Torture as punishment

[Dragoon Knight]

But surely you're argument relies on an impossible assumption? If you think Dunenewt is wrong because torture is immoral surely you need to know what society as a whole thinks. This discussion have surely proven that there is a clear division in the (albeit small) society of FED2K, and that must inevitably translate on to 'civilized' society (that's another debate ;)). If society can't decide what is and isn't morally right the idea of a common social morality entirely collapses.

No impossible assumption.  We're assuming only that morals exist, which is reasonable enough.  We already know that civilised society as a whole disapproves of torture and capital punishment, just as it does not condone murder.  Individuals will always have their own opinions, which can vary along the spectrum of lawful to chaotic, to use D&D terms.  The point is that law is dictated by the majority, either directly (through numbers - thus answering your question, Savageman) or indirectly, through elected representatives.

What I'm proposing is that the morals of civilised society will not allow for torture, and should not allow for murder in the form of capital punishment.  These morals may change in the coming millenium, but right now, they are the views and beliefs of the majority.  The minority may have views on these issues as well, but it is an unfortunate truth that democracy cannot please everyone, and that objective morality will always follow a democratic model.

[Khan]

No impossible assumption.  We're assuming only that morals exist, which is reasonable enough.  We already know that civilised society as a whole disapproves of torture and capital punishment, just as it does not condone murder. 

There is the critical assumption for me. Capital punishment is such a divisive issue that you really need to back up the claim that civilised society disapproves of it. We don't have it in this country and many countries don't have it but then many do. Iran does, china certainly does as does America. But just because some countries don't have it anymore doesn't say that we think it is wrong per se, for starters we don't get the chance to choose such things. Your argument that the morality which we assume is based on what society decides is flawed because societies have rarely chosen such things. In Britain it was decided in the House of commons and the House of Lords by about a two thirds majority, but does that mean that society instantly aligns with the will of parliament?

Individuals will always have their own opinions, which can vary along the spectrum of lawful to chaotic, to use D&D terms.  The point is that law is dictated by the majority, either directly (through numbers - thus answering your question, Savageman) or indirectly, through elected representatives.

What I'm proposing is that the morals of civilised society will not allow for torture, and should not allow for murder in the form of capital punishment.  These morals may change in the coming millenium, but right now, they are the views and beliefs of the majority.  The minority may have views on these issues as well, but it is an unfortunate truth that democracy cannot please everyone, and that objective morality will always follow a democratic model.

We don't dictate law through our elected representatives. We dictate (very slightly) policy through them but even this is questionable. In truth once they are elected our representatives do very little to actually represent us.

[Dragoon Knight]

Parties like the BNP are representative of the type of people who could enact radical change in this country.  It should be no more or less likely for someone to come along with views on capital punishment, but people don't do this.  Potentially because it's a divisive subject, yes, but realistically because of realisation that most people do not approve of it.

I could spend time looking up surveys and reports, or other assorted documentation, but I don't need to.  The fact that capital punishment is still in place in countries who have otherwise civilised governments shows that the majority of people in that particular country (or state, it doesn't matter) believe that it is morally right to do so.  In the same way, countries where the practice is banned have a population that is majoritarily against it.  The gradual progression of electing individuals or parties who support the views of the majority ensures that governments are a way of society indirectly affecting laws via their morality.

What I'm saying is that they are wrong, and they're enacting a double standard.  Punishing murder with execution is wrong in and of itself, because it necessitates the execution of the executioner, ad infinitum.  Just because it's "the state" or "the government" that's doing the murdering, it doesn't remove the moral responsibility of the act.

[Khan]

Then I'm confused. If it is societies decision and some societies believe it to be right, how does one decide which societies are right? is it simply numbers or are some societies more able to decide than others? Or are you using your morals to decide for the world? And don't give me that 'eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind' hoo ha as it is easily refuted when the state is acting as an entity in which we place special authority. The executioner doesn't need to be executed because a country with the death penalty has decided that it is only the state which can kill people. The responsibility is removed because the society moves for the punishment of unlawful killing to be death.

[Edric O]

''only when there have been multiple victims over a long period of time.''

