Is torture ever acceptable? [ENDS 27/02/2011]

[Grig]

Is torture ever acceptable?

ENDS: 27/02/2011

Torture has been a widely debated subject through the years, with many controversies cropping up through the news, such as that of the water boarding tactics used by soldiers in Iraq. Torture has always been one of the methods over the use to interrogate and extract information from various prisoners, terrorists etc.

In the current century, people would this that this is an inhumane method and definitely not the way to go by. The United Nations even has a 'Convention Against Torture', stating that it is immoral and a punishment. Questions of morality come into play and the fact that everyone should have 'human rights'.

However, the other side of the argument states that if a person has committed a serious offence, and if in theory a much wanted terrorist, who could by torture, be extracted of useful information to the government to safe further lives, then it should be justified. Also, why should someone who has killed dozens of people in the past have the right to any sort of human rights.

This is an interesting debate topic that can be discussed on grounds of morality, legality and much more.

[Zuth]

I think, if someone has killed many people in the past and put them though a painful death or not, they should be tortured, possiblely even untill death. However if the government needs some vital information they still should torture if peoples lifes are in danger, as the person who knows the "secret" isn't going to be some random guy of the street, it's going to be someone who's in on the "act".

[sophiethenerd]

I think it is morally wrong unless the person is KNOWN to be a murderer of several people. Known is the important word. You should need solid proof of the persons guilt AND that they know of people who helped them to commit these awefull crimes. A person should never be tortued if there is a chance they are innocent.

[Samantha]

I do not agree with torture, however, I will take Rouhl Moat or what his name was, if he hadn't have killed himself, and hadn't been armed, then surely he would have been tortured? As he was a vicious man who rampaged through the towns and even killing people, although he may not have intended to harm anyone else than the couple's lives it would still have been a traumatic and scary situation for the spectators and therefore, they wouldn't sleep easy until he was dead or fully certain he wouldn't do anything like that again.

Anyway, torture, it's a wrong thing, but think about it, wrestling, boxing etc could be seen as torture, and although it's harmless it still may be classed as it, and it should be allowed.

Torture to a great extent shouldn't be allowed, not even with police, as they may have been seen as unapproachable if a person needed.

[Jessicrawrr]

If someone has been proven to commit a serious crime, like terrorism, or mass murder, something along those lines.
If they know the person knows something, and they won't say, torture them.
I think anyone who commits a crime serious enough, should be tortued, just so they feel the pain they've cause someone else.

[Banana Pancakes]

Even if someone's committed a serious crime, such as mass homicide, I don't believe that they should be tortured. There would be nothing to gain from the torture apart from one's own satisfaction which is extremely morally low. I'd say that they should be put to death and that's the end of it - a life for a life is acceptable, there's no need for scum to be on the streets but I couldn't condone torture. If you say that it is acceptable, could you actually torture that person yourself?
The only time when torture is acceptable would be in terms of terrorists etc. But only if information was needed to prevent a re-occurrence of 9/11 or the July bombing - if a crimes already been committed, there's no real need to torture them - again only for satisfaction.


I do not agree with torture, however, I will take Rouhl Moat or what his name was, if he hadn't have killed himself, and hadn't been armed, then surely he would have been tortured? As he was a vicious man who rampaged through the towns and even killing people, although he may not have intended to harm anyone else than the couple's lives it would still have been a traumatic and scary situation for the spectators and therefore, they wouldn't sleep easy until he was dead or fully certain he wouldn't do anything like that again.

Anyway, torture, it's a wrong thing, but think about it, wrestling, boxing etc could be seen as torture, and although it's harmless it still may be classed as it, and it should be allowed.

Torture to a great extent shouldn't be allowed, not even with police, as they may have been seen as unapproachable if a person needed.

Raoul Moat wouldn't have been tortured if he hadn't been killed. The British justice system wouldn't allow it, the UK can't be seen to condone torture. He would have been given life in prison.
And Wrestling, boxing, torture? It's sport. The people competing are there through their own volition, they're not made to do it against their own will.

[Conservative,]

Torture is perfectly acceptable if they are believed to have necessary information which could save lives.

As long as it doesn't make any permanent damage (ie; loss of limbs, loss of sight etc.) I don't see the problem. If people do bad things, bad things will happen to them. I think it's for the best that we torture people for information, so then we can protect the country.

But the only instance it should be carried out is when they have been sentenced for terrorism, treason or something along those lines.

And after we have our information - execute them.

