Is there anything a person can do to justify torture?

[Puppycow]

Is there any act or series of acts that a person can do that would justify torturing that person as punishment?

For example, if that person himself tortured and then murdered dozens of innocent children, and this was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, would that not justify him being tortured as a punishment for his crime?

 

[Trakar]

Is there any act or series of acts that a person can do that would justify torturing that person as punishment?

For example, if that person himself tortured and then murdered dozens of innocent children, and this was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, would that not justify him being tortured as a punishment for his crime?

No, but convincing people not to torture themselves over their own lost opportunities and the choices they wish they could revisit is something not easily, if ever actually, accomplished, especially if we are forced to acknowledge their own independent freewill decisions to persist in that state.

 

[Tricky]

For almost any situation, there can be a case made. For example, if you knew for certain that a person had information that a nuclear bomb was about to be detonated in an urban area, but you didn't know where, you would be justified in trying to torture the information out of the person. Millions of lives are worth more than one person's civil rights. But of course, you'd have to know for certain, so this is a hypothetical situation.

But as punishment? No, I can't see any reason for torture. The only kinds of punishment should be for rehabilitation and to protect the public, though I am on record as saying that the "death penalty" is sometimes warranted when neither of these goals is clearly acheivable. But I wouldn't torture them to death even then.

 

[Marduk]

Is there any act or series of acts that a person can do that would justify torturing that person as punishment?

Never
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment

Cruel and unusual punishment is a phrase describing criminal punishment which is considered unacceptable due to the suffering or humiliation it inflicts on the condemned person.

These exact words were first used in the English Bill of Rights in 1689, and later were also adopted by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1787) and the British Slavery Amelioration Act (1798).

Very similar words ('No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment') appear in Article Five of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (A/RES/217, December 10, 1948). The right, under a different formulation ('No one shall be subjected to [...] inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.') is found in Article Three of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950). The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) also contains this fundamental right in section 12 and it is to be found again in Article Four (quoting the European Convention verbatim) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000). It is also found in Article 16 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

 

[JJM 777]

Is there any act or series of acts that a person can do that would justify torturing that person as punishment?

A perfectly just punishment is equal to the crime committed. (If the punishment is more severe than the crime, then the legislation is partial against criminals, and if the punishment is less severe than the crime, then the legislation is partial in favour of criminals.)

If a person has tortured others, then it is a perfectly just punishment to torture the person equally as he had done to others.

Many people and legislations are against such punishments. They choose to hold something else than perfect justice as their highest priority in legislation and punishment policies. Interestingly, Hollywood movies cater sweet and cruel revenge and justice to people, while politicians cater very different principles of what-remains-of-justice to the same people, and people swallow these both with a great appetite.

 

[Puppycow]

The only kinds of punishment should be for rehabilitation and to protect the public

So deterrence and/or justice are not sufficient reasons?

 

[nvidiot]

Deterrence? Punishing one to intimidate many? Doesn't sound like justice to me.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A perfectly just punishment is equal to the crime committed. (If the punishment is more severe than the crime, then the legislation is partial against criminals, and if the punishment is less severe than the crime, then the legislation is partial in favour of criminals.)

If a person has tortured others, then it is a perfectly just punishment to torture the person equally as he had done to others.

Many people and legislations are against such punishments. They choose to hold something else than perfect justice as their highest priority in legislation and punishment policies. Interestingly, Hollywood movies cater sweet and cruel revenge and justice to people, while politicians cater very different principles of what-remains-of-justice to the same people, and people swallow these both with a great appetite.

You said here what I wanted to say, but probably better than I would have said it. I see no problem at all with any punishment that is equal to the crime being punished.

We've become so “civilized” that when we put the very worst murderer to death, we are concerned that this be done as gently and humanely as possible, with the least suffering inflicted upon the criminal being executed. How often do you suppose it has ever been the case that the murderer showed any similar concern for his victim?

 

[Marduk]

You said here what I wanted to say, but probably better than I would have said it. I see no problem at all with any punishment that is equal to the crime being punished.

We've become so “civilized” that when we put the very worst murderer to death, we are concerned that this be done as gently and humanely as possible, with the least suffering inflicted upon the criminal being executed. How often do you suppose it has ever been the case that the murderer showed any similar concern for his victim?

so you think a jump backwards 4000 years to Hammurabis "Eye for an eye" is required ?

really ?
I'm sorry, but you've learned nothing while civilised society has progressed around you

 

[Trakar]

You said here what I wanted to say, but probably better than I would have said it. I see no problem at all with any punishment that is equal to the crime being punished.

We've become so “civilized” that when we put the very worst murderer to death, we are concerned that this be done as gently and humanely as possible, with the least suffering inflicted upon the criminal being executed. How often do you suppose it has ever been the case that the murderer showed any similar concern for his victim?

How many crimes and wrongs does it take to wipe the slate clean? Institutionalizing violence merely legitimatizes violence. It is hypocritical to make killing illegal and then kill those who violate that law.