Are you suggesting that multiple victims are required to justify torture?

Yes. A single murder could be the result of a temporary condition on the part of the murderer, such as extreme stress or an intense personal hatred of the victim, for whatever reason. Multiple murders are proof that we are dealing with a person who enjoys the suffering of others, and therefore we can punish this person with torture.

I have no problems with vengeance. When vengeance is committed, the wrongfully aggrieved gains pleasure at the expense of the person who caused him pain. You can see the extraction of that pleasure at the price of the original causer of pain as something akin to payment for damages.

Vengeance is not appropriate in all cases because not all criminals have full control over their lives. Some ended up in a life of crime without actively seeking it out; some committed crimes of passion in a moment of insanity; some were themselves abused by others. Vengeance should only be used against criminals who clearly made a conscious, premeditated decision to commit a crime, without being under any external pressure to do so. In other words, we should only exact vengeance on people who commit crimes because they like it.

I think the form of punishment should all depend on what one is trying to achieve with it. Retribution? Then yes, torture all you like. Rehabilitation? Hardly. Justice? A laughably subjective concept. To remove a threat? Then don't bother with torture, just kill.

For the most horrific crimes, the goal should be deterrence and retribution. This includes rape and murder if there is overwhelming evidence, and all crimes worse than that (which basically means multiple rapes or murders). For lesser crimes, as well as cases of rape and murder where the conviction was made on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the goal should be rehabilitation.

In other words, we should aim to rehabilitate unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person we're dealing with is a sick f*ck who enjoys the pain of others - in which case we should switch to retribution and make an example of the bastard.

Capital punishment should be avoided in all cases. For lesser crimes it is excessive. For cases with questionable evidence it is dangerous, because you might kill an innocent man. For horrific crimes with overwhelming evidence it is too merciful.

So here's a thought. How about punishment in some cases is the responsibility of the victim, or the victim's family or chosen representative? Maybe they get a small donation, maybe not. Maybe it could become a custom for sympathetic people to donate money to the family so that they can afford better punishment.

First the jury decides guilt, and then it decides whether the crime is heinous enough to warrent personal retribution or not. If not, the state handles it with due course and legal coldness. If so, the victim or family has free range to choose whatever punishment they like, limited only by their own funds.

Any kind of "justice" that depends on the wealth of the victim is inherently unjust. The law must be the same for all.

[Torture] is also, however, remarkably efficient at extracting confessions.

Oh yes, of course. Under torture you could easily get a man to confess to being a terrorist, shooting Kennedy, starting World War 2 and crucifying Jesus.

Drowning takes too long, and is too old school.  Just one shot in the back of the head after court should suffice.

No. Even if the death penalty was reintroduced - which is something I oppose - those sentenced to death should be given time to prepare themselves to die. A few weeks would be necessary, at least. Some may repent in their last days, and they should be given this one last chance to save their souls.

I do believe we shouldn't pay those who chose to be unemployed, but that is another matter.

It is nearly impossible to determine who did or did not "choose" to be unemployed. Furthermore, unemployment means poverty, and most people would rather not be poor if they can help it. When conservatives talk of people "choosing" unemployment, what they usually mean is people who did not put enough effort into trying to find a job. But who is to decide how much effort is enough effort?

If we can class justice as being a tempered and humane response to infringements of the law, we can keep it as a virtue, rather than a subjective term bandied about hither and thither.  Torture is inhumane, and therefore cannot be classed as as a just punishment. If we were to participate in torture for whatever reason, we'd be no better off than those we were inflicting it upon, excuses be damned.

So, by the same logic, if we imprison people for 20 years we are no better than the father who kept his daughter locked up for 20 years. If we fine people we are no better than thieves. And so on and so forth. If it is always immoral to lock people up against their will, we should not have prisons. If it is always immoral to take people's money against their will, we should not have fines. Every kind of punishment we use against criminals would be inhumane and unjust if done to an innocent person. What makes torture (or killing for that matter) different from the rest?

[Edric O]

well shit... take the numers and multiply them by a billion and you'd have a more realistic question

but still

is the majority right?

or is it your own personal opinion?

