Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous

India-Forums

   

Torture: Is it ever OK? (Page 3)

souro Moderator
souro
souro

Joined: 27 January 2007
Posts: 13897

Posted: 02 November 2009 at 8:53am | IP Logged
Originally posted by -Mystery-


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.


What I believe and what you believe shouldn't prevent a debate. Tongue
-Mystery- IF-Veteran Member
-Mystery-
-Mystery-

BollyCurry Buzzers
Joined: 31 August 2007
Posts: 20130

Posted: 02 November 2009 at 8:56am | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by -Mystery-


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.


What I believe and what you believe shouldn't prevent a debate. Tongue


Right, and we had the debate, didn't we? :)
souro Moderator
souro
souro

Joined: 27 January 2007
Posts: 13897

Posted: 02 November 2009 at 9:25am | IP Logged
Originally posted by -Mystery-


Right, and we had the debate, didn't we? :)

Yes and we could have some more, till the time one of us proved the other wrong. Tongue
souro Moderator
souro
souro

Joined: 27 January 2007
Posts: 13897

Posted: 02 November 2009 at 12:03pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by -Mystery-

And I think almost always that information is false so there's no point.

Saying that information given under duress is almost always false doesn't prove anything. If you are so sure, let's see some proofs that support your views.

Originally posted by -Mystery-

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.

In life we are never 100% sure of anything. Beyond reasonable doubt is what is taken 100% sure. But no one stops living a life because of that. Life itself means that we have options and we have to judge and make a choice. Everything happens that way and there is nothing that can be done about it. Then why suddenly single out capital punishment or interrogation techniques.
We judge someone as a criminal and find his crime extremely heinous, we hang him. You're saying there's a small chance that we hanged an innocent.
The reverse is also true. Someone is arrested and we don't hang him. Chances are that he is actually a criminal and will harm someone else in future.
That's why, it's enough if we go by the reasonable doubt rule. If all proof points in one direction and every other option is impossible, then that must be it.


I'll give you another example. If you go for a job interview, there the interviewers will judge you based on some criteria. Lets assume that there is candidate A and candidate B. Both gave interviews, however the interviewers found that A is more suitable than B for the job and so appointed A. Now, obviously there is a chance that B might be more suitable than A and the interviewers made a mistake. So, should we ask for job interviews to be banned??

Originally posted by -Mystery-

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

Even now you're avoiding my question. I didn't ask about who is stooping to who's level or any such thing. My question is simple, and I'll repeat it again and will explain it to you.
There are criminals who commit crimes and that's why there's a need to solve or prevent those crime; and to solve or prevent crime we need more information; and for that information torturing the criminal comes into picture.
Human rights activist goes to the criminals makes them understand that crime is bad and preaches them about whatever it is that they preach. Criminal stops crime. No crime means no need to solve. No need to solve obviously will mean no torturing of anyone for information.
Easy way to stop torturing of criminals won't you say. No criminal, no torture. Simple and perfect ain't it??
Yet the human rights activists prefer to preach their noble sermons to those who are already trying to control those criminals. My question is why don't they go and preach to the criminals?? Ain't that the ideal thing to do?? I just want a simple answer to this question.



Edited by souro - 02 November 2009 at 12:05pm
-Mystery- IF-Veteran Member
-Mystery-
-Mystery-

BollyCurry Buzzers
Joined: 31 August 2007
Posts: 20130

Posted: 02 November 2009 at 12:56pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by -Mystery-


Right, and we had the debate, didn't we? :)

Yes and we could have some more, till the time one of us proved the other wrong. Tongue


That will never happen because opinions are never right and wrong.  What I believe is right and I'll believe in it and what you believe is right for you and you believe in that.  How can we ever prove each other wrong?  THat was my point entirely.  We'll always stick to our opinions regardless.  Very few debates actually end up changing a party's mind about something... but especially not if someone feels too strongly about something like I do about this and I'm sure you do as well.
-Mystery- IF-Veteran Member
-Mystery-
-Mystery-

BollyCurry Buzzers
Joined: 31 August 2007
Posts: 20130

Posted: 02 November 2009 at 7:11pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by -Mystery-

And I think almost always that information is false so there's no point.

Saying that information given under duress is almost always false doesn't prove anything. If you are so sure, let's see some proofs that support your views.
Can you prove it's always true?  And I'm talking about facts.  I can't type up all the records, but historically it is true that most of the times information gained during torture is incorrect.

