interrogators should be allowed to torture suspects for information
Debate Rounds (5)
Actions that are normally immoral are justified in self defense. Murder, for example, is normally immoral. But if a police officer gets a clear shot and kills a wrongdoer to save a hostage we would not only justify it but thank god it was done. That is because it's morally correct to favor the rights of innocent people when they conflict with the rights of wrongdoers.
The idea that we should never torture because we can never be sure that investigators aren't corrupt is wrong. Investigators could, for example, manipulate evidence to frame someone for sexual assault. Does that prove that prison shouldn't exist? Like all decisions, we must base our choices on the best evidence at the time.
I never stated that interrogators should bypass the rules. I stated that the rules should be changed.
Amnesty Internationals estimate that at least 81 governments practice torture shows that the current system is broken and needs to be fixed. Why else would interrogators, people who are trained and certified at extracting information, in 81 different countries, go to the trouble of breaking the law, and risk being prosecuted to use something that is unnecessary and/or ineffective? Are all of these interrogators savages?
My opponent contradicted herself in Round 3 when she stated "I do agree with the fact that the rules should be changed" after stating in Round 2 "The law enforcement personnel have been using the good old fashion way for quite a while now, and going with the old say 'if it ain't broke don't fix it', why should we change it?"
My opponent also claims that "there are other ways of getting information out of people." Then why are interrogators, people who are trained and certified at extracting information, in 81 different countries, so convinced that torture works that they are willing to go to the trouble of breaking the law, and risk being prosecuted?
Tabibby forfeited this round.
Why do we have interrogators at all if it is impossible to objectively and coherently define a situation where one is withholding vital information? If we knew that we would never have to interrogate anybody at all to find out right?
Every interrogation technique in the world would be useless if it was easy to lie to interrogators. But it's not easy because when a suspect tells them something they are going to ask follow up questions and then corroborate what they are told with other evidence that they have.
Even if a suspect happens to make up a lie that's convincing enough to make a move on, the interrogator is not going to let him go until it's verified, and once it's confirmed that the suspect lied the torture resumes.
Amnesty International estimates that at least 81 governments practice torture. Why would interrogators, people who are trained and certified at extracting information, in 81 different countries, be willing to break the law, and risk being prosectuted to use something that doesn't work? Are all of these interrogators savages?
I think that you saying that it is not easy to lie to interrogators is correct in most circumstances, but there are excellent liars out there. But if, as you say, suspects in question cannot lie to interrogators is there any need for torture? Because interrogators are trained and certified, again as you said, in extracting information so why would they need to torture people just to get an answer? Are they not qualified and therefore need to turn to torture? I do not agree with torture because of moral standards, I think that there are other ways to extract information from people in question. To answer your question about whether or not all interrogators are savages, no. But that doesn't justify the way that they are recieving information. If you have a good interrogator, then there would be no reason for torture. So maybe instead of allowing people who are authority figures go above the law and torture someone, there should be better training in the interrogation department.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.