Thoreau72
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2012
- Messages
- 29,638
- Reaction score
- 7,644
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
The legal definition of assault is "an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact." What what we know about prison, the act of being sentenced is assault.
The way you use the world "assault," it is clear you mean "battery." The legal definition of battery is "an intentional unpermitted act causing harmful or offensive contact with the "person" of another." An uncooperative prisoner who does not wish to enter his cell will be forcefully placed in his cell (or into another cell, in solitary), which constitutes battery by the definition.
You permit that "society" can decide what is right and what is wrong, making the intentional act of a judge handing sentencing down unto an individual (which creates an apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact) and then ordering the bailiff to remand that person into custody (an intentional unpermitted act causing harmful or offensive contact) to be fine and dandy. In any other context, those actions constitute assault and battery, by you accept the definition that this is acceptable and permitted. When that person then goes to prison (where he may get physically battered, raped, or killed), that is ok with you... because some guy in a robe said it was. And then that person may be placed in a tiny cell and cut off from human contact for MONTHS, all on the declaration of a non-elected private citizen (the warden)... and you're ok with that!
So, my question is why do you not allow for a non-physically harmful method of interrogation? If the word "torture" is defined as "things Henry David thinks are torture," you would have a point, but that isn't how the world works. If the entire basis of your argument comes down to the consent of the governed (which it does), then what makes the Judicial Branch the end-all-be-all power to decide that a warden can essentially torture an individual as he sees fit? The entire line of logic rests on circular reasoning - torture is defined as those things that have been defined as torture. Everything else is "not torture," including some of the very same acts, only when carried out by other parties.
I appreciate all the good definitions.
Actually, I DO allow for a non-physically harmful method of interrogation. Psychological trauma CAN be inflicted, and would certainly qualify as torture in my book, depending upon conditions. I try to keep things in perspective, and to some degree or another, situational ethics might very well apply.
I am only human.
When a person is duly convicted of a crime against others, as opposed to a crime against the state or a victimless crime, then he must be punished in accordance with the law and due process. I do not object to the death penalty, though the way we administer it leaves alot to be desired.
Sleep deprivation is torture, and an example of your non-physical (not entirely accurate, but suffices for discussion) battery.