"Barbaric" Punishments

[Jason Tandro]

I'm for torture.

I know that's incredibly un-PC, but I am completely for torturing information out of terrorists to save civilian lives. Not all lives are equal, and it makes me feel a lot better to know that a scumbag suffered so that innocent people could live.

By the way, to deflect the upcoming counter-argument from psychokind that I see, by "innocent" I mean people who have no direct conflict with the terrorist, such as civilians. I know we're all guilty of something.
(+1 for knowing this guy. I think our friendship has reached a new level. We finish each others insults. You know I'm joking, pyscho!)

I believe wholeheartedly in the Death Penalty, and I feel that convicted serial rapists should be castrated. (I might ease up on a one-time crime of passion just on the grounds that there may be hope of rehabilitation).

I also believe that we should kill murderers in the manner they killed their victims. We'd have less BTK assholes about if people knew we were doing to them what they did to their victims.

Am I crazy? (Okay.. don't answer that. Just gimme your viewpoints.)

[Freedan]

Death penalty, yes. But only in murder cases (one or two only, no accidental stuff), and only when there is no room for any doubt. We don't want to lose innocent people to execution because they were wrongfully convicted.

I'm not convinced that torture actually works. Who's to say that a confession drawn out by torture is accurate? Under circumstances like that, a person will say anything to put an end to it. And considering terrorists like blowing themselves up to take out a target, I'm sure they'd have no qualms about just killing themselves before they can be tortured.

http://www.georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/04/top-interrogation-experts-say-torture.html

I'm all for stiffer penalties for violent crimes, though. Here in Canada, people get off far too easy for some of the things they do.

[Jason Tandro]

I agree with you completely about Death Penalty. It should only be used in murder cases.

And while I see your logic about torture (after all tortured women confessed to being withces back in the 16th century) I also think that if we get the information from these men we have the technology to check and verify this information to the point where lying would serve little purpose... and result in more torture.

Also- Waterboarding is not torture. Waterboarding is nothing more than a psychological experience. You think you are drowning, but you are not. Simple. Not torture. US Marines are waterboarded as part of their training.

[Freedan]

Jason Tandro wrote:

Also- Waterboarding is not torture. Waterboarding is nothing more than a psychological experience. You think you are drowning, but you are not. Simple. Not torture. US Marines are waterboarded as part of their training.

I disagree. Wholeheartedly.

Torture is defined as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person" in order to get information. Even the dictionary definition includes inflicting "extreme anguish of body or mind; agony."

Waterboarding is not just a psychological experience. It can very easily cause a considerable amount of physical, mental and psychological harm. I know proponents claim there's no physical damage, and that's the key element of 'torture' (which I also disagree with), but considering the violent spasms one tends to have while restrained, as well as the fact that people can be killed by it, I reject that claim.

When you feel like you're drowning, you'll say anything to make it stop. It's no different in that regard from any other torture technique.

I know Bush called it an 'enhanced interrogation technique', but that was to skirt the ban on 'torture'.

[Jason Tandro]

Again I see your logic, Freedan, but you and I probably won't see eye-to-eye on this one.

[EverPhoenix]

ive always been one for a stricter legal system, because the current system in australia is a joke. people get away with so much, and even severe crimes end up with them in jail for a max of 2-3 years before they are released due to some technicality or another.

as for torture, only in extreme circumstances. if they are terrorists, i think it is acceptable. although all lives are created equal, if they decide to take theirs down that path, they lessen its value to an extent where it could be considered forfeit. there is the argument that this topic would present: what is counted as terrorism? being voluntarily present at their meetings? being prepared to sacrifice oneself (and however many innocent civilians) for their cause? murdering people just to draw attention to the aforementioned cause?

if anything involving the murder of people is proven, and if it is linked to terrorism, by all means, torture the hell out of the bastard. or even better, let the families of those who were killed by them choose the punishment.

and just a side note: im no professor on this, but id guess that if someone was being tortured to the extent where they would say anything to get it to stop, most would not be able to think up a convincing story on the spot. what they say in that situation will likely be true in some sense.

for murder, if it is proven beyond any doubt, then i believe that the death penalty is acceptable. but as said before, let the decision about the details be given to the families of the murdered. although with modern technology and lawyers, it is possible to create a sliver of doubt in almost anything. that is the great flaw in this idea.