[Zuth]

Even if someone's committed a serious crime, such as mass homicide, I don't believe that they should be tortured. There would be nothing to gain from the torture apart from one's own satisfaction which is extremely morally low. I'd say that they should be put to death and that's the end of it - a life for a life is acceptable, there's no need for scum to be on the streets but I couldn't condone torture. If you say that it is acceptable, could you actually torture that person yourself?
The only time when torture is acceptable would be in terms of terrorists etc. But only if information was needed to prevent a re-occurrence of 9/11 or the July bombing - if a crimes already been committed, there's no real need to torture them - again only for staicfation

If someone has put someone through So much pain they should be put through the same pain caused, because it's not only the victim who suffers it's the family aswell. I don't know if you've ever lost someone, but the felling of such a great loss is horrific, the fact that you will never see them again is just sometimes to much to bare. Also if you needed information to stop more lifes from being lost you should be able to torture as 1 life is less than 100 lifes.


If someone has been proven to commit a serious crime, like terrorism, or mass murder, something along those lines.
If they know the person knows something, and they won't say, torture them.
I think anyone who commits a crime serious enough, should be tortued, just so they feel the pain they've cause someone else.

I'd agree, if someone has been put through so much pain they should expereance the same pain as what they've caused.


Torture is perfectly acceptable if they are believed to have necessary information which could save lives.

As long as it doesn't make any permanent damage (ie; loss of limbs, loss of sight etc.) I don't see the problem. If people do bad things, bad things will happen to them. I think it's for the best that we torture people for information, so then we can protect the country.

But the only instance it should be carried out is when they have been sentenced for terrorism, treason or something along those lines.

And after we have our information - execute them.


If they have lost someones limbs they should have there's taken aswell, just so they know how bad it feels to have lost sonething witch is needed greatly in life.

[Conservative,]

If someone has put someone through So much pain they should be put through the same pain caused, because it's not only the victim who suffers it's the family aswell. I don't know if you've ever lost someone, but the felling of such a great loss is horrific, the fact that you will never see them again is just sometimes to much to bare. Also if you needed information to stop more lifes from being lost you should be able to torture as 1 life is less than 100 lifes.



I'd agree, if someone has been put through so much pain they should expereance the same pain as what they've caused.



If they have lost someones limbs they should have there's taken aswell, just so they know how bad it feels to have lost sonething witch is needed greatly in life.

If they have killed someone they don't need to lose limbs, they need to be tortured into telling us how & why they did it, then executed.

[Zuth]

If they have killed someone they don't need to lose limbs, they need to be tortured into telling us how & why they did it, then executed.

If the person is still alive and has lost limbs, the attaker should also lose there limbs to feel how there victim will live for the rest of there life. They should not be executed because they will not feel the pain of there victims. If there killed they won't feel no pain. Same with being tortured then killed, they should be tortured then made to live the rest of life in pain - in prison.

[Conservative,]

Prison isn't painful. It's just boring, and most "life" sentences are not life. It's more like 20 years, or 10 if you're "good".

Torture is useful and I think it should stand, but as I said, they need to be trialled for whatever they did, and found guilty, first.

[Zuth]

Prison isn't painful. It's just boring, and most "life" sentences are not life. It's more like 20 years, or 10 if you're "good".

Torture is useful and I think it should stand, but as I said, they need to be trialled for whatever they did, and found guilty, first.


I put, tortured then live in prison, and yes you must of been proven guilty to stand for torture.

[Andy-]

I believe torture is acceptable in certain situations for example, if it was a terrorist situation and the goverment needed information to benefit the rest of the country and to save civillians then yes torutre should be used to benefit others. But in any other case I belive no. Even if someone killed someone you do not need to be as bad as the person by torturing them.

[Banana Pancakes]

If they have killed someone they don't need to lose limbs, they need to be tortured into telling us how & why they did it, then executed.

they don't need to be tortured to find out how and why they did it, torture is only necessary in order to prevent an action being carried out. If the crime has taken place what is there to gain from torture?

[Zuth]

I believe torture is acceptable in certain situations for example, if it was a terrorist situation and the goverment needed information to benefit the rest of the country and to save civillians then yes torutre should be used to benefit others. But in any other case I belive no. Even if someone killed someone you do not need to be as bad as the person by torturing them.

I agree, however if someones killed someone you've got to think about there family, there never going to see there son ect ever again! It's the most hoffrific feeling ever, they attaker should suffer the same pain.


they don't need to be tortured to find out how and why they did it, torture is only necessary in order to prevent an action being carried out. If the crime has taken place what is there to gain from torture?

