Is Torture Ever Right ?

[Peterkin]

40 minutes ago, beecee said:

So you are saying the judicial system is no good?

I'm saying you can't know how much and which evidence it takes to convince another person of anything. You can't know how much doubt another person considers reasonable. You can't know what preconceptions and prejudices they brought to the trial. You can't know what gossip, news coverage, social media misinformation contribute to another persons' perception of a crime.

And that the jury can't be certain whether they are given all the relevant facts, that the evidence they're shown is genuine, that the attorneys are equally competent, that witnesses are honest and recall the facts correctly, that the forensic tests are accurate and the police have the right person in the first place. 

40 minutes ago, beecee said:

Of course its relevant! Your unsupported statement of 51% with reference to beyond any reasonable doubt, assured that relevancy.

The degree of reasonable doubt after the trial has no relevance to allowing exceptional measures before the trial, no. Especially if the methods of extraction before contribute to the conviction.

I don't mind netting the odd little herring, but the merits of criminal trials by the adversarial system really don't have a bearing on whether torturing a suspect - who has not been convicted - is ethical.    

44 minutes ago, beecee said:

he paedophiles, the kidnappers, the terrorists and the criminals are the perpetrators of their crimes.

And that's why they get arrested by agents of law enforcement who enforce the moral standards of the society, and should reasonably be expected to adhere to those standards.   

Edited March 20, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I'm saying you can't know how much and which evidence it takes to convince another person of anything. You can't know how much doubt another person considers reasonable. You can't know what preconceptions and prejudices they brought to the trial. You can't know what gossip, news coverage, social media misinformation contribute to another persons' perception of a crime. 

I'm saying you most certainly can have  reasonable knowledge of what reasonable people, in any reasonable society, would consider beyond reasonable doubt. Just because there maybe rare occasions where it doesn't work, is no reason to discard the present judicial system, just as because we (democratic westernised countries) have edicts against torture, does not mean that it is absolutely absolute and set in concrete. There can be exceptions, which you yourself have said you may secumb to...All you need is the foresight to see the moral superiority of your decision.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

The degree of reasonable doubt after the trial has no relevance to allowing exceptional measures before the trial, no. Especially if the methods of extraction before contribute to the conviction.

Except in exceptional rare scenarios, where innocent lives are at stake, and that are under discussion, and as I have shown, where 100% certianty of guilt is know, or even a "beyond reasonable doubt"scenario. Your 51% figure is a furphy.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I don't mind netting the odd little herring, but the merits of criminal trials by the adversarial system really don't have a bearing on whether torturing a suspect - who has not been convicted - is ethical.       

 See previous reply.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

And that's why they get arrested by agents of law enforcement who enforce the moral standards of the society, and should reasonably be expected to adhere to those standards.   

That's justice and part of the judicial system. 

The criminal, paedohpile, or terrorist has no absolute forbidden minimum. Why should we when we are 100% sure of his guilt, or he has been found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, offer him the benefits of the reasonable ethical morality of a normal democratic western society, particularly when many innocent lives are at stake.

Edited March 20, 2022 by beecee

[MSC]

51 minutes ago, beecee said:

Can I give another take on that? Philsophy in general, imvho, is a collection of scenarios, moral standings, ethics, nature of reality, truth, (if truth exists at all) and can be sometimes pedantic in its application

So too can the law, and it does so, extremely pedanticly at times. We set up martial scenarios as generals/warriors too. I think you'd actually be hard pressed to find a topic where none of these things comes up or is practiced to some extent. Everyday humans imagine scenarios for themselves to think about what they would do in almost any situation you can think of. Some are realistic, some are far-fetched and fanciful. Some are pointless to the person engaging with or creating the scenario, sometimes they are useful instead. 

Personally, I still feel like it is wrong and impractical to engage in torture. Simply because I am unsure beyond a reasonable doubt that is effective enough to work. I mean hell, people were tortured into claiming to be witches or in league with the devil. Historically speaking more often than not, torture has been used to make people say what the torturers wanted to hear. That is a problem for me which stops me from condoning the practice. Maybe it's a torture methodology problem, but if so, I'm not sure I'd even want to read up on different success rates with different torture methods. I'm pretty sure if I waterboarded someone, I could make them say all kinds of things, true or untrue. 

