• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

is torture a justifiable punishment in a first world civilized country?

torture a justifiable punishment in first world countires?

  • Yes- only for terrible crimes, followed subsequently by execution

    Votes: 8 16.7%
  • Yes, for terrible crimes, followed subsequently by life imprisonment

    Votes: 1 2.1%
  • Never, under any circumstances.

    Votes: 39 81.3%

  • Total voters
    48

Zariak

Active member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
470
Reaction score
183
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It may seem ridiculous and a totally disgusting breach of human rights, but in some cases, do some people deserve just as much pain as they inflicted onto their victims?
 
Define "torture" first.

As a general thing, I think the answer is "no".
 
No. I am also against the death penalty.
 
depends. some people commit crimes that put them beyond the scope of standard justice. that's where the CIA comes in.
 
Define "torture" first.

As a general thing, I think the answer is "no".

let's say, just to keep it nice, for example, waterboarding James Holmes twenty times, before sentencing him to life in prison or the death penalty.
 
depends. some people commit crimes that put them beyond the scope of standard justice. that's where the CIA comes in.

If the CIA is sneaking into the prisons where they hold terrible criminals and torturing them anyways, then I want to know
 
It may seem ridiculous and a totally disgusting breach of human rights, but in some cases, do some people deserve just as much pain as they inflicted onto their victims?

I voted no. And I say, "Hell no."
 
I voted no. And I say, "Hell no."

I respectfully disagree, and believe that wastes of human life such as Jared Lee Loughner and James Holmes have given up their rights, and should have much pain inflicted onto them. Death and life in prison is just not good enough.
 
Highly circumstantial. Torture for the hell of it or torture to extract information that could save lives? A Department of Torture or first on the scene good guys looking to exact vengeance on the guy who tried to kill them?
 
let's say, just to keep it nice, for example, waterboarding James Holmes twenty times, before sentencing him to life in prison or the death penalty.


Just for giggles? No.


Nuclear weapon on a timer hidden in a major US city and we have a terrorist in custody who knows where it is? Yeah... but even then it should not be enshrined in law, more like "a forgiveable offense done out of desperate necessity."
 
Just for giggles? No.


Nuclear weapon on a timer hidden in a major US city and we have a terrorist in custody who knows where it is? Yeah... but even then it should not be enshrined in law, more like "a forgiveable offense done out of desperate necessity."

not "just for giggles" think of it more as "just for the settlement of the victims of atrocious crimes, and a strong deterrant for homicidal maniacs, that they could be facing a lot more than a painless death or life in prison, they could also be facing a whole lot of pain"
 
By the government, no. Definitely.

In jungle or natural law, circumstantially yes - but then no prison is involved. However I don't necessary mean torture as most people think of it. Rather, retaliatory or punitive violence and/or injury. Such was an alternative when the criminal justice system involving was not relevant.
 
Last edited:
not "just for giggles" think of it more as "just for the settlement of the victims of atrocious crimes, and a strong deterrant for homicidal maniacs, that they could be facing a lot more than a painless death or life in prison, they could also be facing a whole lot of pain"


IMO, mass-murdering ****heads should be dealt with in the same manner as rabid dogs: you don't torture them, you just put them down. Quickly and efficiently.
 
IMO, mass-murdering ****heads should be dealt with in the same manner as rabid dogs: you don't torture them, you just put them down. Quickly and efficiently.

only one problem with that: rabid dogs don't choose to be rabid
 
If the CIA is sneaking into the prisons where they hold terrible criminals and torturing them anyways, then I want to know

i don't the CIA operates best in secret. they're the good guys in my opinion.
 
only one problem with that: rabid dogs don't choose to be rabid


True enough, but the effect is the same: kill them at once and they are no longer a threat to anyone.

In the middle ages they tried public torture of criminals as a deterrent. Didn't work worth a darn, partly because they sucked at catching criminals...


Gov't having the power to torture its citizens is not something I want enshrined in law in my country.

Just kill 'em. Then they can answer to God for anything they still owe for their crimes.
 
It may seem ridiculous and a totally disgusting breach of human rights, but in some cases, do some people deserve just as much pain as they inflicted onto their victims?

Apart from the fact, that inflicting torture on things puts you in the same category as your most heinous torturous criminal enemies, you invite the same torture on yourself.

I personally know someone who likes torture, and he calls it a method of scientific study. It IS really scientific, and the standard methods that secret service interrogators use, go far beyond a death. Modern torture techniques are based on ADAPTIVE control, deciding each of the next steps after evaluating the body's (and mind's) response to the current step. So a modern torture not only maximizes the suffering, but also elongates it INDEFINITELY.

