Miscellaneous

   

Torture: Is it ever OK? (Page 2)

Post Reply New Post

Page 2 of 5

Page 1
Page   of 5
Page 3 Page 5

souro

Moderator

souro

Joined: 27 January 2007

Posts: 13879

Posted: 30 October 2009 at 3:58pm | IP Logged
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.

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Torture: Is it ever OK? (Page 2)" in Miscellaneous forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

-Mystery-

IF-Veteran Member

-Mystery-

BollyCurry Buzzers

Joined: 31 August 2007

Posts: 20130

Posted: 30 October 2009 at 4:07pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

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.

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.

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.


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?

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.

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.

souro

Moderator

souro

Joined: 27 January 2007

Posts: 13879

Posted: 30 October 2009 at 4:34pm | IP Logged
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 - 30 October 2009 at 4:36pm

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

angelic_devil

-mango-

IF-Dazzler

-mango-

Joined: 02 January 2007

Posts: 3526

Posted: 01 November 2009 at 10:21am | IP Logged

New York was such a depressing movie. I am sure to never touch that DVD ever again in my life. Torture is definitely not a good way to get information. Most of the time, it hardly works. Police and FBI torture innocent people, thinking its gonna help them... and in the end... its nothing. They dont find anything.... and the case is left unsolved!

And its not just people at times. Its animals as well. for entertainment... they have animal games... which people pay to see, and then they kill the animals at the end of the games and throw them out.
 
(NO offence meant for anyone here..) but, people kill animals for food as weell! Thats another form of torture too.  There is so many other things in world to eat... WHY ANIMALS? They get hurt the same way we do.
Torture should be stopped. With People and with animals.

-Mystery-

IF-Veteran Member

-Mystery-

BollyCurry Buzzers

Joined: 31 August 2007

Posts: 20130

Posted: 01 November 2009 at 2:40pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro



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.



Oh I see, so you're saying that by inflicting torture on criminals, there's no crime left in the world?!  I for one didn't know that.

Facts have it that some countries that don't have torture as a technique to get information actually have lower crime rates just like some US states who don't have capital punishment have lower crime rates.

Anyway, it seems like we are going round and round.  Of course I believe in something and so do you and we are not going to change anyone's thinking and that's not the point anyway.

The discussion was good and healthy and that's what matters.

-Mahi

honeydaisy

IF-Dazzler

honeydaisy

Joined: 29 July 2009

Posts: 4788

Posted: 01 November 2009 at 9:45pm | IP Logged
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?

 its ok..when its involve with terrorist...Smile
 
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?

but it may help by scaring other peopleSmile
 
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.
i think family members of crimimal shouldnt be tortured...if they innocentSmile

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?
 
hope never happened to me...at the same time we should know who is our friend..dont do anything wrong because of money or any other reasonSmile

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.

no comment....as never watched new york..anyway i think if we hurt others because others hurt us..we are not human being.Smile
 
nice post..makes me to think...and i prayed to all who been tortured ...be strong ...may rest in peace...Smile

souro

Moderator

souro

Joined: 27 January 2007

Posts: 13879

Posted: 02 November 2009 at 1:35am | IP Logged
Originally posted by -Mystery-


Oh I see, so you're saying that by inflicting torture on criminals, there's no crime left in the world?!  I for one didn't know that.
No, I'm saying that by torture we can gather information that can help in solving or preventing a crime.

Originally posted by -Mystery-

Facts have it that some countries that don't have torture as a technique to get information actually have lower crime rates just like some US states who don't have capital punishment have lower crime rates.
So?? Does that prove anything??
Maybe there is less crime there and that's why they don't need to use torture as a technique. What you're implying, that no torture and no capital punishment actually results in less crime, can only be proved if you can compare the crime data of pre and post torture period (i.e. when torture was allowed and when torture was banned) given that all other conditions remained exactly the same in the two periods that are being compared.

Originally posted by -Mystery-

Anyway, it seems like we are going round and round.  Of course I believe in something and so do you and we are not going to change anyone's thinking and that's not the point anyway.

The discussion was good and healthy and that's what matters.

-Mahi
We were not moving in circles really. It'd have gone better if you had answered what I'm asking. As an example, I asked in the previous post that why don't the human rights activists go and preach to the criminals that torture is a bad thing?? You didn't answer that.

-Mystery-

IF-Veteran Member

-Mystery-

BollyCurry Buzzers

Joined: 31 August 2007

Posts: 20130

Posted: 02 November 2009 at 8:44am | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by -Mystery-


Oh I see, so you're saying that by inflicting torture on criminals, there's no crime left in the world?!  I for one didn't know that.
No, I'm saying that by torture we can gather information that can help in solving or preventing a crime.
And I think almost always that information is false so there's no point.

Originally posted by -Mystery-

Facts have it that some countries that don't have torture as a technique to get information actually have lower crime rates just like some US states who don't have capital punishment have lower crime rates.
So?? Does that prove anything??
Maybe there is less crime there and that's why they don't need to use torture as a technique. What you're implying, that no torture and no capital punishment actually results in less crime, can only be proved if you can compare the crime data of pre and post torture period (i.e. when torture was allowed and when torture was banned) given that all other conditions remained exactly the same in the two periods that are being compared.
Yeah you're right, and that's one of the arguments that are made to defend capital punishment and torture.  What I'm trying to say is that we are never 100% sure that someone has done something for which we are punishing them. There's always a doubt and for that reason no one should have to be punished so severely as capital punishment or torture.  That's my whole point.

Originally posted by -Mystery-

Anyway, it seems like we are going round and round.  Of course I believe in something and so do you and we are not going to change anyone's thinking and that's not the point anyway.

The discussion was good and healthy and that's what matters.

-Mahi
We were not moving in circles really. It'd have gone better if you had answered what I'm asking. As an example, I asked in the previous post that why don't the human rights activists go and preach to the criminals that torture is a bad thing?? You didn't answer that.
I just wanted to finish off the discussion, since we are really getting no where with it.

Anyway, I think I did answer it, if not, just because criminals do that, we don't have to go down to their level, do we? Wouldn't that make us criminals too?  So what's the difference between then and us then?  Just because we can put this torture under 'gathering information' category doesn't make it a whole lot different than a criminal using torture, or at least that's what I think and I'm sure you think differently.

That's why I had said that we are going in circles because ultimately it comes down to what I believe and what you believe.

-Mahi





Edited by -Mystery- - 02 November 2009 at 8:45am

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
the weirdest clouds that u'll ever see...

2 3

..imperfect.. 16 1437 03 April 2010 at 2:11pm
By ragsmastlife
The Coolest Name You've Ever Heard! -Mystery- 8 762 30 May 2009 at 8:50am
By -Aishwarya-
what ever (its really nice) *Simran* 5 528 18 December 2007 at 10:51pm
By missy6892
Don't EVER scare a girl!!!!! fly2me 3 462 27 November 2007 at 5:57am
By tazy_rahul
Don't ever stop dreaming! mango 0 745 24 February 2005 at 4:00pm
By mango

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Miscellaneous Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.