Death penalty and torture double-standard?

[neat62]

Does anyone have any data to show that torture does not work? I mean, it must have some value otherwise nobody would use it to gain information. After all, torture has been around since the beginning of time. If it provided zero results, don’t we think that it would have been abandonded centuries ago? For intelligence purpose I mean, not to be cruel.

I believe that torture can and does work. Perhaps not all the time, but it is not a method that should be tossed in the garbage.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Does anyone have any data to show that torture does not work? I mean, it must have some value otherwise nobody would use it to gain information. After all, torture has been around since the beginning of time. If it provided zero results, don’t we think that it would have been abandonded centuries ago? For intelligence purpose I mean, not to be cruel.

I believe that torture can and does work. Perhaps not all the time, but it is not a method that should be tossed in the garbage.

Sure you can get data but before you do I encourage you to think about whether torture is a self fulfilling function? Say you want an Iraq to claim he saw WMDs so you torture him until he says that. Do the weapons exist now? But was your goal achieved? Again the problem since you make him say your words what can you learn?

here is probably a better source
prodeathpenalty.com/guilt.htm
here a closer to requested source
livescience.com/strangenews/050725_innocent_confess.html
additionally something else worth reading
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/22/AR2006092201304.html

 

[Ender]

I believe that torture can and does work.

We have any number of histories showing beyond doubt that it works on most people. The government has admitted to using waterboarding three times and in all three cases the detainees broke under the treatment.

The USS Pueblo was captured by North Korea in 1968 and the crew was tortured. It’s not clear how many of them gave out the information they had but at least one account had pretty much the entire crew doing so.

An intelligence officer went out on a submarine mission in WWII and when the boat was damaged and the crew abandoning it, this officer stayed aboard and went down with the boat rather than risk capture where he feared that, under torture, he would reveal top military secrets. He was awarded the Medal of Honor.

In the Vietnam war one of the ranking prisoners who was at Tonkin and knew what really happened in the infamous Tonkin Incident bit through the veins in his wrists when he felt his captors were about to discover his involvement there as he feared he would not be able to withstand the torture they would inflict to get him to publicly reveal what he knew.

We also have the personal admission by Senator McCain that he broke under torture. The argument that torture doesn’t work is ridiculous. It may be terribly immoral … but it is effective.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

" texas roofer:

Unwise several Americans were jailed. the US government sent people to Germany to negotiate the situation to prevent further persecution

…Really? And who might they have been? Proofs of the statement? I would like to see them, seriously, sounds like interesting reading…

Convictions :

Soldiers convicted in Abu Ghraib scandal
The Associated Press
October 16, 2006
Eleven U.S. soldiers have been convicted of crimes stemming from detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq:

Former Sgt. Santos A. Cardona, an Army military police dog handler from Fullerton, Calif., was convicted by a military jury June 1, 2006, of dereliction of duty and aggravated assault for allowing his Belgian shepherd to bark within inches of the face of a kneeling detainee. Cardona was sentenced to 90 days of hard labor with no prison time, a reduced in rank one grade to specialist and forfeiture of $600 a month for 12 months.

Former Spc. Armin Cruz, a military intelligence reservist from Plano, Texas, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and mistreating prisoners and was sentenced in September 2004 to eight months in prison.

Former Sgt. Javal Davis, an MP reservist from Roselle, N.J., was sentenced to six months in prison after pleading guilty in February 2005 to assault, dereliction of duty and lying to Army investigators. He admitted stepping on the hands and feet of handcuffed detainees and falling with his full weight on top of them.

Pfc. Lynndie England, an MP reservist from Fort Ashby, W. Va., was sentenced in September 2005 to three years in prison after a jury convicted her of conspiracy, maltreating detainees and committing an indecent act.

Former Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick, an MP reservist from Buckingham, Va., was sentenced to 8 1/2 years in prison in October 2004 after pleading guilty to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees and other charges. Frederick said he helped place wires on a detainee’s hands and told him he would be electrocuted if he fell while standing on a box.

Former Cpl. Charles A. Graner Jr., an MP reservist of Uniontown, Pa., was sentenced in January 2005 to 10 years in prison for assault, battery, conspiracy, maltreatment, indecent acts and dereliction of duty. Prosecutors described Graner, who England has said is the father of her son, as the ringleader of a group of guards who mistreated detainees.

Former Spc. Megan Ambuhl Graner, an MP reservist from Centreville, Va., now married to Charles Graner. She pleaded guilty in November 2004 to failing to prevent or report maltreatment of prisoners. She was discharged from the Army without prison time.

Former Spc. Sabrina Harman, an MP reservist from Lorton, Va., was found guilty at trial in May 2005 of conspiracy, maltreating detainees and dereliction of duty. She was sentenced to six months in prison.

