You said it but you haven't proved anything. The leads many times prove to be wrong and the police finds nothing of value where they are lead.
Originally posted by -Mystery-Okk, then let's forget about capital punishment for now and concentrate on torture.
Yeah for some reason, capital punishment came into the discussion but the point remains the same.
Originally posted by -Mystery-I can't comment on what happens elsewhere. I was talking from the context of what happens in Indian courts.
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.
Well, I was talking about the American court system. Anyway.
Originally posted by -Mystery-
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?
So, you are saying that because the criminals lack humanity so humanitarian issues shouldn't be preached to them. Then how do you expect to control with humanity those same people who lack humanity. You yourself are saying that humanity won't have any effect on them, then why waste it on them while trying to control them??
And if the human rights people are so corageous and feel that criminals can be controlled with humanity then why don't they themselves give it a try?? Why not get involved directly instead of preaching to innocents or waving placards?? Not getting their hands dirty and preaching from the sidelines doesn't speak of much courage.
Again, this was not originally my point, it came up when we were debating. My original point was and still remains that whenever we have a doubt that a person could be innocent (which we almost always do) then something so drastic as torture shouldn't be inflicted on that person. Secondly the point was since the information received isn't true anyway why torture even those who have committed a crime, just for the heck of it? Beating a criminal like that for no reason doesn't make you less of a criminal. But of course you are arguing that it is for a reason, for the information gained. Which I think is false and it is in the records too, and you think it's not. So what are we arguing about? That's not going to change our view.
Originally posted by -Mystery-
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.
different. Just because I'm against torture doesn't make me against imprisonment too, you're twisting the point. Yes, there' some mental trauma and physical hardships involved in imprisonment but they are nothing compared to the ones that are the after effects of torture. Something dies in the people who are tortured, they just don't remain the same. Something changes in people after imprisonment too (we hope it's for the best) but it's nothing compared to the torture aftereffects unless they are subjected to some sort of torture, extreme conditions in the prison as well. Now again, I think imprisonment and torture are totally different, and you don't think so. So how do we change the thinking now? That's what I meant when I said we both believe in different things and there's no point in proving the other wrong because we will never change our personal values.