Torture

[JJM 777]

not have any sympathy for our fellow man?

Not when people effectively identify themselves as members of a group, such as a family clan or in modern times a drug gang or motorbike gang. The group has enemies, they are your enemies. The enemies hurt one of your own, you want to hurt the enemies. The crueller the better the message and your desire for vengeance goes through.

There are social circumstances that drive people into justifying cruelty to themselves, especially being part of a group that needs "vengeance" over some other group of people. For example, being part of CIA when you work at Guantanamo Bay. Or being an officer of the State Police at an Egyptian or Chinese prison. Or being a soldier in any army at war against another army.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

That "single terrifying act of retribution" generally involved a fine.

I'd say that's a broad generalization, but generally true. There are a fair amount of caveats though; are you male, are you free, are you a landowner and if so how much land, where in europe specifically do you live, are you being tried by your own culture or are you a captive of another nation or race, and have the christians come around to convert?

 

[gumboot]

I'd say that's a broad generalization, but generally true. There are a fair amount of caveats though; are you male, are you free, are you a landowner and if so how much land, where in europe specifically do you live, are you being tried by your own culture or are you a captive of another nation or race, and have the christians come around to convert?

The post I was replying to seemed to be talking about mundane day-to-day law enforcement, not the sort of exceptional circumstances you're describing above.

 

[HansMustermann]

I think it's down to culture and upbringing - I view a lot of our ethical improvement down to rising living standards and higher life expectancy.

i.e. if I might die any day, what do I care if somebody else dies? If all I know is a dog-eat-dog world then maybe I only care about being top dog (or at least am desperate to not be the one on the bottom).

When we have a bit of safety and security to enable us to think beyond our immediate survival, we have much more opportunity to think about others needs.

However, we do know that historically it was a pain in the butt to fill the job of executioner and/or torturer. Quite often they had to take brutal murderers sentenced to death and give them a choice like "either you work for us as the executioner, or we bring over the guy from the next town and hang you". E.g., many outlaw gangs were executed by the first in the gang who took that offer, because the earldom was lacking an executioner.

So the idea that people cared that much less about each other, kinda doesn't compute. If that were the case, people would be lining up to take the job. I mean, you get paid and housed, you don't have to risk your life in a war or hunting bandits yourself, and it's a job you don't have to put 16 hours a day into. What's not to like, right? For the millions of second sons of yeomen, that got kicked out in the street when the older brother inherited the farm, it would be the easiest job to take.

But that didn't happen.

Also we know that occasionally an executioner would break down and be unable to continue. E.g., in the massacre of Stockholm, the guy who had to chop off head after head, at some point basically broke into tears and refused to continue, although this got him executed too.

So it seems to me like the mirror neurons worked back then just as well as they do now.

But when you let sociopaths backstab their way to the top, and hire other sociopaths as henchmen, and there's nothing to keep them in check, yeah, pretty gruesome stuff is bound to happen.

 

[I Ratant]

But there's those two Japanese officers that competed to see who could chop off the heads of the most Chinese prisoners in Nanking in a period of time.
It even got coverage... in praise.. in the Japanese newspapers.

 

[sadhatter]

Never understood torture myself. Of course there is the humanitarian aspect, but it just doesn't seem like a good way to get information. Its only effective use being as shock and a way of saying " yes we are messed up. Don't **** with us" , which could just as easily be accomplished in different ways that don't involve the actual torture of people ( heck, one could insinuate that one has tortured others by post mortum violence. Not only does it leave a cleaner conscience, but it seems one would have an easier time messing up something that doesn't want to fight back. )

 

[IDB87]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazen_bull

 

[aggle-rithm]

That "single terrifying act of retribution" generally involved a fine.

Right...the "terrifying" part was reserved for those who couldn't afford to pay the fine.

 

[Giz]

Never understood torture myself. Of course there is the humanitarian aspect, but it just doesn't seem like a good way to get information. Its only effective use being as shock and a way of saying " yes we are messed up. Don't **** with us" , which could just as easily be accomplished in different ways that don't involve the actual torture of people ( heck, one could insinuate that one has tortured others by post mortum violence. Not only does it leave a cleaner conscience, but it seems one would have an easier time messing up something that doesn't want to fight back. )

I'd imagine:

a) It was used as much as a deterrent as it was as a useful means of gathering information.

b) It probably works on some people. i.e. some people will respond to the "I'm your buddy" or "good cop, bad cop" routine, others will be vulnerable to psychological pressure of various types... others will yield most readily to physical duress. Whether torture is used or not shouldn't be about whether it is effective (the answer is most likely "sometimes") but whether we refuse, on ethical grounds, to sanction any and all interrogation methods. (cue Jack Bauer scenario!)

 

[aggle-rithm]

Never understood torture myself. Of course there is the humanitarian aspect, but it just doesn't seem like a good way to get information. Its only effective use being as shock and a way of saying " yes we are messed up. Don't **** with us" , which could just as easily be accomplished in different ways that don't involve the actual torture of people

Going back to the mistreatment of prisoners of war...an incredibly stupid practice. If I were waging war, I would want word to get out that the prisoners were being pampered and well-fed. I would want my enemies to surrender at the earliest opportunity.

If, on the other hand, word gets out that those who surrender will be tortured and killed...well, now your enemy will fight to the death rather than surrender.

 

[sadhatter]

Going back to the mistreatment of prisoners of war...an incredibly stupid practice. If I were waging war, I would want word to get out that the prisoners were being pampered and well-fed. I would want my enemies to surrender at the earliest opportunity.

If, on the other hand, word gets out that those who surrender will be tortured and killed...well, now your enemy will fight to the death rather than surrender.

