Is Torture Ever Right ?

[Peterkin]

16 minutes ago, mistermack said:

And just to be doubly clear, are you saying that you would not do it, and you would ban it, if it was your decision to make?

Just to make octuply clear:

Yes, I might do it; I don't know.

Yes, I would ban it, unhesitatingly.

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Well, I KNOW that torture is a terrible thing, and should be prohibited. That's hardly worth a thread, it's almost universally agreed. It's debating the obvious.

That's why this thread is asking, do you think it would EVER be right, under extreme circumstances. If you don't specify that, then it's not really worth a debate at all.

I don't think it would EVER be right for the authorities to put a father alone in a jail cell with the kidnapper of his child.

[Peterkin]

6 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's why this thread is asking, do you think it would EVER be right, under extreme circumstances. If you don't specify that, then it's not really worth a debate at all.

That, too has been amply answered. No, it is NEVER right, under any circumstances. Even if it's less wrong than some alternative, it's still wrong. This isn't complicated.

What's complicated is the psychology of the people involved in legislating, authorizing and carrying out morally grey procedures for morally murky purposes.

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

I don't think it would EVER be right for the authorities to put a father alone in a jail cell with the kidnapper of his child.

Me neither. 

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That, too has been amply answered. No, it is NEVER right, under any circumstances. Even if it's less wrong than some alternative, it's still wrong. This isn't complicated.

Well, now it's getting interesting. Where do you get your ideas of right and wrong from? I explained mine in the op.

[Peterkin]

6 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Where do you get your ideas of right and wrong from?

Does anyone really know the full answer to that? Nature, nurture, culture; parents, school, church, personal experiences and encounters, laws of the land, readings, arguments in smoky rooms late into the night, soul-searching well into the morning.... One builds one's moral system over a lifetime.

On 2/6/2022 at 12:53 PM, Peterkin said:

They should come from a veil of ignorance.

as I mentioned early on, the ethical system of a society should come from not knowing on which side of the "situation" each legislator may someday find themself.

[TheVat]

Might it be helpful to separate out the legal implications of torture (a society that legislates torture as okay) and the realworld implications of some rare and extreme emergency situation.  I mean, clearly there's a strong case that a civilized nation should ban torture and not make its citizenry complicit in brutal sadism.  But it is also quite sensible to say "this terrorist knows where a nuke is located in Manhattan, which will kill millions of people if detonated, so we will step outside the law in this extreme moment and do whatever it takes to get him to reveal the location." Torture still might not work, but even a low probability of getting an accurate answer, with millions of lives at stake, might be worth it.  This action would not be saying that torture is generally right, or that a nation as a legal entity should ever support it.  Millions of lives at stake.

I feel this example might be less clouded by emotions than pedophile scenarios where the focus tends to be on revulsion for the sicko monsters.   

 

[zapatos]

28 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That, too has been amply answered. No, it is NEVER right, under any circumstances. Even if it's less wrong than some alternative, it's still wrong. This isn't complicated.

Well, it's not complicated for you. Others disagree.

 

[mistermack]

 

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Does anyone really know the full answer to that? Nature, nurture, culture; parents, school, church, personal experiences and encounters, laws of the land, readings, arguments in smoky rooms late into the night, soul-searching well into the morning.... One builds one's moral system over a lifetime.

Generally, hominids have an instinctive notion of right and wrong as infants, and build on it, in the way you mentioned. It generally centres around putting yourself in somebody elses shoes, and "how would I like it?" at it's most basic. 

Mine would centre around "what's best for everyone, but especially me" After myself, I would then go downwards in importance, through the other people affected. 

That's why, in the theoretical case of the pedophile, I would value the child higher than the pedophile, so I wouldn't hesitate, so long as it was clear-cut. Also, in the bomb situation, it would be a no-brainer for me, the only question being, is there a more effective method. In a question of multiple lives at stake, for me that would heavily outweigh the rights that I would normally assign to the bomber. 

At the end of the day, in such an emergency, that's my right and wrong. What's best for good innocent people. And what's best for the others lags a long way behind. 

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

Mine would centre around "what's best for everyone, but especially me" After myself, I would then go downwards in importance, through the other people affected. 

But that order of priorities only works -and it's not a given that it works all the time - from a specific personal POV. As such, it's subject to change with age, needs and circumstance, and cannot be applied to the polity at large.