 

[tsig]

For almost any situation, there can be a case made. For example, if you knew for certain that a person had information that a nuclear bomb was about to be detonated in an urban area, but you didn't know where, you would be justified in trying to torture the information out of the person. Millions of lives are worth more than one person's civil rights. But of course, you'd have to know for certain, so this is a hypothetical situation.

But as punishment? No, I can't see any reason for torture. The only kinds of punishment should be for rehabilitation and to protect the public, though I am on record as saying that the "death penalty" is sometimes warranted when neither of these goals is clearly acheivable. But I wouldn't torture them to death even then.

Let's say in your hypothetical that after you torture a while he gives you an address and your bomb squad goes over and gets blown up by explosives placed there for just that purpose now you've lost time and your technicians.

The hidden premise in your hypothetical is that torture works and will produce reliable facts.

 

[The True Scotsman]

Is there any act or series of acts that a person can do that would justify torturing that person as punishment?

For example, if that person himself tortured and then murdered dozens of innocent children, and this was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, would that not justify him being tortured as a punishment for his crime?

Moral justification for actions in entirely based upon culture. Most people believe that torture as punishment is wrong, but that doesn't make them any more justified than someone who say it is right. If you want my personal view, I would disagree with the practice of torturing individuals as punishment, but I am not appealing to any supreme morality in my belief of such.

 

[Marduk]

Let's say in your hypothetical that after you torture a while he gives you an address and your bomb squad goes over and gets blown up by explosives placed there for just that purpose now you've lost time and your technicians.

Hypothetically. Well yanno, no great loss, they weren't very good bomb squad technicians were they

 

[Puppycow]

A perfectly just punishment is equal to the crime committed. (If the punishment is more severe than the crime, then the legislation is partial against criminals, and if the punishment is less severe than the crime, then the legislation is partial in favour of criminals.)

If a person has tortured others, then it is a perfectly just punishment to torture the person equally as he had done to others.

Many people and legislations are against such punishments. They choose to hold something else than perfect justice as their highest priority in legislation and punishment policies. Interestingly, Hollywood movies cater sweet and cruel revenge and justice to people, while politicians cater very different principles of what-remains-of-justice to the same people, and people swallow these both with a great appetite.

I am not unsympathetic to this POV. However, there are practical considerations. There will never be "perfect justice" in an imperfect world.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

How many crimes and wrongs does it take to wipe the slate clean? Institutionalizing violence merely legitimatizes violence. It is hypocritical to make killing illegal and then kill those who violate that law.

We put kidnappers in jail, don't we? Is this not equally “hypocritical”?

 

[Puppycow]

How many crimes and wrongs does it take to wipe the slate clean? Institutionalizing violence merely legitimatizes violence. It is hypocritical to make killing illegal and then kill those who violate that law.

Killing per se is not always illegal. It is illegal under certain circumstances.
Therefore, it is not hypocritical to kill murderers. Not every killing is a murder.

 

[Trakar]

Killing per se is not always illegal. It is illegal under certain circumstances.
Therefore, it is not hypocritical to kill murderers. Not every killing is a murder.

The penalty for murder isn't always death,...the point still stands. If it is wrong to kill, then killing is wrong, and IMO, not something society should engage in. If we are quibbling over perspectives, rationalizations and conditionals, then these should never be worth a human life. When people kill other people, it is always wrong. That society is content to let some deal with that offense, guilt and self punishment without adding civil restriction and punishment on top of it, is an issue between society and its citizenry. A killing that isn't illegal is still wrong. If I choose to kill a person to save others, that is a choice I made and I must deal with the fact that I have taken a human life, regardless of society's assessment of my actions and motivations.

 

[phantomb]

It is hypocritical to make killing illegal and then kill those who violate that law.

It's also illegal to lock people up against their will, but we do that to criminals who break various laws (including that one) all the time. Is that hypocritical as well?

If you think of the law as an attempt to lay out some sort of objective moral code that applies to everyone then you'd be right, but I see the law as more of a set of pragmatic rules that we collectively set up in order to get a stable society with the personal protections and securities that we all want.

 

[Puppycow]

The penalty for murder isn't always death,...the point still stands. If it is wrong to kill, then killing is wrong, and IMO, not something society should engage in. If we are quibbling over perspectives, rationalizations and conditionals, then these should never be worth a human life. When people kill other people, it is always wrong. That society is content to let some deal with that offense, guilt and self punishment without adding civil restriction and punishment on top of it, is an issue between society and its citizenry. A killing that isn't illegal is still wrong. If I choose to kill a person to save others, that is a choice I made and I must deal with the fact that I have taken a human life, regardless of society's assessment of my actions and motivations.

I disagree with your formulation. It is not always wrong to kill.
Do you think it is wrong to kill in self-defense or defense of the innocent?

 

[jiggeryqua]

We've become so “civilized” that when we put the very worst murderer to death, we are concerned that this be done as gently and humanely as possible, with the least suffering inflicted upon the criminal being executed. How often do you suppose it has ever been the case that the murderer showed any similar concern for his victim?

I have no numbers for assisted suicide, the gentle and humane ending of a life as an alternative to continued suffering. 'More than once' - will that do?

Is 'an eye for an eye' one of those recurring arguments here, like the circumcision thread?