If they've killed someone they should still be tortured to feel the pain of there victim.

[Banana Pancakes]

I agree, however if someones killed someone you've got to think about there family, there never going to see there son ect ever again! It's the most hoffrific feeling ever, they attaker should suffer the same pain.



If they've killed someone they should still be tortured to feel the pain of there victim.

And what do you gain from that? Satisfaction? The persons done a horrible thing but by using torture, with no gain, you're just as bad as them.
And you say they should be tortured? Would you as a person be able to do that?

[Andy-]

I agree, however if someones killed someone you've got to think about there family, there never going to see there son ect ever again! It's the most hoffrific feeling ever, they attaker should suffer the same pain.



If they've killed someone they should still be tortured to feel the pain of there victim.

But does that mean you should be tortured. As you are not doing any better as your in fact hurting someone. Though they did wrong does not mean you should be as bad the person "An eye for an eye makes the world go blind"

[Zuth]

And what do you gain from that? Satisfaction? The persons done a horrible thing but by using torture, with no gain, you're just as bad as them.
And you say they should be tortured? Would you as a person be able to do that?

Not really, il just showing them the pain they gave someone else, they carnt just kill someone and expect eveythings going to be fine, the worst they expect is life in prison. IMO that isn't enough, they need to realise what they did to someone and turture will make them think again about killing someone.


But does that mean you should be tortured. As you are not doing any better as your in fact hurting someone. Though they did wrong does not mean you should be as bad the person "An eye for an eye makes the world go blind"

They have hurt many people whilst killing 1 person, as I've stated above "the worst they expect is prison" they need to realise exactly what they've done, and torture is perfect for this.

[Banana Pancakes]

Not really, il just showing them the pain they gave someone else, they carnt just kill someone and expect eveythings going to be fine, the worst they expect is life in prison. IMO that isn't enough, they need to realise what they did to someone and turture will make them think again about killing someone.

Yes really and you've just contradicted yourself. If you 'show the pain they gave someone else' then you're just doing what they've done. As their actions are undoubtedly wrong then you're actions are equally just as wrong and thus you're just being as bad as them.
'Turture' isn't the right answer. If they've done crime that's really wrong then they should be put to death but there's no reason to cause unnecessary pain, that's just callous.

[Josh]

If the person is still alive and has lost limbs, the attaker should also lose there limbs to feel how there victim will live for the rest of there life. They should not be executed because they will not feel the pain of there victims. If there killed they won't feel no pain. Same with being tortured then killed, they should be tortured then made to live the rest of life in pain - in prison.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. - Gandhi

I only believe it should be done (whether or not it's accepted by society, that's a whole other story) if that person has been convicted of a serious crime and has information that could lead to saving someone's life. If it's just to get back at them, no way whatsoever.

[Conservative,]

they don't need to be tortured to find out how and why they did it, torture is only necessary in order to prevent an action being carried out. If the crime has taken place what is there to gain from torture?

If they were tortured into telling us WHY they did it, it would help scientists find out what happens in a killers mind before a killing, and it would give the police more information on how to prevent things like them happening again.

[Zuth]

Yes really and you've just contradicted yourself. If you 'show the pain they gave someone else' then you're just doing what they've done. As their actions are undoubtedly wrong then you're actions are equally just as wrong and thus you're just being as bad as them.
'Turture' isn't the right answer. If they've done crime that's really wrong then they should be put to death but there's no reason to cause unnecessary pain, that's just callous.

I agree we are just as bad as them and it's wrong. It's also wrong what they did to someone else they should share the same pain, I only agree with torture if it's a serous effence, murder, manslaughter ect...

[Banana Pancakes]

I agree we are just as bad as them and it's wrong. It's also wrong what they did to someone else they should share the same pain, I only agree with torture if it's a serous effence, murder, manslaughter ect...

I'm not saying what they hypothetically did isn't wrong but there's no need to go to their level.

[Zuth]

I'm not saying what they hypothetically did isn't wrong but there's no need to go to their level.

There's no need to kill somebody?

[Zuth]

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. - Gandhi

I only believe it should be done (whether or not it's accepted by society, that's a whole other story) if that person has been convicted of a serious crime and has information that could lead to saving someone's life. If it's just to get back at them, no way whatsoever.


I agree, if someones life could be saved, then save it. However if they have also killed some one ect, they should still be tortured to feel as much pain as what they've caused. It's only fair.

[Banana Pancakes]

There's no need to kill somebody?