Someone has been reading art of war ( me as well, lol. )

Personally if i were to start a reputation, i would want it to be for battlefield cruelty, but the very good treatment of prisoners. Not only could this be accomplished post mortum ( leading to a clearer conscience for my army, and no unnecessary physical suffering of my enemies. ) but it combines fear and hope, two powerful forces on the human mind.

 

[sadhatter]

I'd imagine:

a) It was used as much as a deterrent as it was as a useful means of gathering information.

b) It probably works on some people. i.e. some people will respond to the "I'm your buddy" or "good cop, bad cop" routine, others will be vulnerable to psychological pressure of various types... others will yield most readily to physical duress. Whether torture is used or not shouldn't be about whether it is effective (the answer is most likely "sometimes") but whether we refuse, on ethical grounds, to sanction any and all interrogation methods. (cue Jack Bauer scenario!)

You know i have no doubt that some would give information that could be useful. But if your good at your job they are just going to tell you anything, if not tell you something in such a way that it takes a long time for you to verify just to get a reprieve from the torture.

On a personal level a death threat would be much more effective than torture for me.

 

[Arcade22]

Never understood torture myself. Of course there is the humanitarian aspect, but it just doesn't seem like a good way to get information.

It's important to remember that sometimes it doesn't matter if the information and possible confession you get when you're torturing someone is true or not. Sometimes the charges are trumped up and false and they just want to take your money and property from you after you confess to heresy, terrorism and etc. Sometimes it's just because you are a perceived enemy and in the way, hell many people that are tortured because of paranoid delusions.

Its only effective use being as shock and a way of saying " yes we are messed up. Don't **** with us" , which could just as easily be accomplished in different ways that don't involve the actual torture of people ( heck, one could insinuate that one has tortured others by post mortum violence. Not only does it leave a cleaner conscience, but it seems one would have an easier time messing up something that doesn't want to fight back. )

Many enjoy torturing and killing others simply because they get off on it. Vasili Blokhin is said to have executed tens of thousands of people during Stalins rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazen_bull

I first saw that device in the game aptly named Amnesia: The Dark Descent. Pretty good game that shows how one can start torturing people.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Was it the Huguenots that would saw people in half by running them back and forth over a thick, taut rope? That always struck me as one of the worst things I'd ever heard. Is there evidence of it actually occurring?

 

[sadhatter]

It's important to remember that sometimes it doesn't matter if the information and possible confession you get when you're torturing someone is true or not. Sometimes the charges are trumped up and false and they just want to take your money and property from you after you confess to heresy, terrorism and etc. Sometimes it's just because you are a perceived enemy and in the way, hell many people that are tortured because of paranoid delusions.



Many enjoy torturing and killing others simply because they get off on it. Vasili Blokhin is said to have executed tens of thousands of people during Stalins rule.

I agree on all your points.To the psychotic, and those looking to get someone to say certain things regardless of truth i am sure torture is effective. I was speaking moreso of generally non evil people in power attempting to find a use for torture ( or rather , the threat of torture.).

Though i have always wondered, why not just say the person said it? Even if i didn't care about torturing someone, it seems a lot of work and mess to go through to get them to say something i could say they said anyway.
I first saw that device in the game aptly named Amnesia: The Dark Descent. Pretty good game that shows how one can start torturing people.

 

[Arcade22]

Though i have always wondered, why not just say the person said it? Even if i didn't care about torturing someone, it seems a lot of work and mess to go through to get them to say something i could say they said anyway.

I assume it's to give the whole organization a tiny slither of legitimacy so some of the members who aren't hardcore sadists are able to function relatively good in it. Good PR is also a possible reason. You want a "methods may be brutal and bad but they only go after evil reactionaries and heretics" sentiment in the people.

 

[I Ratant]

Going back to the mistreatment of prisoners of war...an incredibly stupid practice. If I were waging war, I would want word to get out that the prisoners were being pampered and well-fed. I would want my enemies to surrender at the earliest opportunity.

If, on the other hand, word gets out that those who surrender will be tortured and killed...well, now your enemy will fight to the death rather than surrender.

.
Taking prisoners and making them slaves was more the usual, than killing them all.
Just work them to death.
Torture probably worked just often enough that the failures weren't noticed.

 

[gumboot]

Going back to the mistreatment of prisoners of war...an incredibly stupid practice. If I were waging war, I would want word to get out that the prisoners were being pampered and well-fed. I would want my enemies to surrender at the earliest opportunity.

If, on the other hand, word gets out that those who surrender will be tortured and killed...well, now your enemy will fight to the death rather than surrender.

Not to mention that they'd be less likely to treat their own prisoners well either. And this is, in fact, the entire point behind the Laws of War. You'll note that the Germans facing the allies at the end of WW2 surrendered in vast numbers. Against the Russians, they tended to fight to the death.

 

[I Ratant]

Not to mention that they'd be less likely to treat their own prisoners well either. And this is, in fact, the entire point behind the Laws of War. You'll note that the Germans facing the allies at the end of WW2 surrendered in vast numbers. Against the Russians, they tended to fight to the death.

.
The Russians weren't feeling kindly towards the Wehrmacht.
Even in the West the desire to kill all the German men and turn the country into a goat pasture was talked about.
And, the Russians tended to treat the Russian soldiers captured by the Germans with disfavor upon the release of those men to the Russians.
But that was more Stalin's paranoia than a cultural thing.
I have John Keegan's book on the history of POWs around here someplace.
It's been recently that being a POW wasn't just extending your death at the hands of your captor.
When we went to Fort Riley Kansas in 1946, there were still German POWs there, doing facility maintenance. My brother and I played war (7 and 8 years old) with Wehrmacht souvenirs Dad had brought back, and we had some interaction with the POWs.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Medieval?

I seriously cannot explain how KGB prisons, the Argentinian dirty war, lynching blacks in the south could happen.