Former Spc. Roman Krol, a military intelligence reservist from Randolph, Mass., admitted pouring water on naked detainees and forcing them to crawl around the floor. He also said he threw a foam football at them while they were handcuffed. Krol was sentenced in February 2005 to 10 months in prison.

Former Spc. Jeremy Sivits, an MP reservist from Hyndman, Pa., pleaded guilty in May 2004 to four counts for taking pictures of naked Iraqi prisoners being humiliated. He was sentenced to one year in prison.

Former Sgt. Michael J. Smith, a military police dog handler from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., was sentenced in March 2006 to 179 days in prison for offenses that included maltreatment, conspiracy and dereliction of duty. The jury convicted Smith of conspiring with dog handler Santos Cardona to frighten detainees into soiling themselves.
dailypress.com/bal-ghraib,0,6720625.story

Concerning Rumsfeld:

…………We are asking the German prosecutor to launch an investigation because the U.S. government is unwilling to open an independent investigation into the responsibility of these officials for war crimes and the U.S. has refused to join the International Criminal Court. CCR and the Iraqi victims brought this complaint to Germany as a court of last resort. Several of the defendants are stationed in Germany.
The Pentagon and the U.S. government are taking this suit very seriously. According to the Deutsche Press Agency, **Donald Rumsfeld has warned Germany that he will not attend an upcoming security conference in Munich if there is any indication of an investigation going forward, and Chief Pentagon Spokesman Larry Di Rita, **calling the complaint “frivolous,” said that he raised the case with the State Department: “State is engaged in this. Obviously, it’s something that we’re focused on and very concerned with” Please encourage the German prosecutor not to bow to U.S. pressure.
Defendants in the suit include Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, former CIA Director George Tenet, Lt. General Ricardo S. Sanchez, Major-General Walter Wojdakowski, Brig.-General Janis Karpinski, Lt.-Colonel Jerry L. Phillabaum, Colonel Thomas M. Pappas, Lt.-Colonel Stephen L. Jordan, Major-General Geoffrey Miller, and Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone. ……………
democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/ccr/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=325

 

[Oscarthecat]

Is this discussion about the theoretical possibility that torture can be morally justified in very specific circumstances?

Or is it about whether particular, historical occurrences of torture were morally justified?

Because these are two completely separate topics- and proving one does not necessarily prove the other.

Logically, the lack of historical proof that torture has been morally justified cannot prove that torture is intrinsically immoral-

-at best, it can only prove that a morally acceptable incidence of torture hasn’t happened YET.

On top of that, arguing about the historical topic is futile because none of us can possibly know (or divulge) all of the details surrounding each use of torture, especially in its present use, because most of those details are classified or undocumented. It will inevitably turn into an attempt to pick apart every historically documented use of torture-

Your argument would simply be stronger if you stuck to moral principles, and stayed away from case studies.

 

[Ender]

Is this discussion about the theoretical possibility that torture can be morally justified in very specific circumstances?

The discussion has wandered a bit as these things do. The specific references to instances of torture went to the question of whether it was effective, not whether it was moral. The OP question about whether there is a double standard regarding the death penalty and torture is a bit mystifying to me as they are two separate issues and obviously two different conclusions can reasonably be reached about them. Discussing torture is difficult in the first place as there is no clear definition of what it means. One man’s torture is another man’s fraternity hazing.

Ender

 

[neat62]

Is this discussion about the theoretical possibility that torture can be morally justified in very specific circumstances?

Or is it about whether particular, historical occurrences of torture were morally justified?

Because these are two completely separate topics- and proving one does not necessarily prove the other.

Logically, the lack of historical proof that torture has been morally justified cannot prove that torture is intrinsically immoral-

-at best, it can only prove that a morally acceptable incidence of torture hasn’t happened YET.

On top of that, arguing about the historical topic is futile because none of us can possibly know (or divulge) all of the details surrounding each use of torture, especially in its present use, because most of those details are classified or undocumented. It will inevitably turn into an attempt to pick apart every historically documented use of torture-

Your argument would simply be stronger if you stuck to moral principles, and stayed away from case studies.

Killing people is immoral. Torture can be immoral. We can kill in self defense, and it is not immoral. Nothing knew here, we all know this. The issue is if the Church accepts the death penalty in certain situations, but why not torture in certain situations like trying to save lives?

Past examples of torture are brought up because the claim that “torture does not work” has been brought up. If it can be proven with certain examples that torture has worked in the past, then it can be justified morally.

