Would you support torture in certain situations in prison

You can make excuses justifying torture all you want. The intentional infliction of pain for whatever reason, on a helpless person, no matter what their past crimes, is still (*)(*)(*)(*)ing torture. It's vile, and revolting. Religoius wackjobs and brutal tyrants condone torture, and it seems you've put yourself down to their level. Congrats, hope you're proud of yourself.

 

To my knowledge those working for the government are exempted from being personally responsible for their actions that lead to a wrongful conviction but the taxpayers are because the victim of wrongful prosecution can obtain financial compensation which is paid for by the taxpayers.

We must also realize that the imposition of the death penalty is not related to the conviction per se as it is a separate decision made by the jury. As I previously noted all juries in a capital case where the death penalty can be imposed are prejudiced because anyone that opposes capital punishment is excluded from the jury. In short, anyone such as myself, that doesn't believe the government should be committing the pre-meditated murder of the people of the United States based upon the ideals upon which America was founded is automatically excluded from the jury.

Bascally the jury in a capital murder case is lynch mob predisposed to revenge over justice which would protect the inalienable Rights of All Persons and this is authorized under the law related to capital punishment.

If I can't commit premeditated murder then I cannot authorize my government to commit premeditated murder. If I cannot torture a person then I cannot authorize my government to torture a person.

 

Do you want to bet your life on it? BRILLIANT!

 

The death penalty is completely pointless. A state can just have its own maximum security murderer's jail.. If they can't afford to keep a murderer incarcerated than let some of the pot dealers out from their normal jail. They're already wasting money on "death row" anyway.

At least if one day they discover there's a wrongful conviction, they can release the person who shouldn't be there.

The only thing you lose out on is blood lust being satisfied, but there are other ways to get those feelings dealt with.. Like putting them towards something constructive in the memory of the victim rather than dwelling on the victim's cause of death.

 

I must admit though I speak without empathy, I have never lost a loved one due to murder and my feelings could be different in that situation.

 

In some cases prosecutors should be held liable for negligence. Just like a doctor, they have lives in their hands. Not all states will compensate people who have been wrongfully convicted, which is a disgrace in my opinion. I had watched a very moving documentary called After Innocence that had made me look into it, and I think only 20 something states provide wrongful conviction compensation. I would imagine that prosecutors in states that do allow such lawsuits feel far more pressure to be careful than states that do not.

I had never really thought about how the lawsuits are paid, even if states have some type of liability insurance I guess it would be funded by us taxpayers. Perhaps if it is passed onto a lawyer's insurance for a payout? But I can see unintended consequences in that right off the bat.... something for me to mull on for a bit perhaps.

In capital punishment cases, I was of the impression that prosecutors needed to seek the death penalty for it to be an option to the jury. I was also of the impression that the jury selection goes both ways, meaning in a death penalty case jurors who have strong stances against the death penalty are weeded out in jury selection as are anyone who has strong convictions about being pro-death penalty. More over don't both the defense and prosecution teams get to strike jurors after the initial pooling of them? I think both sides like to stack the cards in their favor. I am sure in some states like Texas jury lynch mobs are probably picked more often then not because it seems many Texans are very much in favor of the death penalty.

State and federal officials have been given the authority to do many things an individual citizen cannot. The US is roughly equally divided on who feels we should give our government this authorization. There are many states that do not allow it currently but very few who have been consistent on their stance of the death penalty since entering the union.

 

For me, my stance on the death penalty has nothing to do with blood lust. Just has my stance on imprisonment has nothing to with the need for revenge or punishment. It is more of a practicality thing, housing prisoners for life is stupid to me. If your crime would constitute a life time imprisonment without the possibility of parole, I see it as a waste of resources.

That said I agree drug use needs to be decriminalized. Those in prison for only drug use need to be released, and we need to revamp how we treat criminals who will one day be released back into society. Rehabilitation should be more important than punishment.

 

To extract information from an enemy, torture may not be necessary. Rather than the application of physical harm, emotional harm may be more than sufficient. And that emotion would be fear. ANd nothing can generate it better than to be right next to the largest land carnivore on earth (the polar bear), who is doing everything he can to get at you, so he can tear you apart and eat you alive.

In the short link video, a very brave (maybe a little stupid) reporter, gets in a special cage, and lures a polar bear to it, who trys to get at him. You might note that this bear is only a female (who weigh up 650 lbs). If it was a male, he could be over 1500 lbs (more than twice the size of the bear in the video.)