[Jason Tandro]

EverPhoenix wrote:

and just a side note: im no professor on this, but id guess that if someone was being tortured to the extent where they would say anything to get it to stop, most would not be able to think up a convincing story on the spot. what they say in that situation will likely be true in some sense.

Well, in the interest of fairness (even though this is a point against my own side) the argument is that people who are tortured will just tell them what they want to hear, even if that story isn't true.

[Freedan]

I would suggest that the people being tortured generally know what the interrogator is looking for. Besides, they'll never get any information out of the person if they don't tell them what they want.

So the person will know what the interrogator wants to hear, and they'll confess accordingly. It'll most likely be a false confession, but it stops the torture.

[inferiare]

If torture is barbaric, you might not want to know my views on how to deal with murderers or child rapists. Just sayin'.

[Freedan]

Child rapists get their punishment in prison, if they keep them with the other prisoners.

I actually used to work with an ex-con (served 5 years), and he told me that child molesters regularly got the shit kicked out of them. When someone asked why, he responded "the guy touches children. How nice am I supposed to be to the guy?"

Even prisoners have a code of honour.

[inferiare]

Freedan wrote:

Child rapists get their punishment in prison, if they keep them with the other prisoners. I actually used to work with an ex-con (served 5 years), and he told me that child molesters regularly got the shit kicked out of them. When someone asked why, he responded "the guy touches children. How nice am I supposed to be to the guy?" Even prisoners have a code of honour.

Oh, so I've heard. Convicts think "What if this guy went after my kid?" (if they have a kid, that is) so they beat the everloving shit out of the guy. Still, I figure that since they doing what they're doing to small children is torture to that child, then an eye for an eye should be upped just a little bit.

Same with people who hurt/torture/kill their pets. Hot damn I want to use a cattle prod to the eyes of those people.

[EverPhoenix]

rainichan wrote:

Same with people who hurt/torture/kill their pets. Hot damn I want to use a cattle prod to the eyes of those people.

stuff like that makes me want to get rusty scissors and cut off random appendages, starting from ears and/or fingers and ending wherever my sense of sadism takes me

[Dark_Gaia]

pretty sure they should be put down, but beforehand put there teeth over the corner of the gutter on the road, n somone stomp on the back of there head *american history x* sick bastards.

[chicken]

wow... never thought you'd say that...

well, i guess that way we'd never stop the spinning wheel. you cant fight fire with fire. thats like... and eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. horrible!

torturing information out of somebody makes you no better than the guy himself. he does what he does for HIS right reasons. you do what you do for YOUR right reasons. and in the end, everybody wants to force the other one to accept the own POV.

but i have to admit, it is a delicate question. what to do with somebody who placed a bomb SOMEWHERE in a city and its going to blow in lets say 60 minutes. how'd you save all the people? i dunno. i'd try to question him, try to talk to him and eventually try to learn WHY he was doing it anyway.

locking dangerous people up seems fair enough for me. they still live, theyre not harmed and still do not mean any threat to the "innocents" anymore. but torturing or even DEATH? nah, no way. think about your karma, guys

[inferiare]

chicken wrote:

but torturing or even DEATH? nah, no way. think about your karma, guys

If they've killed or tortured people, be it men, women, or children, that IS their karma. If someone came in and killed my parents and my dog right now for fun and pleasure and for whatever reason spared me? I'd want to see him put to death after he was caught, either by my own hands or watching it happen. That's their own karma for doing that.