 

[neat62]

Texas Roofer;4528253]

Sure you can get data but before you do I encourage you to think about whether torture is a self fulfilling function? Say you want an Iraq to claim he saw WMDs so you torture him until he says that. Do the weapons exist now? But was your goal achieved? Again the problem since you make him say your words what can you learn?

Well I have researched it to a degree and found that it has worked and it has not worked. Most of the articles I see, though, are saying what you are saying here: You only get out of them what you want to hear.

You seem to be only taking that position as if factual information has never ever been extracted, and it has.

When it comes to saving many lives, I say, use whatever means works, or has worked.

Of course, I understand that with all the nightly TV news shows which focus on forced confessions from police may have an negative impact on people, it is strange that they never report on the TV the times when it has worked. But then again, we all know who runs the media.

My position stands.

 

[neat62]

We have any number of histories showing beyond doubt that it works on most people. The government has admitted to using waterboarding three times and in all three cases the detainees broke under the treatment.

The USS Pueblo was captured by North Korea in 1968 and the crew was tortured. It’s not clear how many of them gave out the information they had but at least one account had pretty much the entire crew doing so.

An intelligence officer went out on a submarine mission in WWII and when the boat was damaged and the crew abandoning it, this officer stayed aboard and went down with the boat rather than risk capture where he feared that, under torture, he would reveal top military secrets. He was awarded the Medal of Honor.

In the Vietnam war one of the ranking prisoners who was at Tonkin and knew what really happened in the infamous Tonkin Incident bit through the veins in his wrists when he felt his captors were about to discover his involvement there as he feared he would not be able to withstand the torture they would inflict to get him to publicly reveal what he knew.

We also have the personal admission by Senator McCain that he broke under torture. The argument that torture doesn’t work is ridiculous. It may be terribly immoral … but it is effective.

Ender

Agreed.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Well I have researched it to a degree and found that it has worked and it has not worked. Most of the articles I see, though, are saying what you are saying here: You only get out of them what you want to hear.

You seem to be only taking that position as if factual information has never ever been extracted, and it has.

When it comes to saving many lives, I say, use whatever means works, or has worked.

Of course, I understand that with all the nightly TV news shows which focus on forced confessions from police may have an negative impact on people, it is strange that they never report on the TV the times when it has worked. But then again, we all know who runs the media.

My position stands.

Again no answers to questions

How do you know which words coming from their mouth are true and which are false? ( verification means proof by another means)

What is your responsibility to those wrongfully tortured?

Is “worked” defined as breaking them? (No arguement here anybody can break anybody else - but that should not be done.)

 

[Oscarthecat]

Killing people is immoral. Torture can be immoral. We can kill in self defense, and it is not immoral. Nothing knew here, we all know this. The issue is if the Church accepts the death penalty in certain situations, but why not torture in certain situations like trying to save lives?

Past examples of torture are brought up because the claim that “torture does not work” has been brought up. If it can be proven with certain examples that torture has worked in the past, then it can be justified morally.

There are lots of ways to answer this, but here’s one of the most basic…

Short answer…
The death penalty meets the criteria for the principle of double effect, but torture does not.

Little bit longer answer…
The death penalty is an undeniably effective way to protect society from the aggressive party. That is, saying nothing of the widespread social impact of capital punishment, we can all agree that a person, once executed, lacks the ability to directly hurt anyone else.

So, the death penalty is able to meet a critical criteria for the principle of double effect- because we know for certain that it will cause society to be safe from the offending party (good effect), we know for certain that it will end the life of the offending party (bad effect), and we know for certain (in proper application) that the good effect cannot be achieved separately from the bad effect.

Torture, on the other hand, carries no guarantee that it can produce the desired result. While people in the peanut gallery watching 24 on TV might think that torture works, people who train for this kind of thing are very clear that it cannot produce consistently accurate results.

For this reason, torture cannot qualify for the principle of double effect, because the bad effects of torture are guaranteed, but the good effects of torture are not guaranteed. That is, when society endeavors to torture someone for the purpose of extracting life saving information, the act is guaranteed to cause significant harm to the subject, but it is not guaranteed to extract the desired information.

 

[neat62]

Texas Roofer;4531638]

Again no answers to questions

I answered your questions.

How do you know which words coming from their mouth are true and which are false? ( verification means proof by another means)

And the answers are verified when their answers are investigated.

What is your responsibility to those wrongfully tortured?

I bear no responsibillity. If a forced confession is proven, then the justice system should punish those involved.

Is “worked” defined as breaking them? (No arguement here anybody can break anybody else - but that should not be done.)

No, worked means getting the information out of them. If they must be broken after all other means have failed, then so be it. If breaking them force out information, then it “worked”. But I do not support allowing criminals who have information to simply fold their arms and smile with a ziplocked mouth, while we sit and wait patiently for 35 years when they write a book from their jail cell while justice stood still.

