Torture - Page 2

Wayfare · #11 03-08-2005, 10:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
A serial child kidnapper takes the kids and buries them alive in coffins. They suffocate in 48 hours. He is captured a few hours after taking his last victim. He CONFESSES but will not tell where the child is buried. Is it morally wrong to torture him if that is the most effective way to find the kid? If you say, yes explain why. If you say no then explain why torture is illegal even in cases like this (as it surely is, in this country anyway).

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is not immoral, and it is illegal because people believe it to be.

Dead · #12 03-08-2005, 10:58 AM

It's probably not the most effective way to find out the kid's location. Torture is notoriously unreliable, movies excluded.

That said, I don't think I support torture even in this case. I really don't want to open this Pandora's box up. I know someone will come at me with the argument, "What if it was your kid?", but it doesn't matter.

jaxmike · #13 03-08-2005, 11:42 AM

I don't like the idea of torture. However, I believe there are cases where it is perfectly acceptable and reasonable. This case is one of them. The target of the torture has shown that he/she is a danger to society. Has murdered people and is in the process of murdering another person. Through torture, you have the chance to directly effect the outcome of the situation while harming no innocent parties. I do not see a problem with torture in cases like these.

Dead · #14 03-08-2005, 11:49 AM

What about violating the guy's human rights?

jaxmike · #15 03-08-2005, 12:03 PM

he has no human rights if he is doing what he is doing. i am sorry, but he gave them up when he started killing people.

Kaz The Original · #16 03-08-2005, 12:04 PM

I think you misunderstand how human rights works.

As a semantic aside, killing people is obviously not wrong. Murdering them is.

jaxmike · #17 03-08-2005, 12:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think you misunderstand how human rights works.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, i dont. i know exactly how they work. they are not rights, they are priviledges. you give them up when you start doing what was described in the situation.

[ QUOTE ]
As a semantic aside, killing people is obviously not wrong. Murdering them is.

[/ QUOTE ] ugh. thanks for the solid contribution to discussion.

Kaz The Original · #18 03-08-2005, 12:11 PM

"
no, i dont. i know exactly how they work. they are not rights, they are priviledges. you give them up when you start doing what was described in the situation."

But that's the thing, you don't. You may feel this is the way it should be, and that's an opinion I may or may not agree with, but at the moment the common accepted version of human rights is that they apply to everyone who is human regardless of their actions. I mean, they're human rights, not human priveldges.

Voltorb · #19 03-08-2005, 12:14 PM

We take rights away from convicted criminals all the time. While it is never the case that we punish our criminals with torture, the situation outlined is extreme and requires extreme measures. Again, I think the crux of this whole argument is that the guy confessed. We know he has information that can save a life, yet this sadistic bastard won't give it to us. We are basically watching the kidnapper kill a child as he withholds this information. A police officer can most always be justified in taking the life of one who is immediately threatening to take the life of another. Why can't an officer be justified in giving pain in the same situation?

By his own confession, the guy shows he cares nothing of human rights. We should not be hesistant in showing him the same lack of concern when it is crucial to save the life of another.

Let's set up another hypothetical situation. Let's say our serial kidnapper has surgically implanted in himself a nifty device that monitors his heart. The device sends radio signals to a receiver in the child's coffin; if the heart stops beating for twenty minutes, the device communicates with the receiver, activating an air pump, a loud siren, and a strobe light. The kidnapper has an accomplice dump his drugged and unconcious body off at the police station with a note attached explaining his plan. The drugs will not wear off for 48 hours, in which time the child will suffocate. The final statement of the note reads: "Kill me, or the child dies!"

What would you do?

jaxmike · #20 03-08-2005, 12:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You may feel this is the way it should be, and that's an opinion I may or may not agree with, but at the moment the common accepted version of human rights is that they apply to everyone who is human regardless of their actions. I mean, they're human rights, not human priveldges.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where you are wrong. the majority of the people do NOT think like this. That is why the majority of the people SUPPORT torture in cases like this. It takes a special blind naievity to think like you are. Again, its not the "commonly accepted version" to use your words, its the one that you like, not most people.