According to the declaration of human rights, torture is a heavy crime. I agree that torture is bad, both for the tortured guy and the torturer since his bad instincts are developed. But still, I think that if you knew that somebody wa holdinga a secret and that if you knew it it would save thousands of people, then I think torture is allowed if he refuses to obtemperate.
I think torture should only be used in extreme cases and as the last resource.
A terrorist group has planted a small nuclear device with a timing mechanism in London and it is about to go off. If it does it will kill thousands and make a large part of the city uninhabitable for decades. One of the terrorists has been captured by the police, and if he can be made to disclose the location of the device then the police can probably disarm it and thereby save the lives of thousands. The police know the terrorist in question. They know he has orchestrated terrorist attacks, albeit non-nuclear ones, in the past. Moreover, on the basis of intercepted mobile phone calls and e-mails the police know that this attack is under way in some location in London and that he is the leader of the group. Unfortunately, the terrorist is refusing to talk and time is slipping away. However, the police know that there is a reasonable chance that he will talk, if tortured. Moreover, all their other sources of information have dried up. Furthermore, there is no other way to avoid catastrophe; evacuation of the city, for example, cannot be undertaken in the limited time available. Torture is not normally used by the police, and indeed it is unlawful to use it.
Is it morally "okay" to use torture in this situation?
The biggest reason, aside from basic human rights, that torture is wrong is outlined in the concept of informational validity. If you were being tortured, wouldn't you say anything to make the pain stop? If you torture the aforementioned man, how do you know that the information gained is accurate? When it comes down to it, torture is an un-necessary evil that mars our perception of information.
It depends of how you use torture. If you use it to force somebody to admit he's a criminal, then you're wrong as he might admit it even if he was innocent. But in some cases as the example given by Asherlee, torture is a necessity.
The only thing that I really dislike about torture is the "What if it gets used on me?" thought. But the fact of the matter is, if you go to almost any lesser-known other country, you could potentially be up for grabs. Numerous random groups out there would love to get a white tourist to capture and use as they desire as a bargaining chip...
I might have forgot to mention the fact that I do not care if it is used, because there is no way to stop it. And I was putting in my two cents. Which is totally related to torture.
Truen it is related to torture, but as you didn't give your advice about torture... Also, when you're talking about white tourists getting tortured, they're usually not tortured since they represent money... and we don't want them to be in a bad state of health...
What use is it to give advice(?) about torture when it does not matter. Torture has been around for what seems like forever and likely always will.
Then you obviously have not read much news or the such in your life. Even jsut something as simple as not feeding a hostage/prisoner often enough could be defined as torture depending on who you are talking to.
The question raised by this topic is: Is torture useful?
we know that there's a lot of tortures occuring in the world. We want to know if there are cases in which it is acceptable, that's all and that' why we wanted you advice!! lol Tonight I seem to annoy everybody, i guess it's because I can't express myself very well in English and so I use words that annoy you. Sorry about that.
Sometimes torture is necessary. And besides, a man who planted a bomb to blow up 1000's of innocents, DESERVES to have his fingernails yanked off, and then have his bleeding fingertips set on fire, and his "boys" swung at with a medieval mace. If you're about to blow up 1000's, you DESERVE that kind of suffering. So, I say torture should only be implemented if it is JUSTIFIED.
If a man won't confess to a crime that some people THINK he committed, it's wrong to torture him to make him confess.
If a man is told to reveal the names of some fellow hackers who revealed the truth about UFOs, by hacking into government systems, he doesn't deserve to be tortured for that info.
If a man who bought fully automatic guns and a rocket launcher, just because he wants them, shouldn't be tortured just to find out where he hid those weapons.
If a man is part of a group of people who conspired to kill somebody who wronged them, that man shouldn't be tortured.
But if a man is part of a group of people who conspire to kill somebody just so they can get money, that man SHOULD be tortured.