From the legislative POV, "what's best" can't ever apply to everybody, so it must be restricted according some other order of priorities: the majority by number, the wealthiest X%, the most exalted individual, the bluest bloodline, the most privileged ethnic group, the dominant religious group, the most powerful gender, the most valued skill-set --- some kind of class system. Usually, the stated priority is greatest number, but that's never how laws really affect the population.

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I don't think it would EVER be right for the authorities to put a father alone in a jail cell with the kidnapper of his child.

Agreed. Still, if all else has failed, and authorities were concerned about the child's safety in the hands of the other kidnapper, is there really a choice? Perhaps the Father may simply appeal to the kidnapper's decency? Yeah I know that's a long shot as somehow I see pedaphilia as lacking all decency. To deny that we could ever know if a person is 100% guilty is just plain wrong, as was shown in at least one "real live case" in the justice/punishment thread. 

 

How about in the situation as raised by TheVat thus.....? 

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

 But it is also quite sensible to say "this terrorist knows where a nuke is located in Manhattan, which will kill millions of people if detonated, so we will step outside the law in this extreme moment and do whatever it takes to get him to reveal the location." Torture still might not work, but even a low probability of getting an accurate answer, with millions of lives at stake, might be worth it.  This action would not be saying that torture is generally right, or that a nation as a legal entity should ever support it.  Millions of lives at stake.

I feel this example might be less clouded by emotions than pedophile scenarios where the focus tends to be on revulsion for the sicko monsters.   

 But there is also another important question has not been answered. What do we classify as torture? Locked in a jail cell and confinement of liberty? Being put in solitary confinement? Can some confuse deserved punishment with torture? 

Laws give us a general guideline of what a particular society will or will not tolerate. In 99.9% of cases such guidelines are strictly adhered to. Sometimes though, "anomalies" or unusual situations may arise. 

 

[Peterkin]

35 minutes ago, beecee said:

But there is also another important question has not been answered. What do we classify as torture? Locked in a jail cell and confinement of liberty? Being put in solitary confinement? Can some confuse deserved punishment with torture? 

No. According to the laws of several lands, as written, the definition of torture is general regarding physical or mental suffering, deliberately inflicted by an official on a prisoner - but they explicitly exclude standard criminal proceedings and punishments. Canada subscribes to the UN International Convention, which is broad and general - inevitably, given the wide variance of the nations' legal codes.

Quote

…any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/refugee-protection/removal-risk-assessment/what-torture.html

It's not a matter of what you don't like; it's a matter of what the majority voting population of a country considers abhorrent.

Quote

If a measure engages section 12, the next question is whether it is “cruel and unusual”.

This is a high threshold. To be cruel and unusual the treatment or punishment must be “grossly disproportionate”: in other words, “so excessive as to outrage standards of decency”, and be “abhorrent or intolerable to society”. The threshold is not met by treatment or punishment that is “merely excessive” or disproportionate

Quote

Note that the phrase “cruel and unusual” is a “statement of a compendious norm”, one that is meant to be flexible, context-specific, and linked to reasonable or objective community standards. It can be expected that the protection of section 12 will evolve over time  https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art12.html

 

It's a constantly negotiated legal process.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

No. According to the laws of several lands, as written, the definition of torture is general regarding physical or mental suffering, deliberately inflicted by an official on a prisoner - but they explicitly exclude standard criminal proceedings and punishments. Canada subscribes to the UN International Convention, which is - inevitably, given the wide variance of the nations' legal codes.

Oh 100% no argument from me on that score, but I'm sure you would get some claim of mental torture from people that are incarcerated and/or in solitary confinement. Particularly where it is justified that they be locked up and the key thrown away. Indigenous Australians for example have a relativly large percentage that commit suicide in prison, which some attribute to cultural concerns.

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

That's why, in the theoretical case of the pedophile, I would value the child higher than the pedophile, so I wouldn't hesitate, so long as it was clear-cut. Also, in the bomb situation, it would be a no-brainer for me, the only question being, is there a more effective method. In a question of multiple lives at stake, for me that would heavily outweigh the rights that I would normally assign to the bomber. 

At the end of the day, in such an emergency, that's my right and wrong. What's best for good innocent people. And what's best for the others lags a long way behind. 

Yes, a position I took in the justice/punishment thread, and a position that I believe the vast majority of law abiding citizens would see as fair and reasonable.

[Peterkin]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

but I'm sure you would get some claim of mental torture from people that are incarcerated and/or in solitary confinement.