Who said there was? But by torturing them your just being as bad as them. You stated that you agree that you would be as bad as them. Well that just makes you a sadistic. Don't start saying stuff like 'there's no need to kill somebody', no one said that.


I agree, if someones life could be saved, then save it. However if they have also killed some one ect, they should still be tortured to feel as much pain as what they've caused. It's only fair.

If lives can be saved yes. Otherwise no.

[Zuth]

Who said there was? But by torturing them your just being as bad as them. You stated that you agree that you would be as bad as them. Well that just makes you a sadistic. Don't start saying stuff like 'there's no need to kill somebody', no one said that.



If lives can be saved yes. Otherwise no.

If there's no need to go to their level, then there's no need to kill people. (that's what I ment :P) and at what point did I say someone said it?

There is need to torture them as most prisionors will keep re committing crimes as prison offers a roof over there head, a bed and they get fed 3 times aday, I don't know about you but all that is pretty good for saying you took someones life, they need a better understanding of what they've done and giving them all of the above luxeruses isn't going to help no one. Torture or death Is the only option, I still disagree with death as it's not really a punishment, they won't feel nothing.

[Banana Pancakes]

If there's no need to go to their level, then there's no need to kill people. (that's what I ment :P) and at what point did I say someone said it?

There is need to torture them as most prisionors will keep re committing crimes as prison offers a roof over there head, a bed and they get fed 3 times aday, I don't know about you but all that is pretty good for saying you took someones life, they need a better understanding of what they've done and giving them all of the above luxeruses isn't going to help no one. Torture or death Is the only option, I still disagree with death as it's not really a punishment, they won't feel nothing.

Well there's no point to continue arguing if that's how you feel. I believe it to be morally wrong but you can't change peoples feelings.

[Jordy]

Hmm I used to be of the view that torture is wrong in all circumstances but after talking to a friend in the Royal Marines it's changed somewhat. It definitely shouldn't be used as punishment that's for sure no matter what they've done, but to extract life-saving information in some circumstances it's okay I guess.

For instance, while it is illegal and breaking various conventions, it's sort of known within military circles that it still goes on behind closed doors in Iraq and Afghanistan to save lives and this is acceptable I guess. But naturally these are just Taliban fighters with no lawyers, legal protection etc so it goes unnoticed and seniors aren't told. It's their only option in these cases really, I think we'd all be surprised to learn how much it really goes on behind closed doors.

[Zuth]

Well there's no point to continue arguing if that's how you feel. I believe it to be morally wrong but you can't change peoples feelings.

Yupp everyones intitled to there opinions, you've got yours and I've got mine, that's all that matters :P


Hmm I used to be of the view that torture is wrong in all circumstances but after talking to a friend in the Royal Marines it's changed somewhat. It definitely shouldn't be used as punishment that's for sure no matter what they've done, but to extract life-saving information in some circumstances it's okay I guess.

For instance, while it is illegal and breaking various conventions, it's sort of known within military circles that it still goes on behind closed doors in Iraq and Afghanistan to save lives and this is acceptable I guess. But naturally these are just Taliban fighters with no lawyers, legal protection etc so it goes unnoticed and seniors aren't told. It's their only option in these cases really, I think we'd all be surprised to learn how much it really goes on behind closed doors.


I agree with the saving lives bit, but it should also be used as a punishment, or the attakers will never learn, they will keep re-committing, prison is like a contry club to some criminals. They will keep re-committing, if you used torture criminals will not want to re committ.

[wiktoria]

No matter what anyone has done I don't think they should be tortured because that's just not right even though they are horrible people I believe it's still wrong. They should be put to death because I don't think you should let anybody suffer no matter what they've done.

[Zuth]

No matter what anyone has done I don't think they should be tortured because that's just not right even though they are horrible people I believe it's still wrong. They should be put to death because I don't think you should let anybody suffer no matter what they've done.

Put to death wont teach them anything, they wont feel no pain what so ever, all it does is end there pain really. If you get put to death its kinda a good thing, you dont have to live life in prision and you dont feel the pain you've caused. Its just not fair, torture is the only way to teach them a lesson.

[Eoin247]

Can't believe i missed all this, i've done a few real life debates on this, debating for both sides of the argument. If torture actualy worked it would be a great tool. Unfortuately whether people know the info or not they will tell you anything just to stop the pain. It has been proven time and time again that this is the case.



I think, if someone has killed many people in the past and put them though a painful death or not, they should be tortured, possiblely even untill death. However if the government needs some vital information they still should torture if peoples lifes are in danger, as the person who knows the "secret" isn't going to be some random guy of the street, it's going to be someone who's in on the "act".


