Amazon.com Widgets
  • May be necessary

    Although in general I would disagree with torture, it seems that in certain circumstances the use of a certain amount of force should be allowed. For example, in a case where a prisoner has admitted to killing multiple children, but refuses to give any information as to where they are buried, to name just one example. I believe overall although prisoners should have rights, the rights of the prisoner should never be allowed to outweigh the suffering caused to the victim or the relatives of victims. Many people now commit terrible acts against others safe in the knowledge that there will be hardly any consequences, especially in countries which do not have the death penalty. Although it would need to be very carefully monitored, and used only on cases where the criminal could be proved to be 100% guilty, I believe there are circumstances in which the use of torture would be both justified and beneficial. Again, I will state that I do not believe torture should be used for it's own sake, but rather in cases where the prisoner is withholding important information or otherwise refusing to co-operate in enquiries, if such information would lessen the suffering of victims or relatives of victims. Also, in cases such as paedophilia and rape, the prisoner should automatically forfeit all human rights upon committing said crime. I believe this would drastically deter people from committing such acts to begin with. This again would require 100% proof of guilt or a confession.

  • Serious crimes, Yes.

    For prisoners who have committed the more violent crimes, such as murder, rape, serious GBH, Prisoners should be put through an experience similar to the pain they have inflicted on their victim.
    The only way to stop these sorts of crimes occurring is to make the prisoner pay for what they have done by making them realise just how cruel inflicting such pain on another person is.

  • No, violence begets violence.

    So it would be acceptable to harm a person because they have harmed other people? I'd be very skeptical of a morality that criminalizes violence while simultaneously advocating it as a way to deter violent behaviour.

    I think the simplest way to answer this is to refer to this quote, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind".

  • It Is Dangerous

    Torture? Seriously?

    Alright, let's have a look at it.

    As far as interrogation, there is no better way to get someone to say what you want them to say. Sadly, while this is good at helping smooth over any conspiracies and getting people to play along, it does not necessarily mean you'll be getting any intelligence that is of use.

    I'm sure there's a few situations where people told the truth under torture, but it is by no means the norm. It also assumes that, if you're looking for specific information and not a "Yes/No" response, the person has the information you're looking for.

    As for a means of punishment, all too often I hear of people who are exonerated in the middle of a lengthy prison sentence. Criminal justice and investigations is a field that is still advancing and will continue to advance for some time, giving us new knowledge we didn't have before to help mitigate the number of people who are innocent yet still sitting in prison for months, or even on death row for crimes they did not commit.

    Torture is not something you can take back, which is why I believe the opposite is required. Sequester criminals from the rest of society, and work toward rehabilitation. Our present legal system is a joke, and thus it is understandable why some want harsher penalties when simple prison sentences don't get the job done.

    If the end goal is a reduction in crime, then rather than playing Russian Roulette where eventually you're going to wind up permanently scarring an innocent man, perhaps we should work toward prevention?

    Perhaps more money should be put into schooling, health care, and public assistance programs? Perhaps we should fix the underlying problems along with dealing with the symptoms (crime) these problems bring about?

    Torture is indefensible and only sadists and liars would put such programs in motion or carry out such a thing.

  • What kind of sadistic punishment is this?

    Why torture them when they are in prison? I think that you should only punish them when they don't follow rules/harm other people in prison etc.
    I know that you should give the prisoners the taste of their own medicine but it is wrong to torture people, but i think that we should only torture if we are forced or 'moved' to.

  • Violates the principle of commiseration.

    Torture forces the torturer to tolerate the sight of a fellow human being undergoing pain and suffering, so it violates the principle of commiseration. The justice system should not permit any punishment that does so. Commiseration is the basis of benevolence, and benevolence is the basis of morality; the purpose of the law is to impose prinples of morality on the people, as education can never be perfect. To suppress commiseration with the legal system is to put the cart before the horse. 'If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame.' (Analects 2.3)


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.