[Peterkin]

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

I'm saying you most certainly can have  reasonable knowledge of what reasonable people, in any reasonable society, would consider beyond reasonable doubt. Just because there maybe rare occasions where it doesn't work, is no reason to discard the present judicial system,

Who said anything about discarding the system? I said you can't justify something you did before the trial with a verdict that came after the trial( see the problem of the cart being put in front of the horse?) , especially if what you did before tainted the verdict.

 

16 minutes ago, beecee said:

Except in exceptional rare scenarios, where innocent lives are at stake, and that are under discussion, and as I have shown, where 100% certianty of guilt is know, or even a "beyond reasonable doubt"scenario.

The "beyond a reasonable doubt" verdict comes ten to 20 months after the innocents were no longer in danger. If you keep us hopping back and forth in time like this; we'll all suffer cyclic temporal disphoria. 

[beecee]

1 minute ago, MSC said:

So too can the law, and it does so, extremely pedanticly at times. 

Yes, I can't disagree with that, but the law needs to draw a firm line in practicality, as devious humans will and can take advantage. That imo is slightly different to pedant with regards to philosophy. 

4 minutes ago, MSC said:

Personally, I still feel like it is wrong and impractical to engage in torture. 

I believe everyone that has contributed to this thread agrees with that. And for all intents and purposes, that's what the law of the land says and which I support, under reasonably normal everyday circumstances.

5 minutes ago, MSC said:

Maybe it's a torture methodology problem, but if so, I'm not sure I'd even want to read up on different success rates with different torture methods. 

Being locked up in jail, to some is torture. My feelings and philsophy though, are still primarily with innocent victims, and doing whatever is possible to avoid harm to those vicitms.

Another scenario if I may? Around 20 years ago, a few days before Xmas, I was standing in line at a 7/11 store waiting to be served, when in burst 5 young hoodlums, all around 15/16 years of age. Without warning they started to upend display cabinets, pulling down produce, tipping over a slurpy machine, and then just as quickly, all started to run out of the store like the cowards they obviously were. To run out of the store though, they had to run past us 5 people standing in line. (The store was being run by 2 little asian girls who were now in tears) As they ran by me I was thinking what little arseholes they were and instinctively as the last of them headed near my, I stuck out my arm, ( stiff arm tackle like) and collared him around the neck. He went down like a ton of bricks, (with me on top of him) while the other 4 all looked back and continued on their escape. The coppers came took him away, interviewed me and the others, and that was it, at least that's what I thought. Two weeks later there is a knock on my front door, and here is the same young bloke with his parents. They thanked me for my actions, and said their boy was now grounded indefinitley and banned from seeing the others. 

Was I wrong in what I did? 

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Who said anything about discarding the system? I said you can't justify something you did before the trial with a verdict that came after the trial( see the problem of the cart being put in front of the horse?) , especially if what you did before tainted the verdict.

Well you seem mighty overly critical of the system, and actually just about every mainstream system that has been discussed. from where I sit. And of course we are speaking of extraordinary rare circumstances, as you know.

9 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

The "beyond a reasonable doubt" verdict comes ten to 20 months after the innocents were no longer in danger. If you keep us hopping back and forth in time like this; we'll all suffer cyclic temporal disphoria. 

You miss the point, or as previous are being purposely obtuse. We are speaking of 100% certainty of guilt at best, and beyond any reasonable doubt at worst. eg: see the example of the rape of the little girl as an example of 100% certainty, and yet he still faced a trial where he was "presumed innocent"until shown to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He is now serving thankfully, a life sentence with no allowance for parole.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Well you seem mighty overly critical of the system, and actually just about every mainstream system that has been discussed.

That may be so, but it's not relevant here, in this situation, as regards this question.

