haram girls getting moved). Of course you'd then get the long handle for lying but if you believe in something enough being hidden to take the risk of being tortured over it in the first place I don't think that would matter to the person. Course not but I still find the concept quite warped. The way the Japanese use blood money in their system for leniency on sentencing always struck me as rather sickening. On this we totally agree. Of course I'd take the money, but I'd still feel resentment for the rest of my life. They actually use something of a blood money system over here still, but it is being used a lot less now due to that opposition. (Having to reply pretty rapidly here, apologies for the short replies).
Feed The Yak!! Posted 16 May 2014 Posted 16 May 2014 Check David Guiza's post. You seem to have escalated it to the Government now killing people 'just in case'. I am not suggesting the Government goes around killing people for the fun of it! They had reasonable cause, based on the information they had, to shoot De Menezes. It later came out that he was innocent. It would be the same situation for justifying torture to extract information. They would have to act on the best information they had. That information might turn out incorrect in the future, but how do you measure that risk? We are all in the public domain, we are not going to have a case of mistaken identity, or at least we are less likely to be the one in many many million case. If he was innocent then no, they didn't have reasonable cause to shoot him.
Houdini Logic Posted 16 May 2014 Posted 16 May 2014 The opening question is in itself flawed and I do agree that in the right situation we'd all condone some form of torture whether we admit it or not. The more difficult question is if torture were legal, how could you police it and where would you draw a line? I imagine it's this question that's making the 'soppy liberals' not even want to think about whether torture should be legal/'justified'
Dr The Singh Posted 17 May 2014 Posted 17 May 2014 In that hypothetical situation I would use whatever method would be the most likely to reveal the correct information. I think usually psychological pressure in one form or another can get the job done before physical pain is resorted to. Believe me, the problem I have with physical torture is it's effectiveness, not the ethics of it. I reckon Zing has got them scanning here long before this. If a very specfic, totally verifiable timely fact (such as a location or a time) was the information to be extracted, then I'd agree with you. But it would be reasonably easy to make up a story that would either be unable to be verified or could not be verified until the information was out of date (such as the Boko Haram girls getting moved). Of course you'd then get the long handle for lying but if you believe in something enough being hidden to take the risk of being tortured over it in the first place I don't think that would matter to the person. On this we totally agree. Of course I'd take the money, but I'd still feel resentment for the rest of my life. They actually use something of a blood money system over here still, but it is being used a lot less now due to that opposition. (Having to reply pretty rapidly here, apologies for the short replies). Certain forms are classified as torture. Way I see it, bad people, deserve bad things to happen to them!!
Dr The Singh Posted 17 May 2014 Posted 17 May 2014 Question is, is the torture of Dangerous Tiger, Boko Halal??
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 17 May 2014 Posted 17 May 2014 If my ex wife is being tortured then it's definately acceptable
Ghost Troop Posted 21 May 2014 Posted 21 May 2014 "War. Is. Shit. Anyone who says otherwise has never been in one."It is pretty amazing how humans can be such cvnts to each other at times.[/quote. Amen to that. Anyone who thinks war is anything other than a dirty, messy, brutal business deserves to be in one. As for totrure, yes when it makes a real difference, but its not an easy thing to do propely, try bribery first, if no go, get the information and worry about the consequences later.
Rincewind Posted 22 May 2014 Posted 22 May 2014 A combination of bribery and torture might work. 'Tell us what we want you know and we will let you wake up tomorrow with the same number of fingers than you have today.'
ozleicester Posted 30 May 2014 Posted 30 May 2014 http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/news-item/torture-in-2014-stories-of-modern-horror
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 30 May 2014 Posted 30 May 2014 Question is, is the torture of Dangerous Tiger, Boko Halal?? I get tortured enough on this site.
Dr The Singh Posted 30 May 2014 Posted 30 May 2014 I get tortured enough on this site.Mrs DT told me after our usual session that being with you is torture....let her go DT, she has had her penance!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.