Should torture be legalized?

i fail to see how protection of citizens is exacted through state enacted torture. if we are talking about the death penalty then that is another entire debate.
 
I'd say that even just posing the question goes to prove what a barbarous bunch of savages we really are, and that so called "civilisation" is just a thin veneer that attempts to hide the fact.

No doubt you see it differently.
 
I'd say that even just posing the question goes to prove what a barbarous bunch of savages we really are, and that so called "civilisation" is just a thin veneer that attempts to hide the fact.

No doubt you see it differently.
Click to expand...
No ma'am, that's exactly how I see it. There are civilised people, but they are rare indeed.
 
ris said:
i fail to see how protection of citizens is exacted through state enacted torture. if we are talking about the death penalty then that is another entire debate.
Click to expand...


ris my point was that whoever is an immediate threat to society should feel the pain they cause. punish them. make them afraid to recommit crimes like that. its a deterrent. sorry if my words werent exact but that was what I was getting at
 
i would be concerned when the justice we apply becomes nothing more than retributionary acts violence. aunty's view of a savage society starts becoming a further reality.

there are many civilisations past and present that employ acts of retributionary violence such as that under their justice systems, i'm not sure it necessarily results in a greatly reduced crime rate.
 
ris said:
i fail to see how protection of citizens is exacted through state enacted torture. if we are talking about the death penalty then that is another entire debate.
Click to expand...

Erm, perhaps you didn't read my posts in this thread closely enough. I'm asking about torture as a means of gathering vital information, which can certainly be used for the protection of citizens. You seem to be addressing torture as punishment, which is another subject entirely to me (though others in this thread are obviously talking about torture as punishment as well).
 
Aunty Em said:
I'd say that even just posing the question goes to prove what a barbarous bunch of savages we really are, and that so called "civilisation" is just a thin veneer that attempts to hide the fact.

No doubt you see it differently.
Click to expand...

Easy to take cheap shots at someone, isn't it. :rolleyes:

Why don't you respond to the questions about the hypothetical kidnapping case? Who is more barbaric... the person who respects the "rights" of the kidnapper to not be tortured, or the person who respects the "rights" of the child to live?

No, it's not an easy question to answer, but it is a valid one - and I don't think the recognition that extrordinary circumstances sometimes exist is an indication of a thinly veiled barbarism.
 
outside looking in said:
Erm, perhaps you didn't read my posts in this thread closely enough. I'm asking about torture as a means of gathering vital information, which can certainly be used for the protection of citizens. You seem to be addressing torture as punishment, which is another subject entirely to me (though others in this thread are obviously talking about torture as punishment as well).
Click to expand...

i posted a response to the original question further up:

i see no reason for torture if we are the civilised and just society we claim we are.
Click to expand...

either we stand the moral high ground and act in the proper manner we expect of others or we are bound to fail. a hypothetical question such as that must be weighed up with the reality of such situations arising and the possibility for abuse of such law if brought into reality. it in effect is its own nonsense - using hypothetical situations arguments for police states and curfews can make perfect sense, when in reality the situations are extremely implausible.

the part you quoted was directly a response to those who had referred to it as punishment, although i did refer to that previously too.
 
As far as I can tell, being civilized means standing on the moral high ground while still doing many of those "barbaric" things in the background, out of sight. Oh, and if you get caught, lie or blame it on someone else.

Just a personal observation of some things that I no longer have the energy to try to change.:shrug:

Edit: duh, oops! :tardbang:
 
outside looking in said:
Easy to take cheap shots at someone, isn't it. :rolleyes:

Why don't you respond to the questions about the hypothetical kidnapping case? Who is more barbaric... the person who respects the "rights" of the kidnapper to not be tortured, or the person who respects the "rights" of the child to live?

No, it's not an easy question to answer, but it is a valid one - and I don't think the recognition that extrordinary circumstances sometimes exist is an indication of a thinly veiled barbarism.
Click to expand...
If you act no better than the person who commits the crime what gives you the moral right to judge him? The kidnap is irrelevant, either you believe in the principle of universal human rights, one of which is the right not to be tortured, or you don't. What would happen if that person had been wrongly arrested? You would be torturing an innocent man.

How would you feel if you were arrested for something you had no part in and were tortured for information... many false confessions are made simply to end the torture.

Would you be happy to be held the the same high esteem as the chinese government, north korea, etc on human rights abuses?
 
chcr said:
As far as I can tell, being civilized means standing on the moral high ground while still doing many of those "barbaric" things in the background, out of site. Oh, and if you get caught, lie or blame it on someone else.

Just a personal observation of some things that I no longer have the energy to try to change.:shrug:
Click to expand...

A civilised society is what some of us aspire to, unfortunately human nature often gets in the way.
 
i say again torture the guilty the criminals for their crimes not for info. i dont think anyone should be tortured just for information.
 
Universal Delaration of Human Rights

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say anything about "except if you've commited a particular crime". Either you apply it universally or the next time you're pulled for speeding and I (the cop) need to clear up a few burglaries, etc. I can take you in a room somewhere and kick shit out of you until you confess to having committed them.

As a member of the UN The US Government is pledged to uphold these rights and has been for the last 50 years.

http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm
 
This is what I think aboout torture...

My gut instinct is as barbaric as the next persons in the right circumstances, but I will not allow my baser instincts to rule me. I'm an intelligent thinking human being and I don't support Liberty International for nothing. I will never agree to torture in any circumstances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top