Timeline:

1. crime is committed

2. suspect is apprehended

3. suspect does not divulge important information, although law enforcement agent 100% convinced of his guilt

4. suspect is tortured by police

5. suspect provides information/ confession

6. events transpire as per result of information given

7. suspect arraigned

8. evidence compiled

9. trial date set

10. trial begins  

11. statement of suspect extracted under duress presented in court

12. corrupt/prejudiced/100% convinced judge fails to to throw tainted evidence out of court

13. suspect is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

Conclusion: #4 causes or materially contributes to #13 and  #13 justifies #4.

Long-term result: law enforcement agencies become corrupt and the whole system goes to hell.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

eg: see the example of the rape of the little girl as an example of 100% certainty,

What information was required of him to save which innocent from what danger? If none, it's irrelevant.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

52 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That may be so, but it's not relevant here, in this situation, as regards this question.

Isn't it? Or is that an avoidance of a revealing aspect of your philosophy?

52 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Timeline:

1. crime is committed

2. suspect is apprehended

3. suspect does not divulge important information, although law enforcement agent 100% convinced of his guilt

4. suspect is tortured by police

5. suspect provides information/ confession

6. events transpire as per result of information given

7. suspect arraigned

8. evidence compiled

9. trial date set

10. trial begins  

11. statement of suspect extracted under duress presented in court

12. corrupt/prejudiced/100% convinced judge fails to to throw tainted evidence out of court

13. suspect is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

Conclusion #13 justifies #4.

Long-term result: law enforcement agencies become corrupt and the whole system goes to hell.

What information was required of him to save which innocent from what danger? If none, it's irrelevant.

Or more likely when focusing on the scenarios at hand....

(1) Crime is commited.

(2) Paedohpile/terrorist caught with irrefutable, evidence of beyond reasonable doubt of guilt.

(3) All means possible are undertaken to reveal the whereabouts of bomb and/or vicitms to no avail.

(4) The morality of the situation/s with innocent lives sitting in the balance, sees a decision to use more forceful means, and torture.

(5) Criminal in the ideal situation reveals the information.

(6)Potential  Innocent victims removed from dangerous situation and/or dangerous situation averted.

(7) Criminal undergoes trial after being charged. (justice must be seen to be done)

(8)Criminal is convicted beyond reasonable doubt and the extraordinary situation taken into account.

(9) Criminal is sentenced.

(10) Charges are brought with regards to torture by police/authorities, but the extraordinary situation, sees those charges summarily dismissed.

(11) Further laws and prohibitions are innacted to lessen and prevent the actions of terrorism and/or paedophiles such as removal of parole chances, wearing ankle bracelets etc.

(12) Government and law agencies are praised commended, and re-elected for their common sense and reasonable approach to the incident/s and the saving of innocent lives. 

 Conclusion:

The resultant laws and actions to reduce terrorism, mean some incoveneince with stricter control/s and access to airlines etc, for society in general, but it is appreciated and accepted considering the times we live in.

Kidnappers, criminals, and paedophiles now have their names on permanent files, and may be forced to wear ankle bracelets and have their movement tracked. They are also forced to not live within certain distances of schools, kindagartens and family oriented suburbs. 

53 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

What information was required of him to save which innocent from what danger? If none, it's irrelevant.

It's an example of a real life 100% guilty situation.

Edited March 21, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

Okay. Your way prevails.

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

Government and law agencies are praised commended, and re-elected for their common sense and reasonable approach to the incident/s and the saving of innocent lives. 

Very likely.

[beecee]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Okay. Your way prevails.

Very likely.

In fact many ways may prevail. We can only hope for the best outcome, ie the saving of innocent lives.  

If the terrorist fails to confess and the bomb goes off, thousands are killed, but things then are made much harder for terrorists, perhaps even bordering on the  removal of what some may see as normal rights for normal citizens. Makes it harder for everyone.

Convicted paedophiles are on a name list in my country also, and other exclusions as to their life styles are automatically invoked if convicted.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Isn't it? Or is that an avoidance of a revealing aspect of your philosophy?

Or more likely when focusing on the scenarios at hand....

(1) Crime is commited.

