Would you support torture in certain situations in prison

hahaha... I cannot stop laughing... the "Pro-life" guy condones torture... I'm falling over, this is great. You have really made my day.

Guessing this is to be another one of your "the constitution is obsolete" arguments?

 

You don't like the 2nd amendment, but you like the 8th? choosy? =)

 

i dont get whats so funny? and i never claimed to be pro life for murderer's and rapists.... just the innocent.

whats really funny is how u condone the killing of the most innocent people, yet defend the most evil people like criminals rapists WBC.... like WTF is going on in your head dude...

 

Liberty, Justice, The American Way... yep yep.

 

more like destroying society from the inside out by betraying those who need and deserve help by accommodating the criminals and evil people.

 

Let me get this straight, your for destroying half the world in a nuclear exchange with china, for removing the liberty to make choices about your own self, and for torturing people who you deem are 'evil' ... Stalin, is that you?

 

no i'm not for a nuclear war for china.

lol... that i deem evil? raping and torturing 5 kids doesnt deem someone evil? what about shooting and killing 12 innocent people? is that evil?

seriously dude i cant stand your snake-like tendencies. put everything into huge giant generalizations that make no sense at all

 

Nothing would bring back those people. Why torture someone but for your own pleasure. If that is the case than you need to analyze your own reasoning.

 

1. equal justice (also the victim and or their family should have a say on what punishment a criminal gets. since they were the ones hurt)
2. deterrent (if you know you are going to be tortured like hell for 30 years for killing 3 people its going to deter a lot of people from doing that)

 

When you deal with legality of actions, you have to deal in huge giant generalizations. If you say torture is alright for Rapists and Murderers. Then somebody later on is going to add in some other crime, then somebody later adds another crime... next thing you know you jaywalk and they remove your testicles with a dull wooden spoon.

You fail to realize that every special consideration opens the door for a larger application of the method. You take liberty in some small way away from some, then later it becomes a broader expansion of that theme. You Make a special legal status for one group, that group can be expanded.

example of the scary nature of these things have been seen in history. In Nazi Germany, oppression was never challenged because it started out by removing those the public thought were 'evil' ... MARTIN NIEMÖLLER said it best...

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

In fact, the same thing can be seen in the US... Ever look at the wording of the Patriot Act?

"activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

To take that into context, if the Patriot act was enacted in the 60s. Martin Luther King would be in Gitmo or the 1960s version of it at least.


So when you say, lets change the rules to hurt the badguys, you open the door for the same rule exceptions to be extended to any other group.

 

I think you are looking into history too much, and generalizing way too much.

no matter which society you are from, no matter who you are, and when.... a murderer and rapist of 5 boys and girls always has, will, and always will be viewed as evil. thats never going to change....

theyres a difference between going after people's beliefs vs going after what people have already done.

again, you seem really way too afraid of the government

 

the acts you mention are evil by virtually every definition you can imagine... that doesn't change the fact that the 8th amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment. If you let that slide, then you open the prospect for your exception to be extended to others.

Looking into history too much? "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it" Every event has a parallel in history. Because human nature remains the same, You can expect the same outcome when you allow the worst of it to come out.

too afraid of government? No, I don't fear the government... I fear what it could become, if allowed. There has virtually never been an instance of an expansive government that has not oppressed it's people when they allowed it too much power.

 

No we are ruled by law not self justice. Don't all the post on your thread thus far give you pause and make you re-think your position?

 

Nah, on some level, I'm convinced he's just trying to troll us all... and doing a good job of it.

 

possibly.... but seeing a mass murderer who kills 12 people just being arrested and living in solitary to protect him from the other criminals (they do this to the worst of criminals) for him life is not satisfying. and doesn't really deter someone from committing those acts in the future.

 

But how, under your system, do you find out if people are those things or just poor? And do tou want to live in a society morally inferior to most criminals anyway?

 

The purpose of law is not to torture criminals to deter future crime. The purpose of law is to reduce coercion on the population in that particular case. This man is not responsible for future shootings, he's responsible for his own, and should have been locked up for all his life if he hadn't have taken it himself. The very fact that he'd prefer to die than spend the rest of his life in prison tells you something. Would torturing criminals not simply make them kill themselves after their shooting? How is this even a good deterrent?

Again, the purpose of law is not consequential. It is inherently deontological, since justice is based on principle and axiom rather than statistics and outcome.

Additionally, why not deter say... parking infringements or drug use with torture? After all, they are crimes too, should we not try to deter them as best as possible?

This sort of thinking defeats itself pretty obviously. It can't hold up to the most elementary of questioning. Most 4th graders could probably provide a sufficient rebuttal.

 

Before I answer, could you please elaborate what you wish to accomplish by torturing...anyone? And how do you define torture?

 

i voted yes, but only to bring them in compliance with prison rules. they know they aren't getting out, a cattle prod might prove helpful to get them to keep the chow line moving.

i mean, what are you going to do? threaten them with adding days to their 250 year sentance?

 

having certain liberals' posts read to them at lights out.

 

I define torture by being locked in a room with attractive females and they all get to have their way with me... And in that case, i'm all for torture. XD

 

Define "pure evil" and while you are at it - tell us again what you would get out of it that would not be evil in and of itself?

 

idk anything about torture. but im sure the government does. something that will instill fear in criminals so that will defiantly think twice about killing an innocent and think about the consequences real hard

 

1. minor crimes deserve minor punishments.... serve crimes deserve severe punishments. any 4th grader could understand that concept

2. the shooter in colorado was captured alive. he murderer 12 and injured dozens of other people in that movie theater. imagine if his punishment was intense torture for the rest of his life. it would deter people from doing that in the future. if this little dweeb adam lanza was faced with torture for the rest of his life, even if he planned to kill himself, do you think he would still have done it? what if a teacher tackled him?? he would defiantly (*)(*)(*)(*) his pants and would not have it in him to do what he did knowing that if caught he'd be tourtured for life.

im for at LEAST equal treatment of prisoners. idk why high profile criminals are separated from the main prison population, they should be put in with all the rest. im sure that that retard from colorado wouldnt last 1 month in general population at prison. they would murder him in there.

 

i defined pure evil in the post you quoted

take a look through the thread. all the questions you asked have already been answered