Syzygys
OK, so for the record, when you could have saved your kids, you put principals first.
No, I reject the conclusion that my immoral actions would actually promote the survival of my kids in any way. I reject the idiocy that torture is any more effective than other, non-coercive methods in getting accurate information from a suspect(as does the professional intelligence community and the courts of our judiciary, they reject it outright). In fact, my crime might insure the suspect could never be prosecuted(duress)and insure his release, would put ME in jail while he walked out the door and it STILL would not secure any accurate information or miraculous rescue(that only happens on dramatic TV shows). Plus the suspect could sue me for everything I own even while I was burying my dead children(which he may or may not have had anything to do with). It doesn't make any difference about how I feel about the situation or whether I act on my primitive, unthinking, emotional reaction, torture will not save my kids any faster(if at all)than other intelligently applied, non-coercive interrogation techniques. How I feel or what I would like to do notwithstanding. There are reasons we don't put victim's family members in charge of criminal investigations, their emotions are likely to overrule their intellect. Understandable, but not conducive to actually finding the real culprit and lord help any innocent who inspires their suspicions. Just how much torture of innocent people is justified(all suspects, even you, are innocent UNLESS convicted in a court of law through the use of legal means, torture SPECIFICALLY excluded)?
Again, with the effectiveness. I don't care if its effectiveness ratio is just 10%, if it saves people's life, fine with me.
It doesn't save people's lives, it actually does as much damage to you, me and society as the kidnapper has done(but it does make you an evil torturer, no more moral than any Fascist dictator). Saying you are willing to torture 9 innocent, un-involved citizens in order to beat the confession out of one person who may or may not be a criminal at all only illustrates the complete idiocy of your position. You would be willing to commit 10 felonies to solve one? Really? There's no end to that progression, you know.
Which country is more evil:
a/ Torture for good reasons, but doesn't do wars.
b/ No torture, but does illegal conquering wars.
Both are equally immoral, but for different reasons. Both should be resisted. Torture is always war on innocent people. Once a police force gets that tool, everyone arrested will confess to whatever will stop the torture. Saddam Hussein, Papa Doc, Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin would agree with you, you know? Not company I want to keep, none of their countries would have been good places to live. "Better ten men escape justice than one innocent man be deprived of it." Justice Hugo Black, US Supreme Court. There are no good reasons to torture, ever. There are all sorts of bad reasons, but the fig leaf of need does not cover up the vast moral stain on a torturer's character, the character of the police force and of the country. When you torture then you, yourself, are guilty of a crime every bit as bad as kidnapping, felonious assault(in fact it IS felonious assault), rape or 2nd degree murder. Congratulations, you have succeeded in lowering your morals to the level of the basest of criminals, you must be so proud.
By the way you guys realize that a life in prison sentence easily classifies as torture, so anyone making arguments of abolishing long prison sentences?
Actually, it isn't. They get 3 hots and a cot and can watch all those TV dramas you think reflect reality all day long. That's better treatment than their victims received and any further depredation is only on their fellow low lifes. Prison is punishment, those sentenced have no rights beyond those given to animals, because that is how they acted in society. And, as a torturer, you would deserve exactly that(IE a society of your peers, morally).
Grumpy