There is always room for improvement in jurisprudence and corrections. Complaints should be investigated - many have merit.

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

Indigenous Australians for example have a relativly large percentage that commit suicide in prison, which some attribute to cultural concerns.

That may be considered under the "cruel and unusual" clause.

Anyway, torture is generally defined in law, just as it's clear to each individual. As The Vat said early on: We know what it is!

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

There is always room for improvement in jurisprudence and corrections. Complaints should be investigated - many have merit.

Agreed, and there will also exist the necessity of prisons for those that thumb their noses at the society rules.

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That may be considered under the "cruel and unusual" clause.

There have been royal commisions into that sad fact, but as yet, sadly, no real action taken.

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Anyway, torture is generally defined in law, just as it's clear to each individual. As The Vat said early on: We know what it is!

TheVat made an excellent post, with some excellent points that raise the rare times that sometimes it maybe justified to step outside the laws of the land and definitions of torture. 

[Phi for All]

38 minutes ago, beecee said:

Agreed. Still, if all else has failed, and authorities were concerned about the child's safety in the hands of the other kidnapper, is there really a choice?

Absolutely. And almost all of them are better than this one.

39 minutes ago, beecee said:

To deny that we could ever know if a person is 100% guilty is just plain wrong, as was shown in at least one "real live case" in the justice/punishment thread.

Not my argument at all. In fact, in your scenario, I had already assumed the kidnapper in custody was guilty. My argument is that it would NEVER be right for the authorities to allow the father to torture the kidnapper. You replied, "Agreed".

Aren't you assuming that there's nothing worse for this father than having their child kidnapped?

Aren't you assuming all it will take is some pleading, or threatening, or beating the shit out of the kidnapper to make him divulge the location of the child?

Aren't you assuming the father will be able to justify whatever he did every time he sees his child safe and sound? 

Much of this sounds like macho bullshit, a simple kneejerk reaction to an intensely complicated scenario. In real life, if the kidnapper won't tell, how far do you go? While I'm sure my child would be grateful to be alive, would they recognize me if I could justify the evil things I did to a human bound to a chair? 

 

[beecee]

46 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Absolutely. And almost all of them are better than this one.

Not my argument at all. In fact, in your scenario, I had already assumed the kidnapper in custody was guilty. My argument is that it would NEVER be right for the authorities to allow the father to torture the kidnapper. You replied, "Agreed".

The argument about 100% surity re guilty was with another that made that claim. Yes, I agreed that it is wrong, and the evidence is such that he is obviously guilty. But sometimes if all else has failed, then the lesser wrong maybe desirable.

46 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Aren't you assuming that there's nothing worse for this father than having their child kidnapped?

Yes, a pretty reasonable assumption to make I suggest.

46 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Aren't you assuming all it will take is some pleading, or threatening, or beating the shit out of the kidnapper to make him divulge the location of the child?

No, I'm assuming that trying all avenues open, (even wrong ones) sometimes may need consideration, and at the same time, the pleading option, and the beating the shit out of him option, still may not work. But is worth considering whe all other legal reasonable means have failed.

46 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Aren't you assuming the father will be able to justify whatever he did every time he sees his child safe and sound? 

 If the Father is successful in obtaining a confession and the safe return of his child, society in general I suggest will justifiy the means. eg: A few years ago in Sydney an old man awoke to see an intruder in his house who then assaulted him. He stabbed and killed the intruder, then had to suffer the indignity of going to trial for manslaughter and using uneccessary force. He was found not guilty.

46 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Much of this sounds like macho bullshit, a simple kneejerk reaction to an intensely complicated scenario. In real life, if the kidnapper won't tell, how far do you go? While I'm sure my child would be grateful to be alive, would they recognize me if I could justify the evil things I did to a human bound to a chair?

I reject your claim of macho bullshit, and suggest as already mentioned, that sometimes, (very very rarely) stepping outside the strict guidelines of the law maybe the lesser of two evils. I know you understand the priority of the child's safety, and isn't it reasonable to consider that the longer the captured kidnapper witholds his information, the more danger the child is put into? 

If I am emotional about this, it is simply because we have had a recent case of a little three year old girl, snatched from a tent during the night at a campsite in WA, and not found for 18 days, thankfully unharmed, and obviously by a somewhat unhinged male, as he had his house filled with dolls that he dressed up etc. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/04/world/cleo-smith-man-charged-intl-hnk/index.html

Edited February 8, 2022 by beecee

[Phi for All]

56 minutes ago, beecee said:

No, I'm assuming that trying all avenues open, (even wrong ones) sometimes may need consideration, and at the same time, the pleading option, and the beating the shit out of him option, still may not work. But is worth considering whe all other legal reasonable means have failed.