Originally posted by -Mystery-

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.

In life we are never 100% sure of anything. Beyond reasonable doubt is what is taken 100% sure. But no one stops living a life because of that. Life itself means that we have options and we have to judge and make a choice. Everything happens that way and there is nothing that can be done about it. Then why suddenly single out capital punishment or interrogation techniques.
We judge someone as a criminal and find his crime extremely heinous, we hang him. You're saying there's a small chance that we hanged an innocent.
The reverse is also true. Someone is arrested and we don't hang him. Chances are that he is actually a criminal and will harm someone else in future.
That's why, it's enough if we go by the reasonable doubt rule. If all proof points in one direction and every other option is impossible, then that must be it.

The point is that THAT something else is not soooo disturbing and ruining like capital punishment and torture.  I agree, if there are more chances than not that the person is a criminal then he/she should be locked up so no other person is hurt.  But capital punishment and/or torture is never needed.  I'm not saying let them go and commit more crimes.  What I'm saying is that whenever there's a slight chance that someone's not guilty then they shouldn't suffer especially not from torture that destroys entire personalities and many times people can never be the same.

I'll give you another example. If you go for a job interview, there the interviewers will judge you based on some criteria. Lets assume that there is candidate A and candidate B. Both gave interviews, however the interviewers found that A is more suitable than B for the job and so appointed A. Now, obviously there is a chance that B might be more suitable than A and the interviewers made a mistake. So, should we ask for job interviews to be banned??
Right, but you are comparing such a trivial thing as a job to capital punishment and torture?  Really?  Those are small things in life and who cares if you don't get this job.  I mean yeah you do and you will be disappointed for a while but life moves on!  You'll probably get another job.  But after torture and capital punishment, there is NO life to move on with.

Originally posted by -Mystery-

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

Even now you're avoiding my question. I didn't ask about who is stooping to who's level or any such thing. My question is simple, and I'll repeat it again and will explain it to you.
There are criminals who commit crimes and that's why there's a need to solve or prevent those crime; and to solve or prevent crime we need more information; and for that information torturing the criminal comes into picture.
Human rights activist goes to the criminals makes them understand that crime is bad and preaches them about whatever it is that they preach. Criminal stops crime. No crime means no need to solve. No need to solve obviously will mean no torturing of anyone for information.
Easy way to stop torturing of criminals won't you say. No criminal, no torture. Simple and perfect ain't it??
Yet the human rights activists prefer to preach their noble sermons to those who are already trying to control those criminals. My question is why don't they go and preach to the criminals?? Ain't that the ideal thing to do?? I just want a simple answer to this question.

I'm not avoiding your question, you're just not being able to get my point.  If a criminal has really done something like using torture then it's obvious that they are not humans anymore... or at least they lack humanity, and in that case there is no point in preaching to them.  The reason why the human rights activists bother to preach others is that they hope that there is still some humanity left in them.  And again back to my point that if we really stoop to their level, then what's the difference.

Another reason I'm against torture is the fact that it also dehumanizes the people who are inflicting the torture.  It kills something in them, most often than not these people have nervous breakdowns OR they just end up not caring about it and actually start enjoying the torturing as a way to prove they have power over others.  I can't decide which is worse.  Now, I'm sure you would want an example.  If you want you can go look at the records of the German army before World War II. They started out as killing people by shooting.  So each soldier would be asked to shoot a hundred so people everyday with ideally a single bullet.  They started noticing that most of these soldiers were having seriously mental issues. Which is why they ended up with the gas chambers.

-Mahi
souro Moderator
souro
souro

Joined: 27 January 2007
Posts: 13897

Posted: 02 November 2009 at 11:31pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by -Mystery-


Can you prove it's always true?  And I'm talking about facts.  I can't type up all the records, but historically it is true that most of the times information gained during torture is incorrect.
You're the one who claimed that information given under duress is almost always false. So, the onus is on you to prove it, not on me. For my side all I can say is that if a criminal is arrested then with the help of information gathered from him a crime is solved faster compared to crimes where noone is arrested.
Originally posted by -Mystery-

The point is that THAT something else is not soooo disturbing and ruining like capital punishment and torture.  I agree, if there are more chances than not that the person is a criminal then he/she should be locked up so no other person is hurt.  But capital punishment and/or torture is never needed.  I'm not saying let them go and commit more crimes.  What I'm saying is that whenever there's a slight chance that someone's not guilty then they shouldn't suffer especially not from torture that destroys entire personalities and many times people can never be the same.
They can mastermind crimes in the lock up also. His band of brothers can hold someone to ransom to demand his freedom. And these things happen.
And I don't see any relation between torture and capital punishment. Torture is used to extract information and capital punishment to punish someone for his offences.