If a group of people wants to kill another group, there will be war between them, and the winners will kill the losers. The question of who is right happens to be irrelevant in that scenario. Even if it could be proved that one group was right, the other group would never accept it and war would break out anyway.

[Dragoon Knight]

Because individual societies have matured on their own for several hundred years.  With globalisation, there is the drive to become a unified entity, with shared values, while keeping cultural distinctiveness.  A lot of the basis for membership rides on the actions of a government, which as I've said, reflects the society that elected it.  Their actions (and to a lesser degree, the actions of their people) will be a major factor.  Take EU or UN membership, for example.  It is my belief that over the next few decades, a lot more people will realise that torture / killing is morally wrong.  Whether this is for the right reasons or the wrong ones (i.e. follow the leader) remains to be seen.

And Edric, I can see what you mean, but the difference between locking someone up and ending their life / torturing them is quite a distinct one.  There are degrees of humane treatment, and we have to remember that we are subjecting criminals to these circumstances.  What we do not want to do is try and excuse being brought down to their level.

There is also a sense of the punishment being more apt - imprisonment, with literally no luxuries and only basic human rights, would be bordering on extreme anyway.  As always, this remains a difficult issue, but I believe I've said my piece on the topic.  I'll pipe up if anything seems way off, but my previous posts should be enough to source material for answers to most questions.  Right now, I'm off to bed. :P

[Dante]

Any kind of "justice" that depends on the wealth of the victim is inherently unjust. The law must be the same for all.

What does it matter? Punishment is given either way, it is just the nature of it that differs. The state keeps its hands clean, that's what is important.

Oh yes, of course. Under torture you could easily get a man to confess to being a terrorist, shooting Kennedy, starting World War 2 and crucifying Jesus.

My point exactly.

So, by the same logic, if we imprison people for 20 years we are no better than the father who kept his daughter locked up for 20 years. If we fine people we are no better than thieves. And so on and so forth. If it is always immoral to lock people up against their will, we should not have prisons. If it is always immoral to take people's money against their will, we should not have fines. Every kind of punishment we use against criminals would be inhumane and unjust if done to an innocent person. What makes torture (or killing for that matter) different from the rest?

One could say that it isn't. One could also question just how low a state is willing to stoop to punish those it deems irredeemably evil.

After all, if it's that bad then why put any effort into it? It would be like trying to tell the sea to go back.

[Edric O]

It is my belief that over the next few decades, a lot more people will realise that torture / killing is morally wrong. Whether this is for the right reasons or the wrong ones (i.e. follow the leader) remains to be seen.

Ok, then what are the right reasons? Why is torture or murder morally wrong?

And is it always wrong, no matter the consequences? What about killing a person to save a million others? A thousand others? A hundred others?

And Edric, I can see what you mean, but the difference between locking someone up and ending their life / torturing them is quite a distinct one.

I'm sorry, but I don't see what you mean. So far I've just been looking at them as degrees of punishment, one worse than the other. In what way are they fundamentally different? The line between prison and torture is particularly blurry, since it is possible to design a prison with conditions so bad that it could be seen as torture, even though no specific person is torturing the prisoners.

What does it matter? Punishment is given either way, it is just the nature of it that differs. The state keeps its hands clean, that's what is important.

Umm, what does it even mean for the state to "keep its hands clean," and why is it important?

[Dante]

The state must seek to uphold certain values. I am assuming, for the point of argument, that moral right and justice are among these values. With that in mind, for the state to compromise its principles even slightly is to deviate from its high standards. Now in the case of prison such deviation may be acceptable, or even unavoidable. One has to put dangerous people somewhere. But in the case of torture or killing, effort and funds are put into making sure that someone suffers and/or dies. This is avoidable, and one assumes that if something so morally abhorrant that it is against the law can be avoided, then it should be.

Ergo, the state should not involve itself in such sordid affairs as killing and maiming any more than absolutely necessary. Keep clean.

Edit: Dragoon already said that circumstances where killing would save a million are moe complicated. I reserve judgement on that one.

[Sneakgab]

(edit). Fixed a typo.