Then this is probably where we differ. I think you're assuming the father can make do with a few broken fingers, and enough blood to make the perp say he's sorry while he's telling him where the child can be found. You know, manly macho tough guy stuff. I think you're forgetting that the father may have to pay a much steeper price if he has to use some acid, flay some skin, and pull some teeth and fingernails to get information, even if it's accurate. 

I hope the state that sent this father into the kidnapper's cell will pay for therapy for the rest of his life. It was a criminal burden they put on that father.

[beecee]

27 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Then this is probably where we differ. I think you're assuming the father can make do with a few broken fingers, and enough blood to make the perp say he's sorry while he's telling him where the child can be found. You know, manly macho tough guy stuff. I think you're forgetting that the father may have to pay a much steeper price if he has to use some acid, flay some skin, and pull some teeth and fingernails to get information, even if it's accurate. 

Well certainly no flaying and pulling teeth for me in that situation. I have a morbid fear/dislike for the sight of blood. Given 76 pints of blood in my days, ( and it is voluntary in Australia and no payments) and never yet once watched them taking it out. Remember taking my 5 year old Son to hospital re a splt  chin that needed stitches. I had to hold him while the doc administered the pain killing injection and stitches. When he had finished, I was collapsed in a chair!

If you are saying that in the context of the current thought experiment, that the Father should never be allowed to be in the cell after all other considerations have failed, then yes, we do probably differ somewhat. 

But as I also offered an opinion on, TheVax scenario is probably more relative for this discussion/debate.

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Aren't you assuming all it will take is some pleading, or threatening, or beating the shit out of the kidnapper to make him divulge the location of the child?

He's also assuming that the father is "a hulking brute", which most fathers are not; that he's only "slightly emotional, angry", which most fathers in this situation are not; that his temper and his actions are controlled and controllable, which most people in this situation are not; that the damage he inflicts on the prisoner will be relatively bloodless, which is unlikely; that the the prisoner will be rendered willing to divulge accurate information while still conscious and capable of coherent speech, which is not at all certain. OTH, this is no less contrived and unrealistic than the 100% certainty of the suspect's guilt, without having been caught red-handed.

What Beecee appears indifferent to is the long-term effect of the interrogation on the father, and the family, particularly if he fails to elicit the information in time to save his child. Also, incidentally, the fact that he's a civilian and legally liable for whatever he breaks -- plus any evidence he acquires against the kidnappers is inadmissible in court, so they'll probably walk, and he'll have to hunt them down, once he's served his aggravated assault conviction, and go up again for double homicide. But maybe he'll be mad as a Hatter by then and serve that term in a medical facility. Still tough on the kiddies....    

Decisions have consequences that we can't always predict.

[beecee]

38 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

He's also assuming that the father is "a hulking brute", which most fathers are not; that he's only "slightly emotional, angry", which most fathers in this situation are not; that his temper and his actions are controlled and controllable, which most people in this situation are not; that the damage he inflicts on the prisoner will be relatively bloodless, which is unlikely; that the the prisoner will be rendered willing to divulge accurate information while still conscious and capable of coherent speech, which is not at all certain. OTH, this is no less contrived and unrealistic than the 100% certainty of the suspect's guilt, without having been caught red-handed.

Assume what you like, it's a "thought experiment" Make the Father a little light built bloke if you like, but then give him an Iron bar, or tie the kidnapper to a chair. As usual, ( for effect of your silly claims) you make many untrue assumptions yourself, one obviously being that one could never know with 100% certainty the guilt of a person. I showed that to be the nonsense it is in the justice/punishment thread. Have you forgotten that already?

38 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

What Beecee appears indifferent to is the long-term effect of the interrogation on the father, and the family, particularly if he fails to elicit the information in time to save his child. Also, incidentally, the fact that he's a civilian and legally liable for whatever he breaks -- plus any evidence he acquires against the kidnappers is inadmissible in court, so they'll probably walk, and he'll have to hunt them down, once he's served his aggravated assault conviction, and go up again for double homicide. But maybe he'll be mad as a Hatter by then and serve that term in a medical facility. Still tough on the kiddies....    

