nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Torture, in exceptional circumstances

Kylta

The vast majority of people are against torture (I think).
But say you had a serial child killer in prison, who would not give up were they buried the bodies of his victims so the families could buried their loved ones.
If you could sign off on him being tortured by the state or an independent body, until he revealed the whereabouts of bodies. (Again the persons guilt is unquestionable!)
Would you personally sign off on it?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ShatterAlan

Kylta wrote: »

Thats agreeable but how do resolve the issue of the missing bodies? And suppose one of the missing is related to your family?

The Russians didn't torture Chikatillo to get him to confess to the multiple murders he committed and where to locate the bodies. They employed a psychiatrist and got all the information out of the killer that way.

Then they shot him.

ShatterAlan

Royal Irish wrote: »

I'd be in favor of enhanced interrogation being used like sleep deprivation, water boarding, etc. But no pulling finger nails or anything barbaric like that.

I take it you're joking.

Fuascailteoir

In the pilot of the shield, a child abductor was in an interrogation call when they called in mackey to find out where a missing child was. The abductor sat back and said ok you must be the bad cop. The reply was no, the good cop and the bad cop are gone home for the day, I am a different type of cop. Set the whole series up for what was to come

ShatterAlan

Gatling wrote: »

Advanced interrogation .

If you refuse to give up the location of a body then you do not leave prison ,

Ahh, someone who likes to sugarcoat torture by giving it a different name. Something that the squeamish can handle.

Gregor Samsa

ShatterAlan wrote: »

The Russians didn't torture Chikatillo to get him to confess to the multiple murders he committed and where to locate the bodies. They employed a psychiatrist and got all the information out of the killer that way.

Then they shot him.

They also shot the guy (Aleksandr Kravchenko) wrongly convicted of Chikatillo's first murder. One of the things that led to Kravchenko's (wrongful) conviction was testimony extracted from witnesses via "enhanced interrogation techniques".

Quantum Erasure

Feisar wrote: »

The torture squad? Couple of coked up ex ra heads? I dunno I'm sure if we scrapped the barrel we'd find a few suitable operatives.

You'd find plenty willing to do it on Facebook, or boards even, if you go by the reaction to horrific cases reported in the media....

MarkR

Hasn't torture been deemed ineffective over and over again?

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/security-military/does-torture-work-research-says-no/

I'm sure it might feel good to some in a retribution sense, but if they'll confess to being the Easter bunny, because they're testicles are in a vice, then what's the point?

Edgware

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Water boarding is horrific torture and is not justified to get information. Japanese soldiers were convicted of war crimes due to it's use in WW2.

Yet now it's just a light torture. Also used by the Gestapo, but maybe they had exceptional reasons too.

How else would you expect Klaus Barbie and co deal with those nasty French Resistance gangs?

TuringBot47

As far as I know, physical torture only makes people tell the torturer what they want to know, whether that's based on fact or not.

I genuinely hope in the future, that brain/computer interfaces work so well that people can be forced to take a non-invasive scan to determine their guilt.
Also that that scan is backed by evidence, not just that they "think" they are guilty.

Mad_maxx

Kylta wrote: »

The vast majority of people are against torture (I think).
But say you had a serial child killer in prison, who would not give up were they buried the bodies of his victims so the families could buried their loved ones.
If you could sign off on him being tortured by the state or an independent body, until he revealed the whereabouts of bodies. (Again the persons guilt is unquestionable!)
Would you personally sign off on it?

id offer to carry out the torture personally if it was a family member

TheBlackPill

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

I don't know, I don't tend to make much sense when I'm tired.

Its about producing a dissociative state/fugue through exhaustion. Some drugs produce a similar effect but are unpredictable. It goes beyond tired. An example would be a junior surgeon on call over a bank holiday weekend. Able to do the appendectomy on tuesday but very vulnerable to suggestion and manipulation

Victor

Kylta wrote: »

The vast majority of people are against torture (I think). But say you had a serial child killer in prison, who would not give up were they buried the bodies of his victims so the families could buried their loved ones. If you could sign off on him being tortured by the state or an independent body, until he revealed the whereabouts of bodies. (Again the persons guilt is unquestionable!) Would you personally sign off on it?

No. What makes you think a serial child killer would react as you intend?

Mad_maxx wrote: »

id offer to carry out the torture personally if it was a family member

What makes you think you would be competent to do it?

ShatterAlan

Mad_maxx wrote: »

id offer to carry out the torture personally if it was a family member

You just admitted to seeking revenge rather than getting results.

MarkR

Victor wrote: »

What makes you think you would be competent to do it?

Hello? He's mad!

TheAnalyst_

Never. Not torture, no capital punishment whatever the crime.

kowloon

TuringBot47 wrote: »

I genuinely hope in the future, that brain/computer interfaces work so well that people can be forced to take a non-invasive scan to determine their guilt.
Also that that scan is backed by evidence, not just that they "think" they are guilty.

