Should torture be legalized?

[Professur]

Universal Delaration of Human Rights

Article 5.

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

I'll start by saying that I've always found a universal declaration of human rights to be the biggest mistake the US ever made. How can you ever expect everyone to agree on what is cruel? Or degrading? Or just, for that matter.

As for a criminal's rights? By what measure of lunacy did anyone give a proven criminal rights? They've proven that they can't live within a society's rules. They forfeit the rights of the common , law abiding citizen, by their own actions.


As for Liberty Internation, and most of the other groups of that nature, personally, I think they should consider getting real jobs. Most of the people in those groups (that I've talked to) haven't a clue what they're actually protesting. They know the slogans and rants, but haven't the foggiest idea what they mean.












The WTO is meeting in Mtl this week. There was a riot and over 200 people arrested. Smashed windows, spray paint, and one poor sonofabitch had his porche smashed and graffitied. Can anyone tell me why people attending a protest against globalization (or any other protest, for that matter) are carrying clubs and cans of spray paint? Why are they smashing a MTL business's windows? Because, they haven't a fucking clue about what the action's about. They're rabble. Lowest human lifeform. Haven't a fucking clue that the meeting's being held this week are intended to help small poor nations compete on the world stage.

And these rabble are supposed to have the same rights as me? I don't think so, Tim.

 

[outside looking in]

If you act no better than the person who commits the crime what gives you the moral right to judge him?

Everything is relative. Is injecting someone with truth serum "no better" than kidnapping and burrying alive a child?

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.

Then I suppose I don't. I do not believe you have the right to hit me in the face. I don't believe you have the right to murder whomever you wish. Your rights have to be balanced against the rights of others. There is no universal set of rights granted to you alone, because you are not the only human on the planet. Each of your rights must be weighed against the rights of others. In this case, the right of a man not to be tortured would have to be weighed against the right of a child to live. If I had to make the choice, I have no doubt what it would be, and I also would feel perfectly reassured that I had in fact taken the "moral high ground."

What would happen if that person had been wrongly arrested? You would be torturing an innocent man.

Yes, and mistakes in our justice system happen. Innocent men are sent to prison, and even executed. Innocent men have thier reputations ruined. Those are things that must be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis to determine if some form of torture is warranted.

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.

Once again, the US constitution (and likely the same in many European countries) guaranties that information gained from the torture of an individual, and any related information gained from leads produced during that torture, are not admissible in a court of law to convict that person. If torture has occured, in any form, the confession is worthless.

Would you be happy to be held the the same high esteem as the chinese government, north korea, etc on human rights abuses?

Human rights abuse. Hmm. I suppose that depends on your point of view. When someone breaks into your house, points a gun at your family, and starts shooting, are you being morally decrepit and abusing his human rights if you fight back and injur or kill him?

The point is that exceptional cases will always exist (sorry ris, I don't buy the argument that "they are rare, so we shouldn't be concerned with them"). How a society conducts itself in those extraordinary cases is IMO one of the best indicators of just how "civilized" they really are.

 

[Aunty Em]

Once again, the US constitution (and likely the same in many European countries) guaranties that information gained from the torture of an individual, and any related information gained from leads produced during that torture, are not admissible in a court of law to convict that person. If torture has occured, in any form, the confession is worthless.

So on that basis what the hell is the point of torture except to allow you to satisfy your more sadistic tendencies?

 

[ris]

if we lived our lives and created laws based on extreme hypothetical scenarios then any notion of sensible democracy can be counted out. i see no reason to consider the legalisation of torture on what appears to be an unfounded hypothesis.

i could create a number of hypotheticals which could remove most civil rights and engender a police state in the interests of society and security. i would rather we relieved ourselves of unfounded paranoia and fear and instead entertain a more sensible and rational outlook.

 

[Gonz]

So on that basis what the hell is the point of torture except to allow you to satisfy your more sadistic tendencies?

To find the victim. To gather intelligence to prevent terrorism or other heinous crimes. To gather names of associates. To verify connections to other crimes.

Personally, I always thought the local PD should invade known drug houses, bust the occupants & destroy the drugs & paraphenalia. When the courts throw the case out, that's ok, the drugs are still gone.

 

[outside looking in]

So on that basis what the hell is the point of torture except to allow you to satisfy your more sadistic tendencies?

Um... to save lives? Have you read the thread?

 

[outside looking in]

if we lived our lives and created laws based on extreme hypothetical scenarios then any notion of sensible democracy can be counted out. i see no reason to consider the legalisation of torture on what appears to be an unfounded hypothesis.

Hypotheticals are a tool to illuminate whether a certain subject is completely black or white, or whether it contains shades of gray; in the latter case you then procede with the difficult task of drawing lines.

For example, take the simple ethical question "is it ever morally and ethically justifiable to kill another human." I'm sure many would like to just say "no" and be done with it. But let's examine a few obvious "hypotheticals," in order from less to more "extreme."

(1) A man breaks into your house and begins shooting at your wife/child/mother. You have a weapon nearby (gun, knife, big rock, etc.). Is using it to exchange the life of the intruder for your wife's/child's/mother's justified?

(2) A man opens fire in a crowded shopping mall. You are a policeman armed with a gun. Are you just in taking the life of the shooter to save numerous others?

(3) You're in the military, flying a fighter aircraft. A bomber is over the English Channel heading for London with the intent of dropping a nuke. Is it moral or ethical to shoot down the bomber?

If you answered yes to any of those, then the hypotheticals illustrated that "murder" isn't completely black and white, and you believe that there are some cases where it is justified. You then examine less and less extreme hypotheticals to determine where you personall draw the line (or perhaps legislators examine them to help decide where to draw the legal line).

And I have to wonder, for anyone reading that found it acceptable in some circumstances to take another's life, how could you not find it acceptable to in some circumstances torture another individual? What if you could have prevented the diasters in any of the above examples by hitting someone instead of shooting them, or perhaps even just by keeping them awake for a while?

How clear cut is the issue of torture now? If murder is acceptable in any of these circumstances (which, btw, are things that have and do happen with varying frequency), in just how much less "extreme" of a situation would some form of torture be accpetable?

I'd also like to point out here that in any of the examples given there is no conviction in a court of peers, no "proven guilty," just the overwhelming immediate evidence of the action. I could dream up a thousand such hypotheticals in which the comminting of some crime might be immediately obvious and the use of torture could help avoid a disaster. Many of those I'm sure would be things that have actually happened.

i could create a number of hypotheticals which could remove most civil rights and engender a police state in the interests of society and security. i would rather we relieved ourselves of unfounded paranoia and fear and instead entertain a more sensible and rational outlook.

So even though you might decide, through some introspection, that you believe torture to be justified in some cases you have no interest in deciding where that line should be drawn? You would rather it be outlaw across the board, including cases where it would do more good than harm? Would you also want murder to be outlawed across the board (thus losing the "right" to defend yourself even when your life is at stake)?

Personally, after admitting to myself that there are cases where torture is preferrable to the alternative, I prefer to do some serious thinking about just where that line should be drawn. Further, I'd like that line agreed on by the population and written into leglislation so that "extreme" cases are made legal by some process or another, since one goal of democracy (or republic) should be as much transparency of the actions of those we elect to serve as possible.