Would you support torture in certain situations in prison

I agree to an extent, at least. Whatever is leading these people to become violent criminals in the first place, I hope that efforts are being made in prison to correct that and actually help these people become productive members of society, especially in the case of gang members and such, where it's more likely bad upbringing than any mental illness that has led to their predicament in the first place. No doubt there are hopeless cases, though. The jerk who decided to shoot firefighters was such a case, apparently.

 

The purpose of justice is not providing vengeance.

 

How does that work on someone who irrationally believes that they will never be caught?

 

Would listening to Jedward be a step too far..?

 

It wouldn't.

The only people it would deter, are those that would never have done such things, anyway.

 

I support torture, for a variety of goals and reasons. It's a good tool to extract information from terrorist and other scum, and it's a way to deal out justice. See, my idea of justice includes the concept of eye for an eye, provided it's not about any accident of course. If he tortured people, torture him back, if he killed, kill him. +monetary compensation to the victims and the cost of the judical process and that.

 

Yes it is. Preventing crime hasn't got anything to do with justice, which is what I assume you're going to say. I'm not against preventing crime, it's just that that's not what justice means.

 

Stop pretending reasons doesn't matter. The drunkard killed as many people as the shooter but you're annoyingly blind of the obvious if you think it's an equally bad crime. The first is an irresponsible idiot and should be forced to pay compensation (maybe kill him I don't know) whilst the latter is a psycho and should just be shot. weed guy is irresponsible too. And there's no justification for stealing anything to help your familiy while we have a sufficient safety net. Such a crime is petty and wouldn't warrant more then some jail time and fines but I so despise theives that I wouldn't have any problem with an exectution or removal of both hands tbh.

 

That assumes everyone is a violent crimnal (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). Gee thanks. Or is it that "we're all criminals inside, everyone will murder children sometimes. and therefore let's be soft on them" argument? It would leave the world with handicapped criminals that's what.

 

It's not though.

It is the least effective.

 

It is? really? how is that possible?

And people, I'm not talking about medieval torture, we live in the 12th century! we know much cleaner and better ways now... Just imagine giving them a pill which will go to their brain and make them feel the most pain they possibly could, without any actual harm, and frighten them to the most possible degree. and finish that with giving them a feeling of never ever under any circumstances, i'd rather kill myself, have to experience it again. I bet they would talk.

I don't know if it's possible yet, but I really believe in science. In the future on could just read their brains or give them some truth pill. If we're not there yet we've got lot's of criminals to sacrifice on the altar of science..

 

How are facts possible?

I guess because they are facts.

And the facts are that torture is the least effective method to secure reliable information.

 

Yeah.

If we get to that point, I hope Martians land and just put mankind out of it's sick misery.

 

I was genuinely wondering how that would be possible. What could get a convinced person to talk other than threats? really, I'm puzzled.

 

Remember though, that in the case of terrorists the goal is information, not suffering. If one could get the information without them suffering that would be a better alternative. But as for punishing them for their terrorist actions it's another thing.

 

http://digitaljournal.com/article/273350

The FBI are much much more reliable about getting information from people that the military, and they don't use torture.

Torture takes days to run it's course and psychologically break down a person, and even then, you're more likely to have them tell you things they think you want to hear to avoid being tortured anymore. It only takes a few hours to build a relationship and get somebody talking of their own free will.

 

Yes.

But what I am telling you is that those methods are the least effective for gaining reliable information.

And that is before we even get to the ethics and legals.

 

build a relationship? I really have no authority on this whatsoever but I find it hard to believe that some crazy jihadist that's eager to get to paradise would just talk like that. But whatever works works.

 

I bet they are, and so be it. I just find it hard to believe.

What's morally wrong with torturing terrorist to prevent their actions? It would be morally wrong not to do it.

 

Yes, it works better.

By far.

As well as not then acting as recruitment tool for yet more opposition, to those doing the torturing, which is another thing using torture does - it turns society against them, and creates a more militant attitude among the people.

 

I've just told you.

I will tell you again.

All recorded research shows doing so to be the least reliable method of producing positive results.

And it acts as a great way to campaign for more people to hate you.

But apart from it not working, and getting more people to hate you, it's a winner.

 

That's practically wrong, not morally. I'm glad that you didn't make the morally depraved sissy argument that I expected though.

 

If it has no practical merit, then what would you purpose be?

Sadism?

 

yep.. they shoudl all be punished very severely. equal to their crimes. the guy who stole would get a lesser sentence obviously since he has committed a less severe crime. besides that all the other people are evil (*)(*)(*)(*)s who dont deserve a second more on this earth

 

all i gotta say is that im glad our men at Guantanamo dont agree with your views....