I could write here exact examples that were carried out on animals as studies, but I won't. I can tell you this much: torture is a result of what we are and it is coming to each and every one of us. It is not a good idea to invite it faster. You will not see the end of it!!!
 
i don't the CIA operates best in secret. they're the good guys in my opinion.

yeah, I agree that they're the good guys, but they don't sneak into American prisons and beat the crap out of rapists, and sick pedophiles and mass murderers (at least as far as I am aware). They usually beat the crap out of people with political motivation.
 
Apart from the fact, that inflicting torture on things puts you in the same category as your most heinous torturous criminal enemies, you invite the same torture on yourself.

I personally know someone who likes torture, and he calls it a method of scientific study. It IS really scientific, and the standard methods that secret service interrogators use, go far beyond a death. Modern torture techniques are based on ADAPTIVE control, deciding each of the next steps after evaluating the body's (and mind's) response to the current step. So a modern torture not only maximizes the suffering, but also elongates it INDEFINITELY.

I could write here exact examples that were carried out on animals as studies, but I won't. I can tell you this much: torture is a result of what we are and it is coming to each and every one of us. It is not a good idea to invite it faster. You will not see the end of it!!!

Thru the 1800s, torture was still debated academically as to whether it was a viable form of punishment. For some, they saw it as a superior alternative to long term imprisonment. The view was 1.) it is more fearful 2.) it is justified retribution and 3.) it does not harm other dependents - such as the criminal's children - as opposed to a long prison term - questioning the deterent, psychological result and adverse affect on those dependent on the criminal.
 
yeah, I agree that they're the good guys, but they don't sneak into American prisons and beat the crap out of rapists, and sick pedophiles and mass murderers (at least as far as I am aware). They usually beat the crap out of people with political motivation.

thems the breaks, don't get on the CIA's badside unless you like waterboarding.
 
Apart from the fact, that inflicting torture on things puts you in the same category as your most heinous torturous criminal enemies, you invite the same torture on yourself.

I personally know someone who likes torture, and he calls it a method of scientific study. It IS really scientific, and the standard methods that secret service interrogators use, go far beyond a death. Modern torture techniques are based on ADAPTIVE control, deciding each of the next steps after evaluating the body's (and mind's) response to the current step. So a modern torture not only maximizes the suffering, but also elongates it INDEFINITELY.

I could write here exact examples that were carried out on animals as studies, but I won't. I can tell you this much: torture is a result of what we are and it is coming to each and every one of us. It is not a good idea to invite it faster. You will not see the end of it!!!

the way I see it, it's more like carrying out justice, for those who cannot fight back. For example, a man rapes and kills someone's daughter. Does the daughter's father exact justice? No. Is it his right to exact justice? Maybe. But the fact is, the US Legal System is responsible for exacting justice.
 
There are many situations where criminal justice and the legal system are basically irrelevant or not applicable. For example if it involves illegalities or in basically forgotten communities.

If a low rent man beats a low rent hooker or barfly, the law is likely to do nothing, basically can't be reported, and even if police/DA do anything, it will be so trivial as to not serve any deterrent value to others. However, if it understand in advance that the result is to get the hell beat out of him it does have a deterrent value. The "legal system" of even our civilized society operates possible as much or more on that level of justice.
 
True enough, but the effect is the same: kill them at once and they are no longer a threat to anyone.

In the middle ages they tried public torture of criminals as a deterrent. Didn't work worth a darn, partly because they sucked at catching criminals...


Gov't having the power to torture its citizens is not something I want enshrined in law in my country.

Just kill 'em. Then they can answer to God for anything they still owe for their crimes.

Anyone who commits crimes against other humans that are undeniably atrocious in nature, gives up their right to be a citizen. Telling the victim's families that God will exact justice would be folly if the family was atheist.
 
By the government, no. Definitely.

In jungle or natural law, circumstantially yes - but then no prison is involved. However I don't necessary mean torture as most people think of it. Rather, retaliatory or punitive violence and/or injury. Such was an alternative when the criminal justice system involving was not relevant.

Congratulations, with this, we have now arrived at the foundations of modern day nation state international politics.

I am just curious, which one of the bullies do you think is qualified to say when a revenge is due?
 
Congratulations, with this, we have now arrived at the foundations of modern day nation state international politics.

I am just curious, which one of the bullies do you think is qualified to say when a revenge is due?

Our bully, the legal system, exacts justice, when it we are desperate for it
 
Back
Top Bottom