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