So how this connects to the OP is this >> Lock the interrogee in a cage, with a 1500 lb male polar bear in a cage adjacent to his. Tell him the door between the cages has a lock but it's broken, and it will take the monster 10 minutes to figure out how to undo the lock, open the intercage door, walk into his cage, and have him for lunch. In most cases, a few (deafening) roars by that 3/4 ton monster would be enough.

http://www.adn.com/2013/01/10/2748364/video-polar-bears-rattle-cameramans.html

 

So this interrogee is supposed to think that this bear/monster is going to pick the lock, or put a key in it, or break it? Or how exactly would the bear/monster figure it out after ten minutes?

 

How the hell do I know ? Go ask the bear. Seriously - Answer to your question. It really doesn't matter what he thinks about the lock. Just being that close to a hungry, huge polar bear wanting to get at him (and not being sure about the lock) is enough. Don't think so ? Try it some time.

PS - Bears are pretty smart animals. That's why they're one of the animals used in circuses. As for "break" the lock ? I wouldn't be surprised if an adult, male polar bear cold rip it right off the cage. I've seen smaller Brown Bears in Alaska rip doors right off of trucks and RVs, when getting at food is the issue.

 

Smart. Cunning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0DCOTaZgtA&feature=endscreen&NR=1

 

Well I mean.. it depends. If it's a combination lock, like one of those dials you have to spin to the left, then to the right, then to the left again, all at certain numbers, then yeah, I'm sure the bear could get in. But otherwise, I don't see it happening.

Anyway, I asked the bear, like you suggested. He said that he could do it, but only if it were an oversized dial.. Otherwise his claws would interfere.

 

It has actually been shown that torture is counterproductive in obtaining information. For example, KLM revealed a lot of accurate information under standard interrogation techniques that don't include torture but once tortured the reliability of the information became almost non-existant. After he was tortured he was questioned about the courier that was working for bin Ladin and his dismissed this saying the man was a minor person that no longer performed that role. It was years before the US intelligence figured out from other sources were torture wasn't used that KSM had mislead them which took them away from the key piece of evidence that eventually lead to locating bin Ladin. Years were lost in finding bin Ladin because of the torture that was used on KSM.

 

how about wide bars and a sliding wall so the subject is slowly pushed towards it?


i'm starting to think that the only thing standing in the way of me being a Bond Villain is funding.

 

close, but no seal got.

 

Not only that, but they seem to have botched their own chance to try KSM for his OWN crime, that is, allegedly, being "principal architect" of the 9/11 attack!

No wonder why we're still awaiting a judgement a decade later... It's a bit harder of a case when there's torture involved!

 

Wouldn't matter what kind of lock. If the bear could just jiggle it enough, or rip at it hard enough, that lock is history. Only problem I might see with this scenario, is that the interrogee might die of fright, right there on the spot, and then you get no information from him.

 

It's a travesty that KSM is still alive at this moment in 2013, when he should have been executed years ago.

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...k-mohammed-still-alive-youve-got-kidding.html

 

I would imagine that sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Depends on the torture, what information is sought, who the person being tortured is, and how effective are the questions being asked.

 

Yeah that whole "rule of law" thing that civil countries do always interferes.

If only somehow you could surrender your principles and democratic ideals so that the terrorists who attacked on 9/11 could achieve the victory conditions which the United States claimed they sought with that attack, and you could resolve this dilemma. Since proving a criminal case against the guy is turning out to be rather difficult.

 

I don't care to bump that other thread of yours as it's in the late breaking news section and KSM's "case file" is gathering dust, but I noticed you mentioned how they slam dunk executed that DC sniper after conviction.

So what do you think is the holdup here? Still gathering evidence? Maybe get the polar bear monster to scare some additional "evidence" out of him.

 

I'd say the hell with case. The dirtbag has openly bragged that he did it while him and his ragged buddies laughed about it. The polar bear is hungry. His food supply is diminishing. I think we've got just the answer to his problem. Go get'm, big boy !

 

Funny,,, your handle is right to life, and yet, you seem to think torturing crazy people will be a just revenge. They are fricking crazy. Society needs to be protected by no ever letting them see the light of day again from prison, but torturing them does not prevent any crimes. To want to torture people only shows a cold heart full of hate and anger and a lack of humanity.

 

He didn't "openly brag" that he did it, he only said that after you TORTURED him into saying it. CIA MKULTRA techniques which were used on KSM were DESIGNED to make people go insane and lose touch with reality.

You can torture people to say anything.

You've not answered the question either. What's the holdup?

 

I believe the poll, as it stands now with over 81% opposing torture, reflects a simple fact. Most people oppose the tyranny of government because torture is unquestionably a violation of the inalienable Rights of the Individual and is an act of tyranny by government. I can only guess if these numbers are reflective of society in general where, if the 20% minority assume control of government, tyrannical governments are formed and allowed to exist.

When we look at the tyrannical governments around the world they are overwhelmingly controlled by a minority extremist element.