(2) Paedohpile/terrorist caught with irrefutable, evidence of beyond reasonable doubt of guilt.

(3) All means possible are undertaken to reveal the whereabouts of bomb and/or vicitms to no avail.

(4) The morality of the situation/s with innocent lives sitting in the balance, sees a decision to use more forceful means, and torture.

(5) Criminal in the ideal situation reveals the information.

(6)Potential  Innocent victims removed from dangerous situation and/or dangerous situation averted.

(7) Criminal undergoes trial after being charged. (justice must be seen to be done)

(8)Criminal is convicted beyond reasonable doubt and the extraordinary situation taken into account.

(9) Criminal is sentenced.

(10) Charges are brought with regards to torture by police/authorities, but the extraordinary situation, sees those charges summarily dismissed.

(11) Further laws and prohibitions are innacted to lessen and prevent the actions of terrorism and/or paedophiles such as removal of parole chances, wearing ankle bracelets etc.

(12) Government and law agencies are praised commended, and re-elected for their common sense and reasonable approach to the incident/s and the saving of innocent lives. 

 Conclusion:

The resultant laws and actions to reduce terrorism, mean some incoveneince with stricter control/s and access to airlines etc, for society in general, but it is appreciated and accepted considering the times we live in.

Kidnappers, criminals, and paedophiles now have their names on permanent files, and may be forced to wear ankle bracelets and have their movement tracked. They are also forced to not live within certain distances of schools, kindagartens and family oriented suburbs. 

It's an example of a real life 100% guilty situation.

A down vote I see. 🥱 It seems that any possible reality that is raised, that conflicts with some individual's personal philosophy, is not tolerated by certain short sighted pretend philosophers. The debate and my view and relevant facts will continue irrespective.

Edited March 21, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

45 minutes ago, beecee said:

A down vote I see

Nothing to do with me.

45 minutes ago, beecee said:

It seems that any possible reality that is raised, that conflicts with some individual's personal philosophy, is not tolerated by certain short sighted pretend philosophers.

That can happen to anyone.

46 minutes ago, beecee said:

The debate and my view and relevant facts will continue irrespective.

What debate? Everyone who had something to say has said it several times over.

[beecee]

39 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

What debate? Everyone who had something to say has said it several times over.

As a wise individual noted on the first two or three pages, its going down the same road as the justice/punishment thread...in other words, an exersise in colliding philsophies. 😏 😉

Adds a bit of colour also do the old drab black and white! 🤭

Edited March 21, 2022 by beecee

[Intoscience]

7 hours ago, beecee said:

In fact many ways may prevail. We can only hope for the best outcome, ie the saving of innocent lives.  

This is all one can only hope for and what I believe we all agree on.

There have been some very good points made and some convincing arguments on both sides I feel. However, I'm struggling with the notion when someone admits they would consider the use of torture at the same time refute the use of torture under any circumstances. 

No one is questioning the morality of torture, we all agree it is wrong. We all agree that all other methods should be employed in an attempt to save lives. 

But the question remains - Is it ever right to torture someone? Well, morally/ethically no it is never right to torture someone. But it may be the right thing/only option left to do in certain extreme situations, hence the lesser of the 2 evils.  

3 hours ago, beecee said:

As a wise individual noted on the first two or three pages, its going down the same road as the justice/punishment thread...in other words, an exersise in colliding philsophies. 😏 😉

Adds a bit of colour also do the old drab black and white! 🤭

I find these types of threads often frustrating but at the same time enlightening. They help me to question and/or affirm my own beliefs and also educate me. I hated education as a child and as a young student. These days I use these forums to educate and entertain myself, both which work really well hand in hand.  

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, MSC said:

But the motive was clearly self defense and teaching an important lesson to the instigating child, that people can hit back and that it hurts. He was four at the time so I doubt he'd understand what it actually feels like to be hit or how it makes others feel. Learning to turn the other cheek is fine, until you're turning it for a knife. I agree with you that ultimately violence isn't the answer, but sometimes when reasonable answers are not or aren't going to be listened to, you either need to walk away or take a swing. Walking away isn't an option for a 4 year old whom has no control over where he goes or lives. Just my two cents really. That said, I probably would have confronted the parents myself first when it was clearly getting out of hand and let them know I've told my kid to hit back if their kid strikes again, and to get their shit together. 

