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

ab9924 said:

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?

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with government and the thugs (not bullies, thugs keep bullies in check) are just part of the alternative system. Who is "qualified" is who is capable.

You are mixing domestic criminal justice issues with military/terrorism issues. Those are very different questions in my opinion.

joko104 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Very interesting. When people are trying to be clever, such as 19th century academics (or even worse, 20th century academics), they just make everything progressively worse. Much worse. The most humane(!) of all of these "advancements" is the status quo that existed before all of them ... which is to just kill them quick, regardless of affiliation, persistency, age, ... . If a person is dependent on a criminal, will be free to move on that way too, torture doesn't buy that either.

Zariak said:

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.

Click to expand...

Killing is justice. Torture is not. It always comes around, so what do you prefer at the end of the full circle, begging for your death, or just receiving your death?

ab9924 said:

Very interesting. When people are trying to be clever, such as 19th century academics (or even worse, 20th century academics), they just make everything progressively worse. Much worse. The most humane(!) of all of these "advancements" is the status quo that existed before all of them ... which is to just kill them quick, regardless of affiliation, persistency, age, ... . If a person is dependent on a criminal, will be free to move on that way too, torture doesn't buy that either.

Click to expand...

I was not advocating torture, just pointing out it was considered a legitimate debate topic for a very long time - and some of the arguments made on its behalf. I specifically also stated I oppose torture by government as a form of punishment within the criminal justice system.

ab9924 said:

Killing is justice. Torture is not. It always comes around, so what do you prefer at the end of the full circle, begging for your death, or just receiving your death?

Click to expand...

But it doesn't come around full circle. Someone could work for the US government as a waterboarder for their entire life and live a guilt-free and happy life knowing that they are exacting justice on sick, sick human beings. Do I want to beg for my life. No. No one does. Does Anders Breveik deserve to beg for his miserable life? Yes. Yes he does.

Goshin said:

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."

Click to expand...

Odds are you'd never have such a person, and if he's wiling to de, he's wiling to lie. In other words wastes more time than it helps.

However I argely agree with the rest.

joko104 said:

It has nothing to do with government and the thugs (not bullies, thugs keep bullies in check) are just part of the alternative system. Who is "qualified" is who is capable.

You are mixing domestic criminal justice issues with military/terrorism issues. Those are very different questions in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I don't understand the difference between thugs and bullies, I think they can switch. Also I don't understand the difference between domestic crimes (e.g. gang activity) and the part of international politics that is done by nation states, they all operate in a lawless environment ... jungle law.

Zariak said:

But it doesn't come around full circle. Someone could work for the US government as a waterboarder for their entire life and live a guilt-free and happy life knowing that they are exacting justice on sick, sick human beings. Do I want to beg for my life. No. No one does. Does Anders Breveik deserve to beg for his miserable life? Yes. Yes he does.

Click to expand...

Only if the torturer lives the life of a completely isolated monk. Torturing anything (let alone people) smells on you, mentally. Their happiness will be the same type of happiness as of the person they torture. By the way it is not your life that you will beg for, it is your DEATH that you will beg for, under modern techniques.

Zariak said:

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

Click to expand...

I though that common sense held that there is a big difference between justice and a legal system. I don't understand how the 2 are related to each other.

Those terrorists and other opponents of our values, that commit heinous acts, have most likely resolved it within themselves, that their lives end before their criminal acts, and the torture that they get later is only a part of their death processes. This is why torture never works if we expect to gain "Earthly" benefits from it. ... And we are not in control of its non-"Earthly" "benefits".

I do not look at topics from ideological dogma, but pragmatic reality. It is reality ultimately that matters.

A problem I tend to have with extreme partisans on either side, religious zealots and academic types is that they form their philosophy on what people and society should be, then then expect all to bend to suit their ideology or platitudes. If anyone is a victim because of it, their view is that it is unfortunate but the principle is of greater value.

Law and order, ie justice, within society is very complex, fluid ebb and flow and changing. There is no one-rule, one-way, or universal code that does or can apply. People would maybe like government to be in total control, but it isn't and government realized it doesn't. Thus, circumstantially, the level at which criminal justice even attempts to function and what levels of jungle (or animal/natural) law tolerated by the criminal justice system varies by community, persons and circumstance.

That includes the topic of level of violence and inflicting pain is tolerated varies.

Zariak said:

But it doesn't come around full circle. Someone could work for the US government as a waterboarder for their entire life and live a guilt-free and happy life knowing that they are exacting justice on sick, sick human beings. Do I want to beg for my life. No. No one does. Does Anders Breveik deserve to beg for his miserable life? Yes. Yes he does.