Originally posted by -Mystery-

Right, but you are comparing such a trivial thing as a job to capital punishment and torture?  Really?  Those are small things in life and who cares if you don't get this job.  I mean yeah you do and you will be disappointed for a while but life moves on!  You'll probably get another job.  But after torture and capital punishment, there is NO life to move on with.
Yes capital punishment is a far bigger issue and that's why each and every aspect is clarified before awarding it. Even if there is a small doubt, capital punishment is not awarded.

Originally posted by -Mystery-

I'm not avoiding your question, you're just not being able to get my point.  If a criminal has really done something like using torture then it's obvious that they are not humans anymore... or at least they lack humanity, and in that case there is no point in preaching to them.  The reason why the human rights activists bother to preach others is that they hope that there is still some humanity left in them.  And again back to my point that if we really stoop to their level, then what's the difference.
So, essentially what you're saying is that the human rights people don't have the courage to face the criminals. And on top of that the human rights people also don't want those who have the courage, i.e. the police, to handle things their (the police's) way. A coward advising someone is not very acceptable in my opinion.

Originally posted by -Mystery-

Another reason I'm against torture is the fact that it also dehumanizes the people who are inflicting the torture.  It kills something in them, most often than not these people have nervous breakdowns OR they just end up not caring about it and actually start enjoying the torturing as a way to prove they have power over others.  I can't decide which is worse.  Now, I'm sure you would want an example.  If you want you can go look at the records of the German army before World War II. They started out as killing people by shooting.  So each soldier would be asked to shoot a hundred so people everyday with ideally a single bullet.  They started noticing that most of these soldiers were having seriously mental issues. Which is why they ended up with the gas chambers.

-Mahi
Nazis used to kill innocent people. You can't compare them with people who are trying to stop criminals from commiting crimes or trying to bring them to justice those who have committed a crime.
According to your logic even locking someone up is actually stooping to the levels of criminals as that also involves mental torture because it involves taking away someone's freedom. But the fact remains that there has to be a mechanism in place by which we should be able to prevent crime or deliver justice. And for that we should be able to lock criminals up and force them to give up information. Force needs to be dealt with force, that's a simple truth. Noone can counter brute force with sermons of peace. It is not stooping to their level as stooping to their level would require that the police should also kill and exploit innocent people, but on the contrary the police are trying to safeguard the interest of the common people. In simple terms it is just making the criminals understand in the language that they understand best.


Edited by souro - 02 November 2009 at 11:34pm
-Mystery- IF-Veteran Member
-Mystery-
-Mystery-

BollyCurry Buzzers
Joined: 31 August 2007
Posts: 20130

Posted: 03 November 2009 at 7:03am | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by -Mystery-


Can you prove it's always true?  And I'm talking about facts.  I can't type up all the records, but historically it is true that most of the times information gained during torture is incorrect.
You're the one who claimed that information given under duress is almost always false. So, the onus is on you to prove it, not on me. For my side all I can say is that if a criminal is arrested then with the help of information gathered from him a crime is solved faster compared to crimes where noone is arrested.

Aren't you also claiming that by the means of torture the information should be gathered? Then until you have enough proof that information is true how can you use torture?

Originally posted by -Mystery-

The point is that THAT something else is not soooo disturbing and ruining like capital punishment and torture.  I agree, if there are more chances than not that the person is a criminal then he/she should be locked up so no other person is hurt.  But capital punishment and/or torture is never needed.  I'm not saying let them go and commit more crimes.  What I'm saying is that whenever there's a slight chance that someone's not guilty then they shouldn't suffer especially not from torture that destroys entire personalities and many times people can never be the same.
They can mastermind crimes in the lock up also. His band of brothers can hold someone to ransom to demand his freedom. And these things happen.
And I don't see any relation between torture and capital punishment. Torture is used to extract information and capital punishment to punish someone for his offences.
Yeah for some reason, capital punishment came into the discussion but the point remains the same.