I think it is morally wrong unless the person is KNOWN to be a murderer of several people. Known is the important word. You should need solid proof of the persons guilt AND that they know of people who helped them to commit these awefull crimes. A person should never be tortued if there is a chance they are innocent.


If someone has been proven to commit a serious crime, like terrorism, or mass murder, something along those lines.
If they know the person knows something, and they won't say, torture them.
I think anyone who commits a crime serious enough, should be tortued, just so they feel the pain they've cause someone else.

Another problem with torture, you can never be sure that you're torturing the right guy.




Torture is perfectly acceptable if they are believed to have necessary information which could save lives.

As long as it doesn't make any permanent damage (ie; loss of limbs, loss of sight etc.) I don't see the problem. If people do bad things, bad things will happen to them. I think it's for the best that we torture people for information, so then we can protect the country.

But the only instance it should be carried out is when they have been sentenced for terrorism, treason or something along those lines.

And after we have our information - execute them.


If they have killed someone they don't need to lose limbs, they need to be tortured into telling us how & why they did it, then executed.

As i said, it has been proven that torture doesn't work for the mostpart. People will tell you anything that you want to hear, just to stop the pain. There isn't such a thing as a torture that doesn't cause permanent damage in some way, be it physical or mental.


If there's no need to go to their level, then there's no need to kill people. (that's what I ment :P) and at what point did I say someone said it?

There is need to torture them as most prisionors will keep re committing crimes as prison offers a roof over there head, a bed and they get fed 3 times aday, I don't know about you but all that is pretty good for saying you took someones life, they need a better understanding of what they've done and giving them all of the above luxeruses isn't going to help no one. Torture or death Is the only option, I still disagree with death as it's not really a punishment, they won't feel nothing.


Put to death wont teach them anything, they wont feel no pain what so ever, all it does is end there pain really. If you get put to death its kinda a good thing, you dont have to live life in prision and you dont feel the pain you've caused. Its just not fair, torture is the only way to teach them a lesson.

Ok, please don't say things that you don't have a clue are true are not. Most prisoners don't recommit their crimes.

Also if you don't think death is the worst punishment out there, ( In fact aparently you think it's "not really" a punishment at all! ) you haven't learned the true value of human life yet and really shouldn't be debating about life and death topics.

[Eoin247]

I agree we are just as bad as them and it's wrong. It's also wrong what they did to someone else they should share the same pain, I only agree with torture if it's a serous effence, murder, manslaughter ect...

Firstly, you yourself are saying it's wrong and makes us just as bad as the accused. How can you continue to debate your argument after saying this? You can't do both, you must either take this sentance back or change your stance in this debate.

[The Don]

Put to death wont teach them anything, they wont feel no pain what so ever, all it does is end there pain really. If you get put to death its kinda a good thing, you dont have to live life in prision and you dont feel the pain you've caused. Its just not fair, torture is the only way to teach them a lesson.

Erm, sorry, if they are put to death they can't do any more crimes.

Well, they will feel pain, they will die? but it shouldn't be about them feeling pain, it should be making the enviroment a safe place to live.

You saying that they should be tortured makes you as bad as them, afterall you think it's acceptable to torture people when there is no gain (e.g find out information) admittedly they are all wrong but atleast the death penalty or torture to gather information have a gain from it where as you think it's ok just to tortue someone so they learn their lesson?

Also, if you think death is better than prison you are wrong.

Death is the worst penalty imo and it should only be used if there is no way of rehabilitating the criminals to make sure they don't further cause crime.However, tortue just as a punishment is wrong.

[Zuth]

Can't believe i missed all this, i've done a few real life debates on this, debating for both sides of the argument. If torture actualy worked it would be a great tool. Unfortuately whether people know the info or not they will tell you anything just to stop the pain. It has been proven time and time again that this is the case.








Another problem with torture, you can never be sure that you're torturing the right guy.







As i said, it has been proven that torture doesn't work for the mostpart. People will tell you anything that you want to hear, just to stop the pain. There isn't such a thing as a torture that doesn't cause permanent damage in some way, be it physical or mental.





Ok, please don't say things that you don't have a clue are true are not. Most prisoners don't recommit their crimes.

Also if you don't think death is the worst punishment out there, ( In fact aparently you think it's "not really" a punishment at all! ) you haven't learned the true value of human life yet and really shouldn't be debating about life and death topics.

As ive said you should only be able to torture people if you have 100% proof that they committed the crime.