I'm not saying violence is never the answer, I'm saying if only one blow has been landed, it's hard to argue that punching him back is not revenge, ask him why first.

I realise we are talking about 4 year old's, but that's when we learn the quickest; therefore that's the best time to teach them how to be both safe (like I said I was an angry young man, if he hit me back??? very dangerous) and better able to de-escalate a violent situation.

But just incase, learn jeet kune do:

Quote

Bruce Lee developed an expression of martial arts that was personal to him called Jeet Kune Do (translated: Way of the Intercepting Fist). The art has as its symbolic representation what we call Bruce Lee's Core Symbol [see below] and uses as its main tenet: Using no way as way; having no limitation as limitation.

Then you'll make the bugger's eyes water... 😪

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

No one is questioning the morality of torture, we all agree it is wrong. We all agree that all other methods should be employed in an attempt to save lives. 

But the question remains - Is it ever right to torture someone?

The question remains, how do you know when all else has failed?

[MSC]

30 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Then you'll make the bugger's eyes water... 

Or you become like water! Be water my friend!

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, MSC said:

Or you become like water! Be water my friend!

lol 😂 +1

[Peterkin]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

No one is questioning the morality of torture, we all agree it is wrong.

That's the only common factor between a scripted scenario and real life.

In real life situations, this is the only thing you know for sure at the time the decision must be made.

You cannot be 100% sure you have the right captive; you can't be sure of his guilt, of whether he knows what you need to find out, what interrogation method will elicit the information he does have, whether and for how long the information you get will be useful, whether all less bad options have been exhausted, which kind of torture - if any - will produce results most quickly, what repercussions, consequences and long-term effects will result - for the the victim(s), the suspect, yourself, your agency, the justice system and society. You cannot know.

You have to rely on your own judgment and instinct. If the rules are strict and your training is sound, more mature judgment than primal instinct. If not, more hunch and gut reaction. 

In our safe and comfortable chairs, secure in the belief that we will never participate, either as agent or as suspect, it's an easy decision.

And that's wrong. It should never be easy.   

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The question remains, how do you know when all else has failed?

 

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

You cannot be 100% sure you have the right captive;    

To the contrary, and as I have shown in real life cases, yes you can be sure of a 100% guilt at best, and guilt beyond reasonable doubt at worst. Either is sufficient to proceed with torture, the last resort on rare extraordinary occasions.  This claim in realty (that we cannot be sure we have tried every way) is an example of philsophical pedant.  We have had numerous suggestions here, including a nice cup of tea and biscuits....hours upon hours of questioning without sleep...and/or whatever else the assembled authorities can dream up. 

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not saying violence is never the answer, I'm saying if only one blow has been landed, it's hard to argue that punching him back is not revenge, ask him why first.

Revenge??🤣 Try self defence. And obviously it worked. Whatever other methods were on the cards is neither here nor there. He, (my Son) under advice from me, defended himself and consequently probably saved another 4 year old (Andrew) from growing up to be an out and out bully. 

11 hours ago, Intoscience said:

This is all one can only hope for and what I believe we all agree on.

There have been some very good points made and some convincing arguments on both sides I feel. However, I'm struggling with the notion when someone admits they would consider the use of torture at the same time refute the use of torture under any circumstances. 

No one is questioning the morality of torture, we all agree it is wrong. We all agree that all other methods should be employed in an attempt to save lives. 

But the question remains - Is it ever right to torture someone? Well, morally/ethically no it is never right to torture someone. But it may be the right thing/only option left to do in certain extreme situations, hence the lesser of the 2 evils.   

Well said, particularly the highlighted parts by me. 

11 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I find these types of threads often frustrating but at the same time enlightening. They help me to question and/or affirm my own beliefs and also educate me. I hated education as a child and as a young student. These days I use these forums to educate and entertain myself, both which work really well hand in hand.  

