Torture

[Skyab23]

If 100 suspected terrorists (meaning they haven't been given a trial yet) are in a room being detained by the government, and government officials suspect that 1 of the terrorists has vital information that could potentially tell them of a future terrorist attack. Question: If the government has detained 100 people, and they have reason to believe that one individual in the group has information that could lead to a potential terrorist attack, does that justify the government torturing all 100 people?

[DoubleD]

How do you feel about this? Would it justify torture in your mind?

[Skyab23]

Absolutely not. I would be against it. I look at things through the morality perspective. I am a Libertarian and could go into further detail on that political philosophy, but to torture 99 innocent people in order to get information from 1 person, is immoral and destroys the foundation of a just and lawful society. It's something that a third world country or a dictatorship would advocate.

It's similar to the death penalty. I used to be for it, however, when I think about the government having the power to put someone to death, that makes me very uneasy. Particularly considering how much of the new technology is exonerating people on death row. If 1 innocent person is put to death out of a 1000, then the system has failed.

[Mason]

It's similar to the death penalty. I used to be for it, however, when I think about the government having the power to put someone to death, that makes me very uneasy.

What, even if that person is a child rapist or a serial killer? I'd be all for people such as that to be put to death for ruining lives of families and individuals. People see it their own way, but through my own eyes, I find it difficult to understand why someone wouldn't want that. Why keep them locked up, alive, for the rest of their life, after they've been so inhuman toward society? Maybe I come across too direct, but it's what I think, and the fact the government has "the power to put someone to death", it's in exchange for a killer also "having the power to put someone to death".

[Skyab23]

It's similar to the death penalty. I used to be for it, however, when I think about the government having the power to put someone to death, that makes me very uneasy.

What, even if that person is a child rapist or a serial killer? I'd be all for people such as that to be put to death for ruining lives of families and individuals. People see it their own way, but through my own eyes, I find it difficult to understand why someone wouldn't want that. Why keep them locked up, alive, for the rest of their life, after they've been so inhuman toward society? Maybe I come across too direct, but it's what I think, and the fact the government has "the power to put someone to death", it's in exchange for a killer also "having the power to put someone to death".

Right, but it's wrong for someone to kill someone else, so you advocate a government being allowed to kill someone in return? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? Yes, I have always been for the death penalty overall, but until the system can be damn near flawless, and stop putting innocent people to death, particularly around circumstantial evidence, then it needs to be done away with. This is coming from someone whose step-sister was murdered 8 years ago, and the guy got off with 28 years of jail time on second degree murder.

[prince0gotham]

It's similar to the death penalty. I used to be for it, however, when I think about the government having the power to put someone to death, that makes me very uneasy.

What, even if that person is a child rapist or a serial killer? I'd be all for people such as that to be put to death for ruining lives of families and individuals. People see it their own way, but through my own eyes, I find it difficult to understand why someone wouldn't want that. Why keep them locked up, alive, for the rest of their life, after they've been so inhuman toward society? Maybe I come across too direct, but it's what I think, and the fact the government has "the power to put someone to death", it's in exchange for a killer also "having the power to put someone to death".

whut

[movieman1005]

Yes, I have always been for the death penalty overall, but until the system can be damn near flawless, and stop putting innocent people to death, particularly around circumstantial evidence, then it needs to be done away with.

I totally agree. Too many people have been proved innocent after it was too late in this justice system. Plus I think we stoop to their level if we just follow the "eye for an eye" path.

And to quote Batman Begins :
"No, I'm no executioner."
"Your compassion is a weakness your enemies will not share."
"That's why it's so important; it separates us from them."

[Liron]

a. I'm against torture generally unless you know 100% sure the person is holding the information you require, so torturing 100 people cos one might know is a big no.

b. what bothers me more than that is when the government (or anything connected to it) do allow torture.. and/or killing innocent people and hides it from the citizens. When, what's meant to be the democratic "watchdog", the media, stands by the government blindly instead of finding these things out (when they're all over foreign media) and letting the people know.

[Skyab23]

a. I'm against torture generally unless you know 100% sure the person is holding the information you require, so torturing 100 people cos one might know is a big no.

b. what bothers me more than that is when the government (or anything connected to it) do allow torture.. and/or killing innocent people and hides it from the citizens. When, what's meant to be the democratic "watchdog", the media, stands by the government blindly instead of finding these things out (when they're all over foreign media) and letting the people know.

But isn't it immoral to torture, regardless? You or I couldn't get away with torture without being prosecuted, why should the government be allowed to get away with it? I'm under the impression that the government shouldn't be above the law, and shouldn't be allowed to get away with breaking the law and doing things that the average citizen isn't allowed.

[Addicted2Movies]

Yes they should be able to torture them if one of them has information to save people from a large scale terrorist attack (a la 9/11). If you are being held captive by the government as a suspected terrorist you have probably made some pretty poor if not malicious decisions to get into that situation. Torture is one of those decisions that no one wants to make and should never be considered as "moral". But just because it is an immoral act doesn't mean it is not necessary in extreme circumstances. It is akin to picking the "lesser of two evils". Either you torture 100 suspected terrorists with perhaps 99 of them not having the intel but 1 having information that could prevent this mass act of terror or you choose the "moral" route and abstain from torture at the expense of an impending terrorist that could take the lives of thousands of innocent people. I'm sure this will be an unpopular answer but I felt I'd voice my opinion as the devil's advocate.