Torture: Is it ever OK?

Originally posted by: -Mystery-

Do you think it's ever OK to use torture? If yes, then under which circumstances?
Torture is perfectly acceptable when there is a genuine reason to believe that a person is witholding information related to some past or future crime.

The main argument given in favor of torture is usually to save lives... that if they can torture a person so he/she gives away the information that can save others' lives, then it's OK.  Do you think it is?
Yes it is. It's a case of greater good.

History has it that most of the information gained by torture is always useless because most people can't bear the pain for long.  They would sign on any statement, any accusation you bring on them just to make you stop torturing them.  So what's there to gain by torture?
History also shows that many crimes were averted or solved because the criminal broke down under duress and divulged some vital information.
Moreover, if we want to extract information from a criminal, what other options do we have. It's not as if that if we shower too much love, then he will have a change of heart and will come right out with everything that he did or was about to do.

Under this pretense, thousands of innocent people are tortured too.  The families of criminals are tortured to give away the information about a criminal when they even don't know where he/she is.
Torturing of innocent people is never right. But why bring innocents into the discussion. Just because a few police sometimes err and tortures an innocent person doesn't mean that the method of torturing to extract information itself becomes unacceptable.

Thousands of innocent people are tortured just because an office suspects that he/she might be involved with some crime.  What if one day you are one of the innocent people captured?
As I said innocent people should never be tortured. Before a person is pressed for further information, it should be clearly established that he has some information related to the case to begin with. Mere suspicion or hunch should never be the basis of torturing someone.

What if the tortures becomes a reason of vengeance for an otherwise innocent and normal citizen? If you have see "New York" you know what I'm talking about.
Haven't seen 'New York', so can't really comment on what was shown in it.

^^^ Yes, but when do you have a "genuine reason to believe that a person is withholding information."

Don't police always have a genuine reason????

History has more cases when nothing was gained from torture than something valuable was actually extracted.  So in these circumstances is it worthwhile?

People are tortured endlessly to 'gather information' but when do you for sure that the person has some information?  Countless instances have been recorded when the police knew 'for sure' that the person has some info. but in reality such was not the case.  So how can you justify torture?

Isn't it said that 10 guilty can be released so that not a single innocent person should be punished?

-Mahi
Edited by -Mystery- - 14 years ago

Originally posted by: -Mystery-

^^^ Yes, but when do you have a "genuine reason to believe that a person is withholding information."

Don't police always have a genuine reason????

History has more cases when nothing was gained from torture than something valuable was actually extracted.  So in these circumstances is it worthwhile?

People are tortured endlessly to 'gather information' but when do you for sure that the person has some information?  Countless instances have been recorded when the police knew 'for sure' that the person has some info. but in reality such was not the case.  So how can you justify torture?

Isn't it said that 10 guilty can be released so that not a single innocent person should be punished?

-Mahi

Genuine reason can be established from the evidences linked to that person. If the person is connected to a crime then obviously he'll know more about it.

@Red: When you speak of countless instances, I'll expect you to state some instances.
And moreover, as I said earlier, instances of illegal detention and torturing doesn't mean that the whole idea of torturing to gather information is bad. Torturing without a purpose or just for the sake of entertainment is bad. But torturing because the information from that one person can save several others, is perfectly fine.
Torturing might be an evil for you and for many others but it is a necessary evil. If it's so bad then atleast the people who are opposed to it should come forward with a better alternative to extract information.

Originally posted by: souro

Genuine reason can be established from the evidences linked to that person. If the person is connected to a crime then obviously he'll know more about it.

@Red: When you speak of countless instances, I'll expect you to state some instances.
And moreover, as I said earlier, instances of illegal detention and torturing doesn't mean that the whole idea of torturing to gather information is bad. Torturing without a purpose or just for the sake of entertainment is bad. But torturing because the information from that one person can save several others, is perfectly fine.
Torturing might be an evil for you and for many others but it is a necessary evil. If it's so bad then atleast the people who are opposed to it should come forward with a better alternative to extract information.

But even then how can you be so sure?  Some people are just paid or brainwashed to do a certain job.  And they don't know about who the real planners are.  They genuinely don't know.  Then just because someone has committed a crime, they know about the entire gang is not a good theory.

You said it yourself.  Illegal detention and torturing has happened especially the near past and without any reason.  The evidence was pretty much some names similarity to a criminal.  How is that a genuine reason to torture or even consider someone a criminal?

Just because we don't have a better way to extract information doesn't mean that we have to use the wrong way.  Two wrongs never make a right, at least not for me.  I guess it depends on idealogies and values of different people. 

Originally posted by: -Mystery-

But even then how can you be so sure?  Some people are just paid or brainwashed to do a certain job.  And they don't know about who the real planners are.  They genuinely don't know.  Then just because someone has committed a crime, they know about the entire gang is not a good theory.

Doesn't matter whether they were brainwashed into committing the crime. Fact still remains that if they were connected with the crime then they'll know something that the investigators don't. If they don't want to part with that information willingly then force must come into play.

