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.