Would a Little Bit of Torture Really be That Bad?
 

Wait, wait, put away the flamethrowers! I am not saying that suspects should be routinely tortured into confessing crimes. But when there is overwhelming physical evidence that someone has kidnapped a person and that someone has been arrested but won't tell where the victim is (I'm thinking of the Dru Sundjin case and, more recently, that of young Carlie Brucia), I really wish it were possible to use thumbscrews or electrical shocks to the whatsis or whatever torturers use to get answers.

I realize that this would never fly; I'm sure it goes against the "self incrimination" rule if not the "cruel and unusual punishment" one (although it's not really a punishment per se) But it's just so frustrating when those men know what happened to the victim and the whereabouts of her remains but won't say anything. Those poor, poor families :(

No I fully support torture in the correct situations but sometimes I do worry that the wrong people can abuse it.

-Rudey

Ok, a sign that I've been single too long.

When I saw that thread title, I did not even consider criminals (or hazing)....LOL

TGIF!

<end hijack>

In some cases, it's probably is warranted......

From what I've heard mental 'torture' does happen a lot to get people to confess to crimes. I have a friend who is a police detective in a very large city and he told me (after a few too many cocktails) that they have gotten people to confess to crimes that they know they didn't commit just because they knew that the suspect was a 'bad guy'. Now I'm not saying I have a problem with the 'bad guys' being locked up, but it makes you think a little bit about the inadequacies of the system!

-on a side note, I love that I just blamed something on 'the system'-

Nothing like a well-thought out torture scene...

"Well, Muzz, I guess it's just you, and... and me... and YOUR BALLS... and this drawer..." -- Det. Pep Streebeck (Tom Hanks) in Dragnet (1987).

KilarneyRose, when I saw that Carlie Brucia had been murdered, it just hit me in the pit of my stomach. I agree totally with-

Rudey-No I fully support torture in the correct situations but sometimes I do worry that the wrong people can abuse it.

I have so much anger against the system. Did you hear this man was found "not guilty" by a jury on previous kidnapping charges.
The guy's parole officer was trying in December to get him thrown back in jail, but it wasn't a strong enough reason to incarcerate him again.

I think when it's a life or death situation and the certainty is part of the evidence, then torture might not be so bad. The thing is, mistakes are made...

I'm wondering if he killed her before or after the satellite image was broadcast. I honestly thought they would find her alive.
I know it's kind of "psycho", but it's one of my greatest fears. I bet it is for all parents.

I know we have the Geneva Convention, but I certainly wouldn't mind a little bit of thumb screwing in our current situation with the Taliban and all those terrorist groups.

Yeah we already do limited amounts of torture and interrogation techniques are not precisely ethical.

Keep in mind the situation we had in Illinois.

So yeah in principle a little torture for a large enough goal doesn't sound bad, we just don' trust (rightfully) the torturers.

That cop who gave you a ticket just to make quota and enjoys the authority it gives him will be the one deciding when and where to toruture.

In a lot of kidnapping cases it would matter though, the victim is already dead when they catch the suspect.

The Geneva Convention only applies to the military and its conduct under the Law of Armed Conflict. Not everyone's a signatory to the Geneva Convention.

The way the Geneva Convention is currently written, Talibanis and al-Qaeda terrorists are 'enemy combatants'; since they do not have any distinctive way of identifying themselves (such as a uniform), they lose Geneva Convention status and are liable to be shot as spies.

Torturing is all fine until you're in the chair and confessing to crimes you never committed.

But I'm talking specifically about two instances where the person who kidnapped the victim was identified due to overwhelming evidence (blood on a knife owned by the suspect that that was DNA tested to belong to the victim in one case and surveillance video in the other) but once the suspect was in custody he refused to tell the whereabouts of the victim.

At that point, it's not about getting someone to confess to something he didn't do. It's to give some peace of mind to the families of the victims.

In Israel there is an ongoing battle with something called a ticking timebomb. You know someone will be blowing himself up on a bus, you have a local murdering terrorist leader in your hands, what do you do?

-Rudey
--I would put his head in a vice until he told me everything including what color panties his mother wore.

I just read an article in the New Yorker about Guantanamo. Apparently, most of the prisoners will talk, but for the 15-20% that don't, they take away religious privledges (i.e. prayer beads and rugs) as a way of getting info out of them. Also, questioning them for 16 hours is *not* considered torture, as long as they receive an adequate amount of sleep and food.

Don't you wonder what really goes on there, though? I suppose you don't really know unless you are there. Actual torture might happen more than you think.

Some people don't have parents that can pay for Camp Taliban in Afghanistan or Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo.

-Rudey
--They should consider themselves priviledged