I know this has been covered before, but not with these exact circumstances.
If you have been following the news lately, you are probably aware of a couple escaped convicts have been on a pretty respectable crime spree. They are also both in custody.
While on their holiday from prison/jail, they carjacked a guy and left him “tied up” to a tree. The guy eventually escaped. Took him quite a while though.
This pair was also videotaped (by parking lot cameras) carjacking a lady.
The situation:
These guys are back in custody.
Lady is still missing (even if she was recently found and I am unaware if it, consider that she is still missing for this question).
We know they nabbed her. We have that first crime on video, and confirming evidence from other sources.
She is still missing, could be alive, and could be tied up to a tree somewhere as well.
She could be dying of exposure right now and might be saved if found.
Odds are very high, these guys know exactly where she is.
Generally, I am quite opposed to torture as an interrogation tactic. But, in this type of clear-cut case, I think I would be willing allow it.
I would have to say that her right to life easily out weighs these guys’ right to civil treatment while in custody. And that is where I see it. Those are the two items on the balance.
I believe people in custody should be treated humanely. But that right to humane treatment does not in mind out weigh the missing lady’s right to survive.
Still, the position makes me somewhat uncomfortable. I think I wonder what safe guards would really keep unconventional interrogation techniques fully restricted to such obvious cases like this one. Or maybe you don’t agree that this is such an obvious case.
I don’t think any laws should change, on the other hand one of these guys could accidently get stuck with a syringe of sodium pentothal, or maybe a protracted accident involving a dark room and a ball peen hammer.
I would severely frown on such activities. That’s right, I would frown. That’s what I’d do.
Just so I am clear on your reply Scylla, are you suggesting you would be more comfortable with just “bending” the law in cases like this?
I am not necessarily opposed to that. Lets say, I’m not arguing with you.
But, I think I would be more comfortable to keep agents of the law always working within the confines of the law. If there is a justifed time for such an action, I would prefer the law to reflect it.
scotth, i see where you’re coming from, it’s just that one person’s “obvious” really isn’t the same as the next person’s.
if you see what i mean.
you’re talking about introducing judical torture in a black and white world…instead of our wonderful rainbow coloured one, with it’s falliable justice systems.
and by torture, what exactly are you suggesting?
a beating?
broken bones?
water torture?
the rack?
electric shocks to the genitals?
starvation?
We set up Judicial oversight of this law enforcement process in manner very similar to obtaining search warrants.
We set the standards of evidence very high that the person in custody does have information that could save lives.
It must be transparent and documented after the fact.
Any type of law enforcement of judiciary chicanery would carry extremely stiff punishment.
As to the methods
I would not oppose brutalizing the person in custody. No beating, broken bones, etc.
Approved devices could be made that will not have any long lasting effects or cause physical damage to the body. Maybe electric shock to the genitals would be a good answer (I doubt it, but it could be investigated)
I guess I wouldn’t be too concerned with that for a couple reasons.
The gravity of the crimes already documented to meet the requirement for a “special interogation warrant” indicate the psychological problem already exists and/or maybe the criminal just don’t deserve that much human consideration.
The “torture” does not have to happen. When presented with a credible threat, hopefully the person in custody would have the sense to start talking before it started. And could end the ordeal at any time by choosing to talk.
Feel free to point out problems where this could conflict with “innocent until proven guilty”, and how serious it should be taken if a mistake was made and an innocent person was subjected to this. I don’t have good answers here yet. There may not be any, or maybe I or someone else will come along and help resolve these.
On to sadistic torturers… Nothing comes to mind other than the safeguards of requiring a judge to authorize this before it happened. Also, transparency of the the whole process with severe penalties for abuse would hopefully be a large deterent here. Pretty weak, but I have never seriously entertained this idea before. A better solution may come to mind.
UNDHR… very well could be a violation there. It could be a negotiable issue when all the safeguards and strict level of evidence is spelled out, but I guess I don’t have alot of confidence in that. It could be something we disagree with the UN on. I could certainly weaken our moral hand on human rights issues around the world. These things will require a good bit of thought.
What I think is that indeed, I can imagine situations where I would think using torture is morally not only acceptable, but the only sensible way to go (IIRC, there was a previous thread on this topic, and the example given included a terrorist and a nuclear bomb about to explode in a secret place in some city).
That say, I wouldn’t want torture to be allowed by law in any circumstance. If someone was to find himself in an extremely unlikely situation where using torture would be the only sensible thing to do, it should be up to him to decide, fully knowing that what he’s about to do isn’t condoned by law in any way, and he should have to face the legal consequences of his acts thereafter.
If he’s fully convinced that it’s the only sensible option (as opposed to, for instance, the most convenient one) and the motives are really important, he will do so, even knowing he isn’t protected by the law in any way. And if his judgment is correct (like in the terrorist and nuclear bomb example), probably the courts will be lenient.
But I’m totally opposed to the idea that torture could be institutionnalized in any way, or that a “grey area” could be left in the laws. Or else, it will quickly lead to many, many abuses. There should be a strong deterrent against the use of torture, in any circumstance. If the motives are important enough for you to think using torture is required, then you should be ready to face a future punishment. If you think it’s not worth spending say, 2 years in jail, then probably your reasons to use torure aren’t good enough.
I am adamantly opposed to any government sanctioned use of torture. Period.
While it is certainly possible to create hypothetical, or even actual, situations in which information gained under torture would be beneficial to the body politic, I am convinced that the potential for harm, abuse, and secondary social costs is simply too great to creep through that doorway.
While torture is necessarily icky, I think there are some extreme circumstances where it is warranted (pardon the pun). Especially in cases of extracting info from foreigners (i.e. not US citizens) regarding imminent terrorist activities.
I think society has a history of using torture to extract a guilty plea out of a suspect, which is always, 100% of the time, no exceptions, wrong. But using torture for other reasons should be looked at on a case by case basis.
It should be a balancing test looking at the following factors:
Probability that the torturee in fact has the information sought;
Benefit to society from gaining that information;
Long term harm to be caused to the torturee;
Emotional harm to be caused to the torturee;
Degree and length of torture most likely necessary to extract the information sought;
Harm to society from using torture in this instance.
No form of torture should cause permanent disabilities to the torturee. No cutting off body parts. First a truth serum (which is always more effetive in the movies than in real life) should be employed. If that fails to garner the information, then the 6 factors listed above should be weighed to determine whether physical pain should be induced to extract the information. And of course a court should have to issue a torture warrant before it can be done.
I agree with Spiritus Mundi. It can never be sanctioned.
To test an extreme case, let me give you an example:
Take the hypothetical ticking nuclear bomb in an urban area. You have the guy that planted it in custody. He won’t tell. What do you do?
My argument is that if the necessity is absolute, somebody will do it. It will get done despite the law. The person that did it will pay the price, or not.
In such a scenario, would you worry about what was legal?
We only have what morals we can afford as a society.
>> Especially in cases of extracting info from foreigners (i.e. not US citizens) regarding imminent terrorist activities
I am beginning to understand why people in other cultures feel it is OK to kill people provided the are Americans. I guess there are no universal Human Rights, only American Rights.
Using torture to extract confessions or information has been proved to be extremely ineffective and countless people have, even under less pressure, confessed to crimes they did not commit or made up information to satisfy the interrogator.
The one clear thing about this thread is that fundamentalist Muslims do not have a monopoly on barbaric or even stupid ideas.