Again, couldn't agree anymore with the above wise statement. If I may add to it, and as I have said earlier, these types of threads simply develop into philsophical arguments, with one philosopher, calling the other a jackass. Reminds me again of one of my favourite quotes, "Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself". Henry Louis Mencken. Now heaven forbid, I am not referring to anyone in particular, but just the whole damn exersise that has been going on now over 24 pages.

As a wise individual noted on the first two or three pages, its going down the same road as the justice/punishment thread...in other words, an exersise in colliding philsophies. 😏 😉

As was argued simarilly in the justice/punishment thread, ideally, it would be nice and heart warming if we could genuinly rehabilitate all criminals and wrong-doers, and eliminate all jails...ideally that is!! But what reasonable individual amongst us believe that such a utopia can ever exist. In essence it is nothing but a philsophical dream. The facts are we are all human...we are all emotional beings...while science does do its best to leave emotions aside, in the soft sciences, as per psychology, sociology, anthropology, and even political science, (the sciences that interpret human behavior) that is damn well near impossible. Unlike the hard sciences, (physics, chemistry cosmology etc) we are unable to establish any real, strict measurable criteria in those soft sciences. 

For the nth time, my moral ethics tell me that the first and main priority in any rare circumstances being discussed, are with the potential victims, and everything humanly possible should and must be done to protect those innocents. My life experiences have confirmed that to me many times.

Edited March 21, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

Quote

I have shown in real life cases, yes you can be sure of a 100% guilt at best, and guilt beyond reasonable doubt at worst.

You claim that, but it continues inapplicable to cases where vital information regarding the crime is urgently needed at the time and in the hours immediately following the apprehension of a suspect. There is no time, in either of the thought-experiment scenarios to do any routine investigation, let alone exhaust ll avenues short of torture, as every one of those avenues is time-consuming. 

In the red-handed capture example, no information is required from the suspect: everything necessary to know about the crime, the perpetrator, the weapon and the victim is already known.

In the verdict of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" example, there can be no such verdict until after the trail, which comes after the time-consuming forensic collection and testing, witness testimony - routine investigation; all the regular methods. And if evidence extracted by torture is introduced at the trial, it either nullifies or fatally taints that sentence. 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

You claim that, but it continues inapplicable to cases where vital information regarding the crime is urgently needed at the time and in the hours immediately following the apprehension of a suspect. There is no time, in either of the thought-experiment scenarios to do any routine investigation, let alone exhaust ll avenues short of torture, as every one of those avenues is time-consuming. 

Wrong on many levels. With the kidnapper/s he may have been seen in the getaway car, he may openly admit to it, the child's teddy bear may be in the car with other personal items, phone calls may have been tapped, and probably many other reasons I can't think of at this time. All cause to conclude he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And worth considering in such a rare emergency situation, a speed up of DNA identification could also be undertaken. Certainly all as viable as your own fabricated notions against guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

In the red-handed capture example, no information is required from the suspect: everything necessary to know about the crime, the perpetrator, the weapon and the victim is already known.

And you were informed also that that real live example was to illustrate we can know with 100% certainty of guilt. And I am only researching local cases in my area. The world is a big place!

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

In the verdict of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" example, there can be no such verdict until after the trail, which comes after the time-consuming forensic collection and testing, witness testimony - routine investigation; all the regular methods. And if evidence extracted by torture is introduced at the trial, it either nullifies or fatally taints that sentence. 

Legally speaking yes, under normal circumstances, yes, but we are not under normal circumstances, and actually, needed common sense would prevail. That is to do whatever is needed to save innocent lives, up to and including torture, which of course you have already agreed to. No trial is necessary, no formal proof of guilt is required, because we can know, and do know, that we already have the guilty party due to the proponderence of evidence to assume beyond a reasonable doubt. In such rare cases, the normal legal requirements would I suggest, be dispensed with, in preference to upholding a much higher ethic morally correct decision in saving innocent lives.