Originally posted by: -Mystery-

You said it yourself.  Illegal detention and torturing has happened especially the near past and without any reason.  The evidence was pretty much some names similarity to a criminal.  How is that a genuine reason to torture or even consider someone a criminal?

I'm saying illegal detention or torturing shouldn't be used to proclaim that the whole idea of torturing criminals to extract information is useless and evil. Just because police can apprehend an innocent by mistake doesn't mean that we don't need the police force.

Originally posted by: -Mystery-

Just because we don't have a better way to extract information doesn't mean that we have to use the wrong way.  Two wrongs never make a right, at least not for me.  I guess it depends on idealogies and values of different people. 

I'm not talking about two wrongs. It is wrong in your opinion not for me. For me a person did something wrong, we want further information so we ask him nicely, he refuses, we tie him up and beat him real good and he sings about everything he knows. For me that's a quick and perfect solution. Nothing wrong in punishing a criminal or a criminal suspect.
Moreover, if you don't have a better solution in mind, then what do you expect that it doesn't matter whether we get any information out of that criminal or not?? Go on endlessly with the investigation when actually a few hits with the rod can move your investigation miles ahead??

Originally posted by: souro

Doesn't matter whether they were brainwashed into committing the crime. Fact still remains that if they were connected with the crime then they'll know something that the investigators don't. If they don't want to part with that information willingly then force must come into play.  It does matter however.  What's the point of beating someone to death when they don't even have the information?


I'm saying illegal detention or torturing shouldn't be used to proclaim that the whole idea of torturing criminals to extract information is useless and evil. Just because police can apprehend an innocent by mistake doesn't mean that we don't need the police force. Yes, but the point is that it's usually not by a mistake.  As long as torture is allowed to use, they use it on anyone.  A lot of times it's only about exerting your power on the other person.  It's not just about gathering the information.  In the history of Rome, they would always torture their slaves to get information.  None of the testimonies without torture would be accepted because the idea was that torture is needed to make them say the truth.  Obviously it backfired.  You mostly don't get correct information through torture.


I'm not talking about two wrongs. It is wrong in your opinion not for me. For me a person did something wrong, we want further information so we ask him nicely, he refuses, we tie him up and beat him real good and he sings about everything he knows. For me that's a quick and perfect solution. Nothing wrong in punishing a criminal or a criminal suspect.
Moreover, if you don't have a better solution in mind, then what do you expect that it doesn't matter whether we get any information out of that criminal or not?? Go on endlessly with the investigation when actually a few hits with the rod can move your investigation miles ahead??  Oh OK, you don't think torture is bad at all.  Well, in that case it's a whole new discussion.  My point is that a lot of times people will give away more and correct information by other means.  Giving them money? Or something like that.  Every person has a weakness and when we hit the right chord, we can get everything without beating them to death.  Torture is NOT just hitting a few times with a rod, it's a severe and harsh.  I was actually referring to torture when peoples' hands are severed, nails are pulled out, fingers are crushed and so on.

Originally posted by: -Mystery-

It does matter however.  What's the point of beating someone to death when they don't even have the information?

Torturing is not beating someone to death. Torturing is beating or applying whatever method to cause physical pain. And here we are talking about using that mean to make criminals divulge information. Where does death fit in here?? If the subject died then how can the information be collected. Maybe one or two will die accidentally, but then accidents happen in everything else in life, doesn't mean we go on a banning spree.

Originally posted by: -Mystery-

Yes, but the point is that it's usually not by a mistake.  As long as torture is allowed to use, they use it on anyone.  A lot of times it's only about exerting your power on the other person.  It's not just about gathering the information.  In the history of Rome, they would always torture their slaves to get information.  None of the testimonies without torture would be accepted because the idea was that torture is needed to make them say the truth.  Obviously it backfired.  You mostly don't get correct information through torture.

If it's not by mistake and someone is knowingly torturing someone just for the heck of it or to show power or whatever, then the person who is doing so himself is a criminal. We're talking about torturing used as a means to aid the law. System has always been in place to see to it that torturing of innocents doesn't take place. If that system is not strictly enforced then that's not the fault of the system or the method but rather of the society, the people.
And I'd like to draw your attention to another point. What makes you think that making it illegal to use torture even for the purpose of law is going to stop it?? The law won't use it and their investigation will not move ahead because a well fed comfy criminal just doesn't want to talk. But the people outside of the law will be free to use it as they are even now. At least we have a level playing field at present where, if the criminal plans to do some torturing then the police can come to know about that through some more torturing of their own. But what will happen if you tie the hands of police but give the criminals a free rein. Do as you want to, we're not gonna beat you, that's like the next best thing to an open invitation for anarchy.

Originally posted by: -Mystery-

Oh OK, you don't think torture is bad at all.  Well, in that case it's a whole new discussion.  My point is that a lot of times people will give away more and correct information by other means.  Giving them money? Or something like that.  Every person has a weakness and when we hit the right chord, we can get everything without beating them to death.  Torture is NOT just hitting a few times with a rod, it's a severe and harsh.  I was actually referring to torture when peoples' hands are severed, nails are pulled out, fingers are crushed and so on.