In fact most prisoners do re commit - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article778681.ece

How is death not the worst out there? Theres loads more things that is worse, you dont feel death, its instant in most cases.


Erm, sorry, if they are put to death they can't do any more crimes.

Well, they will feel pain, they will die? but it shouldn't be about them feeling pain, it should be making the enviroment a safe place to live.

You saying that they should be tortured makes you as bad as them, afterall you think it's acceptable to torture people when there is no gain (e.g find out information) admittedly they are all wrong but atleast the death penalty or torture to gather information have a gain from it where as you think it's ok just to tortue someone so they learn their lesson?

Also, if you think death is better than prison you are wrong.

Death is the worst penalty imo and it should only be used if there is no way of rehabilitating the criminals to make sure they don't further cause crime.However, tortue just as a punishment is wrong.

You can stop crimes by putting them in prison for life? Death isnt the worst as ive stated above. ^

[wiktoria]

Put to death wont teach them anything, they wont feel no pain what so ever, all it does is end there pain really. If you get put to death its kinda a good thing, you dont have to live life in prision and you dont feel the pain you've caused. Its just not fair, torture is the only way to teach them a lesson.

Putting them to death will prevent them doing it again.They will probably be tortured to death and you wouldn't know if it taught them a lesson because they would be dead. Even though they are wrong people I still think it's wrong to torture them. If you torture them it's just as bad as them doing the crime and it's just horrible.

[Zuth]

Putting them to death will prevent them doing it again.They will probably be tortured to death and you wouldn't know if it taught them a lesson because they would be dead. Even though they are wrong people I still think it's wrong to torture them. If you torture them it's just as bad as them doing the crime and it's just horrible.

You would suffer more in prison for the rest of your life, death is instant and you wont feel no pain.

[Jordy]

You would suffer more in prison for the rest of your life, death is instant and you wont feel no pain.So explain why 99% of people on death row, continue to appeal through the court systems and would rather spend lifetime in prison instead.

[Banana Pancakes]

Put to death wont teach them anything, they wont feel no pain what so ever, all it does is end there pain really. If you get put to death its kinda a good thing, you dont have to live life in prision and you dont feel the pain you've caused. Its just not fair, torture is the only way to teach them a lesson.

Death won't teach them anything? That's the stupidest thing ever. Of course it will - they won't be committing any more crimes will they?

[Eoin247]

As ive said you should only be able to torture people if you have 100% proof that they committed the crime.

Ok,you don't seem to have read my post properly. It is impossible to ever be sure that you are torturing the right person. You will never get 100% proof for a case, it has never happened in history that there's been 100% certainty. If you can tell me how you can be 100% sure, or even give an example in history when theres been 100% certainty, then go ahead and post it and i'll admit that you're right.


In fact most prisoners do re commit - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article778681.ece

Well done on getting very vague statistics from 2002. I don't know if you've noticed, but we're in 2011 now?

Let me give you some real statistics that are a bit more recent. http://www.justice.gov.uk/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis.pdf

Since i doubt you're going to bother to look through it, i'll give you some quick references to the statistics. Look at pages 2, 32-35, 37, 44, 45 (theres a lot more numbers after this if you still want further proof. And before you get excited at the raw reoffending rate on the earlier pages, stop and read it carefully.


How is death not the worst out there? Theres loads more things that is worse, you dont feel death, its instant in most cases.

You can stop crimes by putting them in prison for life? Death isnt the worst as ive stated above.



You would suffer more in prison for the rest of your life, death is instant and you wont feel no pain.

Ok, it's pointless arguing this point with you, as you evidently don't know the true value of life yet. As Jordy said, most people who are sentenced to death would much rather life in prison. There are countless stories of people who just to stay alive do extraordinary things. Such as cutting of their own limbs just to escape a sure death situation. Tell me why people would go through the torture of removing their own body parts, if death isn't the worst that can happen?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I do not think torture is acceptable as I do find it rather barbaric and doesn't serve our 'message' all that well. Torture in itself is often unreliable anyway, as of course if you torture somebody into giving an answer you want then you will get that answer if they break - whether or not it is the truthful answer. I would remind people of the Empire of Japan in the second world war, torture is foul.

I will also touch on the death penalty as it has been mentioned; the death penalty is civilised provided it is painless, and I would ask those warriors all against the death penalty to tell me why they do not support the death penalty as means of punishment after a fair and just trial, but are perfectly fine with aborting unborn, innocent babies. I am for abortion and the death penalty, but there is no logic what-so-ever in being against the death penalty but for abortion on moral grounds.