Yet strangely enough beecee has agreed with you, for actual practical reasons though, rather then your philosophically bent narrative.  The first priority is the safety of the child, the second the father...the kidnappers/pedaphiles I really don't give too much of a stuff about. If there is any chance of obtaining the information before any harm befells the child, whether a lesser wrong is worth doing. (which again you agreed with) 

9 hours ago, mistermack said:

Well, now it's getting interesting. Where do you get your ideas of right and wrong from? I explained mine in the op.

 and the answer you receive.....

9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Does anyone really know the full answer to that? One builds one's moral system over a lifetime.

🤣

38 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 Decisions have consequences that we can't always predict.

And yet you appear to want to ignore the consequences, no matter how severe, as long as it aligns with your life philosophy. Again, if it means stepping outside the letter of the law, to ensure the safety of the child, it's worthwhile, and most societies would support that. ( as you essentially have) 

If it was me as the Father, I would want any action that was necessary, short of murder, to ensure the safety of my kid, and would worry about the legal consequences, (which you pretentiously raise) later on. I would also be pretty confident that in a just society, any so called sentence would reflect the circumstances involved. (which you failed to mention)and receive a lenient sentence, if any at all.

A few years ago in Sydney an old man awoke to see an intruder in his house who then assaulted him. He stabbed and killed the intruder, then had to suffer the indignity of going to trial for manslaughter and using uneccessary force. He was found not guilty and the perpetrator of the assault and attempted robbery forgotten about. That's justice, that's reasonabilty in the face of criminality and toruture/bashing.

Edited February 9, 2022 by beecee

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

if I could justify the evil things I did to a human bound to a chair? 

Do you really believe in evil then? I don't, but if I did, then that pedophile that was bound to a chair, refusing to say where the child was held, is surely evil. You say "a human" but it's really "an evil human".

I say, if the human bound to the chair is that evil, then the things you are doing to him to save an innocent are not evil. Some humans don't deserve the rights that most others do.

[Peterkin]

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

you make many untrue assumptions yourself, one obviously being that one could never know with 100% certainty the guilt of a person.

... without having caught him red-handed, which does not apply in any of these scenarios where the person in custody is required to provide information regarding their crime.

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

Again, if it means stepping outside the letter of the law, to ensure the safety of the child, it's worthwhile,

Stepping outside the house and crossing the road have different consequences; stepping outside the front door and stepping outside the 15th storey window have different consequences.

 

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

f it was me as the Father, I would want any action that was necessary, short of murder, to ensure the safety of my kid, and would worry about the legal consequences, (which you pretentiously raise) later on.

Exactly why it's the police officer who has to take responsibility: the father can't think straight.

 

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

A few years ago in Sydney an old man awoke to see an intruder in his house who then assaulted him. He stabbed and killed the intruder, then had to suffer the indignity of going to trial for manslaughter and using uneccessary force.

A few years ago an old lady in Florida awoke to heard an intruder entering her room. She grabbed her gun and shot her grandson. There are dozens of these. 

People under the influence of strong emotion are not entirely rational, their actions are unpredictable, the long term consequences of those actions are unforeseeable. There has to be a steady, sober, uninvolved adult in charge. 

[TheVat]

 

11 minutes ago, mistermack said:

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

 

 

I say, if the human bound to the chair is that evil, then the things you are doing to him to save an innocent are not evil. Some humans don't deserve the rights that most others do

Though I earlier carved out extreme exceptions to laws against torture, it seems to me the law, and civilized life, would be in peril if we formally define classes of people who don't deserve the human rights that the rest do.  Again, that's why torture must happen outside the law, as a last ditch effort to, say, find the suitcase nuke in Penn Station.  

 

(So sorry...how does one get rid of a messed up quote box?)

Edited February 9, 2022 by TheVat
Arghhhhhhhh

[mistermack]

5 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Though I earlier carved out extreme exceptions to laws against torture, it seems to me the law, and civilized life, would be in peril if we formally define classes of people who don't deserve the human rights that the rest do.

But we already do that. We lock people up in steel and concrete, tell them when to sleep and when to rise, when to wash, and when to eat and what to eat and control who they meet and who they can talk to. Because of what they did. 

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

But we already do that. We lock people up in steel and concrete, tell them when to sleep and when to rise, when to wash, and when to eat and what to eat and control who they meet and who they can talk to. Because of what they did. 

Putting someone in prison is not equivalent to torture. Let's not confuse different forms of punishment.