(edit). More typos. added minor elaboration (if you've already read this post once, reading through it again would probably be not worth it for this bit)

Quite a hot topic... posting being done during the creation of this very post.

I'm not sure what you mean by ''objective'' but any way....

A moral can be objective and yet situational/circumstantial. A whole society can agree that killing is GENERALLY wrong. Then they can go further and agree that it is fine in some circumstances though.

Morals are not neccesarily dependent on actions but rather can be dependent on results, objectives and the decisions made.

A moral can be: Burning plants is bad.

Another moral can be: Doing something against the greater good of the ecosystem is bad. (under all situations)

Two very different kinds of morals but we can see them both as being made objective as they still always apply. However, when it comes to physical decision making the latter can vary.

Eg: If burning a plant is a good thing for the ecosystem then it is good under the latter system and if it bad for the ecosystem then it is bad for the latter system.

As opposed to the former moral axiom system where burning plants is bad. One might say: that which minimizes burning is therefore good... same as latter system. However, this system is not neccesarily about reducing how many plants are burnt, it is just about the holder of said moral system avoiding burning plants himself, even if that results in more plants being burnt than if he did burn some plants as a result.

See, the difference lies in a moral system deciding that actions are bad and a moral system deciding that actions that maximize or minimize certain results are good or bad.

Burning plant = bad... and ''any action that leads to relatively more plants being burnt (than if the action was not made) = bad are two DIFFERENT moral systems.

So... speaking in terms of this whole civilized society and their ''objective'' morals and how these for some reason should be followed...

A society can decide that killing is morally wrong under some circumstances. It can also decide than punishment by killing is morally right.

Now, I know some will say: the circumstances don't matter, it is either wrong or right...

That may be the case with YOUR moral axiom. However, this does not in any way restrict the logical possibilities of design for a moral system so that other moral systems can be circumstantial/situational as opposed to being independent of these things (ie: Objective as you seem to mean it)

I say objective as you seem to mean it, because the only other meaning you could have for objective would be to say that the moral is the same for everybody. Unless you have transcended us mere mortals, and somehow found a way to prove your moral code to be right in some universal sense (unlike others which are based on being SUBJECTIVE they differ from person to person) axioms OR have found a moral that ALL sentient beings agree on, I don't see how you can call it objective in that sense.

On this matter of moral majority. The moral majority does not decide what is wrong and right. Each and every person does for themselves via their moral axioms. When I speak of these axioms I do not speak of things they have been convinced of. I am speaking of things which ''exist'' for them..... inexplicable fundamental essences that are defined by themselves Eg: Happiness and blue.... blue is simply blue. One cannot describe happiness or why he likes it. It is simply there. But this matter is like sentience, you cannot point to another human and say that for him, the idea of moral goodness exists and what that essence is like for him. I cannot point to anybody and say that they are sentient or they sense and understand moral goodness. These are sensory abstract things. They are not the axioms of science which can objectively be contested for all of us by looking upon the universe we share. You see, we only share this physical universe, but there are elements of our perception of the universe that are possibly unique to each of us that no one else can observe or contest (normally) like things in the physical universe.

This is what leads to subjectivity, the fact that we all have our personal universes via our perception and conciousness that create non-physical but nonetheless real things that exist only for people. The happiness of another individual is not something that somebody else feels and is not a part of their universe.

So... via your own moral axioms what is wrong or right for you is decided (eg: What color you see when you observe an object cannot be argued by someone else to be a certain color with any surety nor can it be argued that we all see the same thing with any surety. Perhaps science can show otherwise by examining our optical functions but that is besides the point as it is just an example. Regardless, we are certainly not at any point that science can determine via nueral examination our moral codes and so one cannot say for sure that we in fact all have the same code. What others decide is irrelevant. Maybe one can set his own morals via definition and maybe there is no such thing as right or wrong. If there is though, it seems unreasonable to assume it be objective.

''The fact that capital punishment is still in place in countries who have otherwise civilised governments shows that the majority of people in that particular country (or state, it doesn't matter) believe that it is morally right to do so.''