Being able to just read someone to see if they did it would change everything. At that level of tech I wonder if we would be far off being able to "fix" people with conditions likely to lead to violence before they ever commit a crime.
At that stage we run into the situation where a killing might be seen as a failure by the authorities rather than the responsibility of the killer.
Would there be any point in punishing someone when their condition was something that slipped through the net in a standard medical of the future designed to catch these things?

Sardonicat

Gatling wrote: »

Advanced interrogation .

If you refuse to give up the location of a body then you do not leave prison ,

That didn't bother Ian Brady, did it? On the contrary, he dangled the idea he could reveal the location of Keith Bennet's body over the heads of his family up to the day he died, including red herring sealed envelopes to be opened after his death and other twisted sh1t. He got a kick out of the fact that Keith's mother, Winnie Johnson, and his brother's spent their weekends searching for the lad's remains on Saddleworth more. He was able to torture that family for decades and they are still tortured to this day.

I don't know, I'm against the death penalty and I'm against torture but I think there must be something wrong with the person who's instinct doesn't scream at them that Brady and his equally vile accomplice should have got a bullet to the back of the head. For what it's worth, I don't believe Brady would have revealed the location of Keith's remains under torture. He got too much if a thrill from the power not revealing it gave him.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

If an animal killed a person, and we locked them in a cage for the rest of their natural life, it would be considered cruelty. It's more humane to just euthanize them!

Yet for some strange reason, we think locking murderers etc up for life is the more humane action. Why? What's the difference?

Locking anyone up for years, human or animal, is an act of mental torture... we should either rehabilitate and release, or euthanize those who are too dangerous to release.

[Deleted User]

Kylta wrote: »

The vast majority of people are against torture (I think).
But say you had a serial child killer in prison, who would not give up were they buried the bodies of his victims so the families could buried their loved ones.
If you could sign off on him being tortured by the state or an independent body, until he revealed the whereabouts of bodies. (Again the persons guilt is unquestionable!)
Would you personally sign off on it?

Would I have to use my real name? Plus, you should know that I can't really use pens that leave a lot of ink on the page, I'm left-handed so using one of those type of pens tends to smudge what I'm writing, unless I write really slowly and give the ink time to dry. Which wouldn't be ideal, given time is probably a factor here.

Maybe... Would it be OK to use a typewriter, do you think? Do Prisons still use typewriters? God, where's an AMA with a member of the Admin staff from a prison when you really need one!

Archeron

Would a torturers hood be considered a facemask or would they need to wear another mask underneath? Covid really has changed the workplace.

Alejandro68

Torturing someone for answers as the OP suggests, IMO would make them no better than the accused. What if they could endure a lot of pain and make you resort to more sadistic ways to make them talk? Then you would go beyond what they are. Situations such as that isn't so cut and dry.

Royal Irish

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What's the difference between those types of torture? what makes one type of torture a good idea and the other type of torture a bad idea?

The difference is you can use enhanced interrogation without physically injuring the child serial killer. He might be emotionally scared but who cares about that? You?

Montage of Feck

Why not burn a few witches while we're at it.

An Ri rua

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

If an animal killed a person, and we locked them in a cage for the rest of their natural life, it would be considered cruelty. It's more humane to just euthanize them!

Yet for some strange reason, we think locking murderers etc up for life is the more humane action. Why? What's the difference?

Locking anyone up for years, human or animal, is an act of mental torture... we should either rehabilitate and release, or euthanize those who are too dangerous to release.

Or lock them in the same cage as the animal, to save money (we do it in the Joy?), then let the animal out on good behaviour after it elevates itself to human expression.

An Ri rua

Archeron wrote: »

Would a torturers hood be considered a facemask or would they need to wear another mask underneath? Covid really has changed the workplace.

I think it's a query for Joe Duffy
#washYourHaaaandsz

bobbyy gee

were should we stop priest child molesters
murderers

Mad_maxx

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You just admitted to seeking revenge rather than getting results.

if someone did something like that to a close family member or child , id want revenge

sue me

[Deleted User]

Leaving aside the questionable value of anything gleaned through torturing a person for information, legislating for torture would also have major consequences for many people and institutions beyond the individuals actually be subjected to the act.

Who trains our torturers?
What effects does torturing someone have on the torturer, especially in the very possible (almost inevitable?) scenario they torture somebody innocent?
How about the torturer's family who have to live in a house with someone trained to dehumanise people?
What about our medical institutes starting to be used to heal people for the sole purpose of readying them for more torture?
The consequences of having these institutes starting to do research into the best ways to inflict unbearable pain on people?

Just a few things to consider when thinking about what torture in exceptional circumstance would mean for our society.

fash

Pauliedragon wrote: »

Nothing to do with torture but in Australia they brought in laws a while back which meant if you were convicted of murder with no body you never get parole unless you reveal where the body is.

Rather tough on the few (but nevertheless almost certain to exist) wrongly decided cases...

El_Duderino 09

Royal Irish wrote: »

The difference is you can use enhanced interrogation without physically injuring the child serial killer. He might be emotionally scared but who cares about that? You?

I suppose the real question is why you do care about physically injuring the child serial killer but don't care about psychologically injuring them?

What the difference between physical and psychological injury that makes one a good thing to do and the other a bad thing to do?