Originally posted by -Mystery-

Right, but you are comparing such a trivial thing as a job to capital punishment and torture?  Really?  Those are small things in life and who cares if you don't get this job.  I mean yeah you do and you will be disappointed for a while but life moves on!  You'll probably get another job.  But after torture and capital punishment, there is NO life to move on with.
Yes capital punishment is a far bigger issue and that's why each and every aspect is clarified before awarding it. Even if there is a small doubt, capital punishment is not awarded.
That's not true.  Here for example I know that all the jury members need to agree if capital punishment will be given but when they discuss, each is so much influenced by others' opinions and sometimes even feel the pressure to give a certain decision.

Originally posted by -Mystery-

I'm not avoiding your question, you're just not being able to get my point.  If a criminal has really done something like using torture then it's obvious that they are not humans anymore... or at least they lack humanity, and in that case there is no point in preaching to them.  The reason why the human rights activists bother to preach others is that they hope that there is still some humanity left in them.  And again back to my point that if we really stoop to their level, then what's the difference.
So, essentially what you're saying is that the human rights people don't have the courage to face the criminals. And on top of that the human rights people also don't want those who have the courage, i.e. the police, to handle things their (the police's) way. A coward advising someone is not very acceptable in my opinion.
Where does courage come in all this?  My point is that someone who does something like this lacks humanity and how can you talk about human rights to people who lack humanity?  Where does courage come in this picture?

Originally posted by -Mystery-

Another reason I'm against torture is the fact that it also dehumanizes the people who are inflicting the torture.  It kills something in them, most often than not these people have nervous breakdowns OR they just end up not caring about it and actually start enjoying the torturing as a way to prove they have power over others.  I can't decide which is worse.  Now, I'm sure you would want an example.  If you want you can go look at the records of the German army before World War II. They started out as killing people by shooting.  So each soldier would be asked to shoot a hundred so people everyday with ideally a single bullet.  They started noticing that most of these soldiers were having seriously mental issues. Which is why they ended up with the gas chambers.

-Mahi
Nazis used to kill innocent people. You can't compare them with people who are trying to stop criminals from commiting crimes or trying to bring them to justice those who have committed a crime.
According to your logic even locking someone up is actually stooping to the levels of criminals as that also involves mental torture because it involves taking away someone's freedom. But the fact remains that there has to be a mechanism in place by which we should be able to prevent crime or deliver justice. And for that we should be able to lock criminals up and force them to give up information. Force needs to be dealt with force, that's a simple truth. Noone can counter brute force with sermons of peace. It is not stooping to their level as stooping to their level would require that the police should also kill and exploit innocent people, but on the contrary the police are trying to safeguard the interest of the common people. In simple terms it is just making the criminals understand in the language that they understand best.
Again you're comparing two totally different things.  As I said before as a reply to your point that yes in life we have to make decisions and mostly the results are not as drastic as this.  Yes, you have to lock up people, sometimes even when their crime is not proven to prevent any crime that could happen.  But the effects of torture are far worse.  When you're prove not guilty, you are let go.  But when a person is actually proven innocent after torture then there remains nothing that was there before.  It completely destroys the person.

All I'm saying is that whenever there's a chance of an innocent having to go through such drastic technique, we shouldn't use it.  The countries who don't use torture do extract information from criminals as well and they seem to be doing just fine.  I don't know their strategies since I'm not in the police force. To me, torture seems like an easy way out.  Torture people, make them sign anything you want to sigh and there you go.  Done, time to go home and have a wonderful meal.

Go to top

Related Topics

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

2 3

Author: ..imperfect..   Replies: 16   Views: 1522

..imperfect.. 16 1522 03 April 2010 at 2:11pm by ragsmastlife
The Coolest Name You've Ever Heard!

Author: -Mystery-   Replies: 8   Views: 793

-Mystery- 8 793 30 May 2009 at 8:50am by -Aishwarya-
what ever (its really nice)

Author: *Simran*   Replies: 5   Views: 552

*Simran* 5 552 18 December 2007 at 10:51pm by missy6892
Don't EVER scare a girl!!!!!

Author: fly2me   Replies: 3   Views: 499

fly2me 3 499 27 November 2007 at 5:57am by tazy_rahul
Don't ever stop dreaming!

Author: mango   Replies: 0   Views: 782

mango 0 782 24 February 2005 at 4:00pm by mango

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category / Channels
Forums

Miscellaneous Topic Index

  • Please login to check your Last 10 Topics posted

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.

Popular Channels :
Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK

Quick Links :
Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index