Whatsapp Torture is repulsive. Even on the scaffold or in front of a firing squad, a man can meet death with dignity. The torturer sets out to strip his victim of dignity, to break him, to violate not only his body but also his soul.
Now, I think it would be unpleasant, but hardly morally impermissible, to take a cheese grater to his face or make him watch Caddyshack II until he gave up the information we needed.
This seems like a no-brainer to me. But it doesn't to a lot of readers who chastised me for condoning torture. So I thought I would use this opportunity to offer my grand theory of democracy and explain why I don't think guilty people should have rights.
First, let me clarify. Guilty people do have rights in our system, and that is necessary and good. But it isn't necessary and good for the reasons most people think. Guilty people by which I mean murderers, rapists, practitioners of mopery have rights only because we aren't sure they're guilty.
If we were sure, they would have no rights. The Case For Torture Take this torture thing. Now, I am not "pro-torture.
But let's keep in mind that there are all sorts of things which are similarly demeaning. Cops have to do things everyday, including kill people, which they find personally degrading.
|Cookies on the BBC website||What does the Bible say about torture? Is there ever a time when inflicting pain is justified in order to punish wrongdoing or to obtain a confession?|
|Yes, torture can be justified. Here’s why | Coffee House||An old American tradition of state-sponsored torture even has its own lexicon: It is quite popular, too.|
Nobody wants to wake up a homeless veteran and tell him that he can't sleep on a grate. But sometimes cops have to do that. Occasionally, prison guards are forced to treat grown men with families like animals.
But we still need prison guards. Torture isn't all that different. Torture is against the law in Israel we can't say the same about most, if not all, of her neighbors. But Israel's Supreme Court grants an exception, the so-called "ticking bomb" excuse.
Imagine if the FBI announced that we were in a similar position on September 10, but we declined to whack the guy around "because torture is always wrong. Hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs, and hundreds of millions live in fear. Do you think the guy who made the decision not to fill a pillow case with a bunch of oranges and make like Barry Bonds would come out a national hero?
Still, we must remember that the written law should forbid torture not because some people don't deserve it, but because it's so difficult to figure out who those people are. A host of Warren Court rulings Mapp v. Wainwright, and of course Miranda v.
Teenagers have a similar philosophy which says that if parents "invade your privacy" to find your stash of pot and dirty magazines, it's unfair when they punish you because they had "no right" to snoop around the back of your sock drawer.
America's most famous teenager, former president Bill Clinton, subscribed to a similar argument by asserting that he was unfairly caught "mentoring" an intern.
As dissenters noted, the Court could have punished the cop for breaking the rules, rather than rewarding the criminal. But that's a topic for another day.
The point here is that we give all these procedural rights to guilty people because it's the only way we've come up with to guarantee the rights of innocent people.
Look at it this way: If we discovered that all career criminals had earlobes shaped like human thumbs and that absolutely no innocent people do, it would be entirely just and fair to "profile" all people with thumb-lobes. Cops could stop cars for "driving while thumb-lobed," and there would be nothing wrong with it whatsoever.
Similarly, if cops were psychics and could discern with absolute clarity the guilt of perpetrators, it would be silly to read them their rights. The problem is that criminals don't have recognizable birthmarks, and cops aren't psychics. Which is why we have arguments about which procedures are fair and just, and which aren't.
The guilty are, well, guilty. We give the guilty lengthy and expensive trials only because we want innocent people to have a chance to avoid being unfairly punished.
If innocent people were never arrested, there would be no reason to give guilt people trials. We'd move straight to sentencing.Why is that a bad thing? Tom Maguire provides some thoughts: IN OUR NAME: The newly released torture memos are cold-blooded and clearly client-driven – the lawyers knew the answers they wanted and reasoned backwards.
Quick thoughts: 1. The US concern about actually harming someone comes through on every page. Torture is repulsive. Even on the scaffold or in front of a firing squad, a man can meet death with dignity. The torturer sets out to strip his victim of dignity, to break him, to violate not only.
Aug 03, · Why is torture wrong? The reasons why torture is wrong can be divided into reasons of pure principle and reasons based on the bad consequences of torture. Both sorts of reason are valid. Apparently it's true: you can have too much of a good thing.
Water intoxication encompasses muscle weakness, cramping, nausea, and vomiting. Eventually, cells in the brain will swell, resulting in seizures, comas, brain damage, and death. Why is that a bad thing? Tom Maguire provides some thoughts: IN OUR NAME: The newly released torture memos are cold-blooded and clearly client-driven – the lawyers knew the answers they wanted and reasoned backwards.
Quick thoughts: 1. The US concern about actually harming someone comes through on every page. Good torture. Earlier in June, however, another set of victims of the US' torture programme in Guantanamo had less luck in being allowed to ask for redress and justice in a US court.