[Chippiewill]

Torture is horrendous and frequently results in false positives when used, when you are in extreme pain you'll do anything, say anything to stop it so if you don't actually know anything you'll just tell a lie to stop it.

It's also horrendous that the US pretended that water-boarding is just interrogation and not torture.

[Eoin247]

Torture in itself is often unreliable anyway, as of course if you torture somebody into giving an answer you want then you will get that answer if they break - whether or not it is the truthful answer.


Torture is horrendous and frequently results in false positives when used, when you are in extreme pain you'll do anything, say anything to stop it so if you don't actually know anything you'll just tell a lie to stop it.

Exactly the point i was trying to make earlier. Torture has been proven to not work, be inconsistent and unreliable. People will say anything you want just to get out of the pain, wheter what they say is the truth or not is just chance.

[Maatt.]

Yes.
If someone kills someone, they should be punished for it. They wouldn't like it if they were murderer. They should be punished. Prison isnt enough, its not luxury but its not bad. (My dad is a prison officer) Plus if there was torture involved, i think less people would harm others. If its only prison as a punishment, someone people aren't so scared of them so would carry on with what they were doing.

[Eoin247]

Yes.
If someone kills someone, they should be punished for it. They wouldn't like it if they were murderer. They should be punished. Prison isnt enough, its not luxury but its not bad. (My dad is a prison officer) Plus if there was torture involved, i think less people would harm others. If its only prison as a punishment, someone people aren't so scared of them so would carry on with what they were doing.

This really depends on who you are in prison though. A drug lord with lots of reputation and contacts may have it easy, yet a one time shooter who kills 12 people say in a shopping center might have no experience in the underworld and would have an extremely hard time.

[Banana Pancakes]

Ok,you don't seem to have read my post properly. It is impossible to ever be sure that you are torturing the right person. You will never get 100% proof for a case, it has never happened in history that there's been 100% certainty. If you can tell me how you can be 100% sure, or even give an example in history when theres been 100% certainty, then go ahead and post it and i'll admit that you're right.



Well done on getting very vague statistics from 2002. I don't know if you've noticed, but we're in 2011 now?

Let me give you some real statistics that are a bit more recent. http://www.justice.gov.uk/compendium-of-reoffending-statistics-and-analysis.pdf

Since i doubt you're going to bother to look through it, i'll give you some quick references to the statistics. Look at pages 2, 32-35, 37, 44, 45 (theres a lot more numbers after this if you still want further proof. And before you get excited at the raw reoffending rate on the earlier pages, stop and read it carefully.






Ok, it's pointless arguing this point with you, as you evidently don't know the true value of life yet. As Jordy said, most people who are sentenced to death would much rather life in prison. There are countless stories of people who just to stay alive do extraordinary things. Such as cutting of their own limbs just to escape a sure death situation. Tell me why people would go through the torture of removing their own body parts, if death isn't the worst that can happen?

regarding the bit that no one is never 100% sure.
It's a 100% sure that Sadam Hussein committed his crimes and the same if Bin Laden is ever found.

[Prosperity]

The thing with torture though, is if you push somebody too far over the edge by means of torture then they could potentially admit to something that they didn't even do, just to stop being tortured. Let's face it, you wouldn't stop torturing somebody until you got the information you wanted.

[Eoin247]

regarding the bit that no one is never 100% sure.
It's a 100% sure that Sadam Hussein committed his crimes and the same if Bin Laden is ever found.



Actualy no it isn't. Tell me how exactly it is 100% sure with regards to Bin Laden? A lot of people would say that he claims to do things that others have done.

[Prosperity]

Actualy no it isn't. Tell me how exactly it is 100% sure with regards to Bin Laden? A lot of people would say that he claims to do things that others have done.
He's effectively the head of the worlds most powerful and wanted terror organization, how much more proof do you need?

[Eoin247]

He's effectively the head of the worlds most powerful and wanted terror organization, how much more proof do you need?

Ok i don't want to get too much off the point here so i'll make this response brief. I mean obviously nearly everybody in the world thinks that he's a criminal (including me). But unless you have witnessed the entirity of something firsthand you cannot be 100% sure.

[Prosperity]

Ok i don't want to get too much off the point here so i'll make this response brief. I mean obviously nearly everybody in the world thinks that he's a criminal (including me). But unless you have witnessed the entirity of something firsthand you cannot be 100% sure.
Going by that then you'd agree that:
- Adolf Hitler isn't responsible for the holocaust?
- Joseph Stalin weren't responsible for the holodomor?
- Al Capone wasn't a gangster?
- The Mafia isn't a criminal organization?