Otherwise civilized governments? You speak in a way suggesting that their very ''agreement'' (by the moral majority) that some act is moral is what makes them uncivilized. You also seem to suggest that it is the agreement of civilized society that is important. So, if a society has an uncivilized decision on the morality of something, they are uncivilized and therefore cannot be considered in deciding the morality of something. It is obvious that this lead to any action labelled as uncivilized as therefore being impossible to ever be considered moral by this logic.

So the only question remaining under this logic for such acts is: what makes something ''civilized''. I sure hope no one is about to claim that what is civilized is what is agreed upon as civilized or moral by a civilized society. In that case that society decides what is civil and what is right and therefore who is uncivil and wrong.

Since it is 4:00 AM, I'm a tad fuzzy and am not sure if I have even fully demonstrated the silliness of this whole civilized society thing. Still, we should at least leave out this whole civilized factor methinks?

Not sure at this drowsy period whether or not my typings have any meaning, I shall perhaps edit them tomorrow, checking my post for miscommunication of its true intent and things that would more obviously be wrong when viewed at a more ''awake'' time.... it may be that at that time this post seems obscene to me. Till then, do not take them (my typings) as my established opinion on the matter. As I tend to say often:

I shall ponder this further.

[Anathema]

Austrians seem to have an obsession with locking young girls in basements for countless years...

[Edric O]

Austrians seem to have an obsession with locking young girls in basements for countless years...

Well, to be fair, it only seems to have happened twice (there was the one other case a few years ago).

[Dragoon Knight]

In case anyone is interested, here's a link to a news post, in which this guy gives a full statement explaining why he did it.

[Edric O]

That is a highly disturbing statement. I'm not surprised to find out that he had sexual fantasies about his mother. But it is this part that shows how truly demented he is:

"I have tried to provide for my family in the cellar as best as possible. Whenever I went to the bunker I would bring my daughter flowers and cuddly toys as well as books for the children. I would watch an adventure film on video with them while Elizabeth would prepare our favourite food and then we would all sit together at the kitchen table and eat together."

[...] "Elizabeth and the children fully accepted me as the supreme head of the family' date=' they would have never dared to attack me."[/quote']

"Family values" gone very, very wrong...

[nemafakei]

"Elizabeth and the children fully accepted me as the supreme head of the family, they would have never dared to attack me."

Wow... anyone else heard that line before?

[exatreide]

Porn did not evolve from anything, porn has always been around in one form or another and always will, from cave drawing's to HD Jenna Haze filled orgies. Ahem, sorry.

But sorry, what was the topic about? Torture eh? Well it's bad obviously. Although hurling your girlfriend off a pier in GTA IV and jumping out just before is pretty satisfying. Is that wrong?

[Dante]

Retribution is satisfying. It is often harmful to those who seek it of course, but at least it gives them a purpose.

[Dante]

I don't do revenge. I have nothing worth avenging.

I do do spite though.

[Mahdi]

"However, retribution seems satisfying, but is not actually."

That's too blanket a statement.  It all depends on the type of person.

[exatreide]

Yea well I mean porn in movie form. I believe they had to give some sort of plot and possibly educational uses (right) to a film to avoid legal issues. Those films were displayed in grindhouse theatres -back in a time when even vhs didn't exist-, which precede adult movie theatres that appeared when the laws grew loose (and before the internet of course).

I think it's pretty clear I don't condemn expressing violence, because I believe it's natural. However, retribution seems satisfying, but is not actually.

I don't know if you ever tried revenge Dante, but if you did, I doubt you felt satisfied afterwards.

I don't quite remember the Bene Gesserit sister that said "revenge is for children and the emotionally retarded" in Chapterhouse. Which if I 'm not mistaken, is the favorite dune book of both of us.

Porn in movie form dates back to the silent film  era (heres a quick history of "vally porn" http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/29/a-brief-history-of-p.html) Most of which have no story and were quite rudimentary, the "torture" stuff your talking about didn't really evolve till the late 60's and 70's (although there were the occasional scattered short home made film I'm sure)  Here's a history of early porn from about 1870 to 1930.http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1054183

Sorry to ahem drive it off topic ahem