Let me ask you a question first. A guy stole your cell phone. You manage to grab the guy but you don't find the cell phone on him. Apparently he passed it off to his accomplice. So, according to what you just wrote, you'll ask the guy to give information about your cell phone and you will promise to pay him 100 bucks in return. I think they'll love to steal your cell phone even more in future.
Coming to the more severe form of torture that you mentioned, I don't see that happening. I have never heard of the police severing someone's arms or legs.

Originally posted by: souro

Torturing is not beating someone to death. Torturing is beating or applying whatever method to cause physical pain. And here we are talking about using that mean to make criminals divulge information. Where does death fit in here?? If the subject died then how can the information be collected. Maybe one or two will die accidentally, but then accidents happen in everything else in life, doesn't mean we go on a banning spree.

Die accidentally, that's a convenient way to put it that someone tortured someone too an extent that they died, but oh well that was accident!  I don't think accident justifies that.  Especially the crime of the person has not been proven in court.


If it's not by mistake and someone is knowingly torturing someone just for the heck of it or to show power or whatever, then the person who is doing so himself is a criminal. We're talking about torturing used as a means to aid the law. System has always been in place to see to it that torturing of innocents doesn't take place. If that system is not strictly enforced then that's not the fault of the system or the method but rather of the society, the people.
And I'd like to draw your attention to another point. What makes you think that making it illegal to use torture even for the purpose of law is going to stop it?? The law won't use it and their investigation will not move ahead because a well fed comfy criminal just doesn't want to talk. But the people outside of the law will be free to use it as they are even now. At least we have a level playing field at present where, if the criminal plans to do some torturing then the police can come to know about that through some more torturing of their own. But what will happen if you tie the hands of police but give the criminals a free rein. Do as you want to, we're not gonna beat you, that's like the next best thing to an open invitation for anarchy.

It does though.  A Lot of times just because someone is a suspect people are tortured.  That's not the correct way to think about it.  Innocent until proven guilty is the way.

The way you put it, it seems like if a person has killed someone, then the police has the right to kill him without a case or anything else?  Doesn't sound like a great idea to me.  Besides according to the international law, state sanctioned torture is illegal.  And most of the countries that still use torture have signed it.  Doesn't that sounds like hypocrisy?


Let me ask you a question first. A guy stole your cell phone. You manage to grab the guy but you don't find the cell phone on him. Apparently he passed it off to his accomplice. So, according to what you just wrote, you'll ask the guy to give information about your cell phone and you will promise to pay him 100 bucks in return. I think they'll love to steal your cell phone even more in future.
Coming to the more severe form of torture that you mentioned, I don't see that happening. I have never heard of the police severing someone's arms or legs.
A country that can spend billions of money on oil, materialistic things can do at least this much to save humanity.  A criminal is a criminal and we all go to their level then what's the point of a police?  And even the example you've given isn't relevant to using torture.  If he has stolen it fine, I'll try to get it back but by no means through a torture.

Originally posted by: -Mystery-

Die accidentally, that's a convenient way to put it that someone tortured someone too an extent that they died, but oh well that was accident!  I don't think accident justifies that.  Especially the crime of the person has not been proven in court.

As I said, in law torture is not used to kill someone. If someone dies, then it is unintentional, just an accident.

Originally posted by: -Mystery-

It does though.  A Lot of times just because someone is a suspect people are tortured.  That's not the correct way to think about it.  Innocent until proven guilty is the way.

They're suspected because there are strong evidences linked to them. Until and unless it's a conspiracy of some sort, people are not suspected randomly.

Originally posted by: -Mystery-

The way you put it, it seems like if a person has killed someone, then the police has the right to kill him without a case or anything else?  Doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

Where did I say that the police has the right to kill someone without a case?? But there is certainly nothing wrong in beating up a criminal or a criminal suspect to get more information.

Originally posted by: -Mystery-

Besides according to the international law, state sanctioned torture is illegal.  And most of the countries that still use torture have signed it.  Doesn't that sounds like hypocrisy?

Hypocrisy, oh no, it sounds like a perfectly well made arrangement to me. Keep the placard waving, human rights activist happy and then go about doing your business the way you always have. Everyone is happy. Perfect.

Originally posted by: -Mystery-

A country that can spend billions of money on oil, materialistic things can do at least this much to save humanity.  A criminal is a criminal and we all go to their level then what's the point of a police?  And even the example you've given isn't relevant to using torture.  If he has stolen it fine, I'll try to get it back but by no means through a torture.

Humanity?? What humanity are you talking about?? Punishing a criminal is not wrong. Trying to force a criminal to divulge information is not wrong. Failing to deliver justice because I feel I'm too humanity oriented is wrong.
If the human rights people think that they can do a better job of preventing crime or solving crimes, why don't they try their hands at it?? Why don't they go and try to prevent it at the roots, i.e. trying to preach their humanitarian ideals to the criminals. That might be more fruitful and less headache for others. If they succeed well and good. If they don't and get killed in the process, I think the police will easily promise not to torture the suspects to establish who killed the placard waver.
Edited by souro - 14 years ago