For the nth time, my moral ethics tell me that the first and main priority in any rare circumstances being discussed, are with the potential victims, and everything humanly possible should and must be done to protect those innocents. My life experiences have confirmed that to me many times.

Edited March 21, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

he may openly admit to it, the child's teddy bear may be in the car with other personal items, phone calls may have been tapped, and probably many other reasons I can't think of at this time.

So why does the agent on the scene have access to them, if you can't think of them in a cool, detached assessment? All those may have happened, and may come to light during an investigation. But the rapist of little girl you keep bringing as an example of 100% certainty is still not applicable to all these "may have"'s: you already had the information. 

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

And you were informed also that that real live example was to illustrate we can no 100% certainty of guilt.

In cases where you don't need to decide whether to use torture; i.e. cases that are inapplicable to the scenario presented here.

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

The world is a big place!

In which a great many injustices happen. (Yes, yes, the criminals do more harm than the police, so it's okay.)

22 minutes ago, beecee said:

Legally speaking yes, under normal circumstances, yes, but we are not under normal circumstances, and actually, needed common sense would prevail.

Under abnormal circumstances, "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is a verdict based on the common sense, experience, gut feeling, hunch, or prejudice of a police officer. That does apply to the case in point; the legal definition does not. 

 

25 minutes ago, beecee said:

No trial is necessary, no formal proof of guilt is required, because we can know, and do know, that we already have the guilty party due to the proponderence of evidence to assume beyond a reasonable doubt. In such rare cases, the normal legal requirements would I suggest, be dispensed with, in preference to upholding a much higher ethic morally correct decision in saving innocent lives

That's vigilante justice. It has not proven particularly beneficial to societies.    

 

[beecee]

37 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

So why does the agent on the scene have access to them, if you can't think of them in a cool, detached assessment? All those may have happened, and may come to light during an investigation. But the rapist of little girl you keep bringing as an example of 100% certainty is still not applicable to all these "may have"'s: you already had the information.   

Perhaps you need to read properly what I said, and stop pretending?  The agent/authority/police or whoever is on the scene may have captured the paedophile in the car after a reported sighting. The child maybe with the other paedophile in another car after they were observed snatching the child....you know! any number of circumstances to be able to conclude guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or even 100% guilt. 

41 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

In cases where you don't need to decide whether to use torture; i.e. cases that are inapplicable to the scenario presented here. 

It was presented to show you can have absolute certainty of a crime. That doesn't mean that another scenario, say with a terrorist, that has arrogantly admitted guilt, was seen stealing the bomb, or perhaps dobbed in by another, and after all other means have been exhausted, and as you openly admit to, that torture maybe considered. And you certainly do not decide what is applicable and what is not applicable.

44 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

In which a great many injustices happen. (Yes, yes, the criminals do more harm than the police, so it's okay.) 

Yes certainly much injustices, but obviously you need to start a thread re  crooked/bad police as you seem so obsessed with that concept. This thread is about the use of torture when all else has failed, on kidnappers, paedophiles, terrorists and criminals in general. I respect the Police and authorities until given reason to do otherwise.

48 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Under abnormal circumstances, "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is a verdict based on the common sense, experience, gut feeling, hunch, or prejudice of a police officer. That does apply to the case in point; the legal definition does not. 

Wrong. Under normal circumstances the courts and legal systems decide the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. We are not dealing with normal circumstances, gut feelings, hunches, or prejudices. We are dealing with one off, rare happenings, with knowledge and evidence of 100% gulit and/or beyond any reasonable doubt, where innocent lives are at stake.

52 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That's vigilante justice. It has not proven particularly beneficial to societies. 

No, its justice as determined by the authorities in extenuating circumstances, where innocent lives are at stake. It's what a normal westernised democratic society would determine as correct in support of said authorities. 

23 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Okay. Your way prevails.

Very likely.

One must begin to wonder...are you playing games? Was that just an example of fecetiousness? Perhaps I am too prepared to accept what you say at face value? Coupled with your admittance that you would indeed consider torture, I'm beginning to wonder what your purpose is in continuing the same old, same old questions/statements/conclusions/misinterpretations and errors.