Click to expand...

Your arguments are the same as a predatory sadist. It starts by justifying the desire to torture by dehumanizing the victim. The clever predator then chooses the most helpless target, a criminal monster like Brevik that nobody is willing to defend. However, it doesn't end there and once given the keys to the castle, the abuse spreads to anyone within reach, including the innocent. Its been well documented in both the Zimbardo prison experiment and by countless historical examples.

Justice exists to protect society not cater to those who enjoy inflicting suffering on others.

All it proves is that our country or any "civilized" country has stopped being civlized and decided that the only way to operate is to become like those we are fighting.

wolfman24 said:

All it proves is that our country or any "civilized" country has stopped being civlized and decided that the only way to operate is to become like those we are fighting.

Click to expand...

yeah well turning the other cheek doesnt work in combat lol.

roflpublican said:

yeah well turning the other cheek doesnt work in combat lol.

Click to expand...

torturing someone has nothing to do with combat. If someone is trying to kill you, kill them.

To try and equate the two is moronic.

wolfman24 said:

torturing someone has nothing to do with combat. If someone is trying to kill you, kill them.

To try and equate the two is moronic.

Click to expand...

nah they tortured our people by burning them to death with jet fuel on 9/11. combat doesnt occur on their terms. it occurs on ours.

roflpublican said:

nah they tortured our people by burning them to death with jet fuel on 9/11. combat doesnt occur on their terms. it occurs on ours.

Click to expand...

So its ok to act like them and do the things they do. Then why are we better, Oh I know cause

wolfman24 said:

So its ok to act like them and do the things they do. Then why are we better, Oh I know cause

Click to expand...

oh no we're no better. it stopped being about moral high ground the moment they took the towers down. now it's anything goes.

You have to have due process first, unless they aren't American citizens that are POWs (or illegals, deportation w/o papers anyways)... Maybe... At Gitmo I agree... Maybe for Americans, I'm not sure tbh with you

I truly believe that if torture will save American lives or prevent a terrorist attack the likes of 9/11 or worse I say go for it!!!!!!!!!!!

ab9924 said:

I don't understand the difference between thugs and bullies, I think they can switch. Also I don't understand the difference between domestic crimes (e.g. gang activity) and the part of international politics that is done by nation states, they all operate in a lawless environment ... jungle law.

Click to expand...

A "thug" is a hired employee doing a job that involves physical violence. It is, basically, professional employment. A bully is someone who threatens or does violence to frighten, control or intimidate another person with violence or threats of violence.

A way various "businesses" and individuals address problems with a bully or bullies is to have their thug(s) take care of the bully/ies. However, that is only one job area of thugs, with each unique to their employment situation. If you hired someone to beat up, hurt or intimidate someone with threat of physical violence or with violence, that person is a "thug." Bullies are acting on their own motivations. Thugs are professionally acting on behalf of someone else. I was never a bully. But in the past I hurt bullies as a thug. I hurt other people too. However, I was not an assassin. That is still something else. If the purpose of the employee is only potential defensive violence, that is "security personnel." However, a professional can fill multiple roles: "bouncer," "security," "thug" (sometimes also "enforcer,") and/or "assassin." Except for the last, in my past I had such employment(s). However, that is just in my past.

It is possible for a thug in his/her private life to also personally be a bully and that is not rare, but they are not the same.

Domestic crimes involve the relevant jurisdictions rule of law for crimes that occur within that jurisdiction. International offenses did not occur within one of our jurisdictions, and therefore there is no relevant jurisdictional law.

No. Killing does not require torture. Yes, some people deserve it.

I'm in favor of corporal punishment, and I'm in favor of public executions, but torture for punitive purposes makes a fetish of others' pain.

I didn't pick one. I believe that in the United States no citizen should be subject to torture. I believe that any proven terrorist that is NOT an american citizen can be subject to torture for the purposes of information only. No United States citizen should EVER be punished with torture. I cannot speak for other 1st World Nations.

I advocate torture in lieu of incarceration.

Singapore uses torture, carefully administered, to inhibit offenders from repeating their actions. It's very effective.

In some cases, confinement as well as torture would be applicable.

Zariak said:

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.

Click to expand...

They might deserve torture, but we-- as a nation-- should strive to uphold a higher standard. We deserve to live in a nation that doesn't condone torture.

Scum like Mr. Loughner and Mr. Holmes should be put down. But they should be put down as we would put down any other dangerous animal: as humanely as possible.