Also "entirity" isn't a word. ;)

[Eoin247]

Going by that then you'd agree that:
- Adolf Hitler isn't responsible for the holocaust?
- Joseph Stalin weren't responsible for the holodomor?
- Al Capone wasn't a gangster?
- The Mafia isn't a criminal organization?


You're totally missing my point, read over my posts again and try to understand because i can't really explain any further without repeating myself. Whilst you read the posts also think about what this debate is about before you post again, and apply that to what i've been saying.




Also "entirity" isn't a word. ;)

Are you for real? We're debating torture and your rebuttal involves a typo? Never a better way to show a weak argument when people decide to go nitpicking to such a level.

[Banana Pancakes]

Ok i don't want to get too much off the point here so i'll make this response brief. I mean obviously nearly everybody in the world thinks that he's a criminal (including me). But unless you have witnessed the entirity of something firsthand you cannot be 100% sure.

Ahh how silly of me! i foolishly mistook Bin Laden for a lovely man who spends his time dancing with bunny rabbits.

[Snatter]

The TV show '24' which is starred by Jack Bauer (who does most of the torturing) has lead me to believe that it is acceptable in some situations.

For example - if torturing someone is going to result in the ability to stop something such as a terrorist attack, I believe that it is acceptable. Decisions have to be made though to ensure that the person who is being tortured are actually witholding information.

[Zuth]

The TV show '24' which is starred by Jack Bauer (who does most of the torturing) has lead me to believe that it is acceptable in some situations.

For example - if torturing someone is going to result in the ability to stop something such as a terrorist attack, I believe that it is acceptable. Decisions have to be made though to ensure that the person who is being tortured are actually witholding information.


I agree, if you could save many peoples lifes by hurting one, it should be alloud.

[-:Undertaker:-]

regarding the bit that no one is never 100% sure.
It's a 100% sure that Sadam Hussein committed his crimes and the same if Bin Laden is ever found.

While Saddam Hussein was a harsh dictator, the offical story which we are often fed of a nasty man who waged war on Iran for no reason, then attacked innocent Kuwait for no reason of which the U.S. had to go and heroically liberate along with the man having WMD/harbouring terrorists coupled with the random gassing of the Kurds.

The real picture however is this; Iran had for years been calling for Saddam to be overthrown (and were no doubt funding militant groups in Iraq wanting to establish an Islamic Republic) of which Hussein reacted towards much like the western world behaves especially the United States when it invades countries which 'threaten national security' - and believe me, Iran was much more of a threat to Iraq than any of the 'threats' the United States has faced. All of this not forgetting the fact the United States supported the Ba'ath regime in the Iran-Iraq war.

Then we get to the issue of Kuwait - in a way, Iraq was left with no choice but to invade Kuwait due to Kuwait slant drilling into Iraqi oil reserves and of course, Kuwait had the backing of the international community so Iraq was left more or less alone. Hussein told the United States he was preparing action, and the United States gave him the green light - Hussein invaded and the United States then went back on its word and joined the war on the side of Kuwait.

Of course there is then the issue of the gassing of the Kurds - yes, gassing is terrible and only a despot like Hussein would consider it (same scenes we are witnessing in Libya today with machine guns being used on the people) but it if often painted as though it was a random attack on the Kurds when infact it was a reaction by Iraqi armed forces to rioting and an assassination attempt on Hussein himself. I myself support the creation of a Kurdistan, but there was a reason why Hussein reacted the way he did which is often left out of the picture.

While it is ideal for the Middle East to be democratic (as we are seeing now), I would much rather live under Saddam Hussein than say the US-supported Saudi regime which still uses barbaric Sharia Law and the same for Iran.

[Eoin247]

Ahh how silly of me! i foolishly mistook Bin Laden for a lovely man who spends his time dancing with bunny rabbits.

Did you even read the post you quoted?

[Zuth]

Ok i don't want to get too much off the point here so i'll make this response brief. I mean obviously nearly everybody in the world thinks that he's a criminal (including me). But unless you have witnessed the entirity of something firsthand you cannot be 100% sure.

I think we can be 100% sure, otherwise he wouldn't be binding away for years, he would be fighting that he isnt guilty.

[Eoin247]

I think we can be 100% sure, otherwise he wouldn't be binding away for years, he would be fighting that he isnt guilty.

Read what you quoted more carefully please. After that read the rest of the posts on this thread and the thread title before you post again.



But unless you have witnessed the entirity of something firsthand you cannot be 100% sure.