[Peterkin]

Sure. Lots of things might be. Some of those improbable things might even happen together. If enough of those improbable things improbably converged within your immediate purview, you might can be as certain of a suspect's guilt as if they had been witnessed committing the crime. If all of those improbable things converged in a single moment, in a single case, you might have the makings of a scripted thought-experiment. 

When that happens, you will make the right decision. Probably.

3 hours ago, beecee said:

One must begin to wonder...are you playing games?

Where's the fun? What's to win? No, I simply disagree with your approach to law-enforcement. 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Sure. Lots of things might be. Some of those improbable things might even happen together. If enough of those improbable things improbably converged within your immediate purview, you might can be as certain of a suspect's guilt as if they had been witnessed committing the crime. If all of those improbable things converged in a single moment, in a single case, you might have the makings of a scripted thought-experiment. 

No  more scripted then your own scenarios, but at least I have given a real life example supporting one aspect, that being 100% certainty of guilt, and more then a few reputable links supporting the rare exceptions that may see the need to depart from the ban on torture, for a higher ethically morally correct stance...that being the saving of innocent lives. Who would have thunk 9/11 was possible for example? 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

When that happens, you will make the right decision. Probably.

 Just as you have said you would, and most everyone else admitting to some consideration.

On 3/21/2022 at 12:08 PM, Peterkin said:

Where's the fun? What's to win? No, I simply disagree with your approach to law-enforcement. 

Í'm not sure if there is any fun. I was commenting on your apparent side step, or otherwise fecetious post as follows, again. 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Okay. Your way prevails.

Very likely.

Law enforcement is a necessary evil, like any authoritarian orginization. I respect them until given reason not to. And that doesn't mean (as you seem to portray in many of your posts) a blanket lack of respect. It means a lack of respect for those bad eggs that have brought the force into disrepute, and the support of all efforts to get rid of them. But hey, we are going over old ground again, aren't we?

Edited March 22, 2022 by beecee

[MSC]

9 hours ago, beecee said:

As a wise individual noted on the first two or three pages, its going down the same road as the justice/punishment thread...in other words, an exersise in colliding philsophies.

I dunno, I find that most dialogues tend to end up as either an exercise in colliding philosophies or actual colliding people following different philosophies, whether the people in them would call themselves philosophers or not. I call it the war of the words sometimes. Simply out of a lack of anything better to call it really. For those of us here, self-interested philosophy permitting indulgence in our worst selves is the true enemy. 

The thing that unites us all, is that the prospect of having to authorize or carry out torture would give each of us extreme pause. Which I feel is good. Far better than the sinister types who use words as a weapon to do whatever they please, at the expense of others. The types of people who would jump at the chance for the very idea of legally being allowed to torture someone or to have them tortured. 

There is one last argument I would like to make in regards to why I think torture is wrong in any situation. As a torturer or someone with the power to command others to torture, you have absolute power over someone. Power is always intoxicating. Whether it comes from money, influence or control. Today we justify the torture of a terrorist in an extreme situation, tomorrow we justify torture for another terrorist who isn't an active threat. Where could it end? Torturing a starving man for stealing bread? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The thing that frightens me, as a human, is that I don't know the answer to these following questions; if I engaged in torturing someone, if all 7billion+ people on this planet begged me to do it and I did... would there be some part of me, small or large, that enjoys it? Would it change me? Would it make it easier for me to do things that the me of today would abhore? 

The whole colliding philosophies thing is aggravating for sure. This is why I am a pragmatic contextualist. I try to find the value of every philosophical view, whether it is from right reasons or right emotional sentiment. Within strict pragmatic definitions of knowledge. It's not perfect, no philosophy ever will be, but I do find that so far, contextualism is the most scientifically minded philosophy, in that it seeks to account for and explain why philosophical differences and debates occur in the first place and finding out where they fit in the grand scheme of things. The goal is to have some kind of framework that does for philosophy what the standard model of physics, does for physics. Probably not completely correct in the long run, but helps us reach feasible explanations we can use to our benefit now. By observing just what the fuck is actually out there.