 

[neat62]

Oscarthecat;4531703]

Little bit longer answer…
The death penalty is an undeniably effective way to protect society from the aggressive party. That is, saying nothing of the widespread social impact of capital punishment, we can all agree that a person, once executed, lacks the ability to directly hurt anyone else.

So, the death penalty is able to meet a critical criteria for the principle of double effect- because we know for certain that it will cause society to be safe from the offending party (good effect), we know for certain that it will end the life of the offending party (bad effect), and we know for certain (in proper application) that the good effect cannot be achieved separately from the bad effect.

Torture, on the other hand, carries no guarantee that it can produce the desired result. While people in the peanut gallery watching 24 on TV might think that torture works, people who train for this kind of thing are very clear that it cannot produce consistently accurate results.

For this reason, torture cannot qualify for the principle of double effect, because the bad effects of torture are guaranteed, but the good effects of torture are not guaranteed. That is, when society endeavors to torture someone for the purpose of extracting life saving information, the act is guaranteed to cause significant harm to the subject, but it is not guaranteed to extract the desired information.

Ok. I’ll play anti death penalty devils advocate:

Prison will keep criminals out of society. And if that system is broken, then it should be fixed. Killing another human being is never acceptable as we have become ust like them.(I disagree with this statement, but said for argument purposes)

Also, what if the person executed is innocent? Is it acceptable only because it has gone through the system?

Even the death penalty does not guarantee it’s desired effects. Since when is anything 100% guaranteed? The death penalty can fail and, torture can fail. What about the times when torture does work?

 

[Oscarthecat]

Oscarthecat;4531703]

Ok. I’ll play anti death penalty devils advocate:

Prison will keep criminals out of society. And if that system is broken, then it should be fixed. Killing another human being is never acceptable as we have become ust like them.(I disagree with this statement, but said for argument purposes)

Also, what if the person executed is innocent? Is it acceptable only because it has gone through the system?

Even the death penalty does not guarantee it’s desired effects. Since when is anything 100% guaranteed? The death penalty can fail and, torture can fail. What about the times when torture does work?

You can “what if” me all day long, but I’m not arguing whether there has been, or ever will be, a particular instance of capital punishment that is morally acceptable. I’m simply saying that the conditions are possible.

Torture, even under the best circumstances, can never guarantee that the desired result will be achieved.

 

[neat62]

Oscarthecat;4531914]

You can “what if” me all day long, but it won’t matter because I’m not arguing whether there has been, or ever will be, a particular instance of capital punishment that is morally acceptable.

I’m simply saying that, in theory, it is conceivable that capital punishment could be morally acceptable.

Agreed. And all I am saying is it is conceivable that torture could be morally acceptable as well.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Oscarthecat;4531914]
Agreed. And all I am saying is it is conceivable that torture could be morally acceptable as well.

I think the problem here is that nobody seems to have a consistent definition of “torture.”

I think that most people would agree that it is morally acceptable to inflict pain or discomfort on an aggressive party in order to protect yourself or others from harm. It is important to emphasize that the function of this is not to compel the person to act, but to prevent them from acting. For this reason, it is legally acceptable for a police officer to cause pain to a detainee who is resisting arrest, because the infliction of pain will prevent them from resisting further- but it is not legally acceptable for a police officer to cause pain to a person who is simply engaging in passive non-compliance, because the infliction of pain would be intended to compel the person to act.

Along the same lines, when you execute someone, you aren’t compelling them to do something- you are preventing them from doing something…actually, you are preventing them from doing anything ever again.

Therefore, one of the fundamental problems with torture is that it is, by definition, the infliction of pain or discomfort for the specific intention of compelling the subject to produce a specific action or response.

 

[neat62]

Oscarthecat;

I think the problem here is that nobody seems to have a consistent definition of “torture.”

Agreed. Be it more Catholic or not, the definition encompasses more and more actions regardless of what they are. To many, a blowtorch and candle wax are the same thing. Air conditioning is equal to pulling fingernails.

Therefore, one of the fundamental problems with torture is that it is, by definition, the infliction of pain or discomfort for the specific intention of compelling the subject to produce a specific action or response.

You stopped short here.

for the specific intention of compelling the subject to produce a specific action or response" in order to prevent the deaths (etc)of others.

Sure we have those who abuse their power and try to coherce false statements, but that is already illegal.

 

[Ender]

I’m not arguing whether there has been, or ever will be, a particular instance of capital punishment that is morally acceptable. I’m simply saying that the conditions are possible.

Capital punishment has always been morally justified; the Church has been consistent on this point. Even JPII (Evangelium Vitae 1995) recognized this - while at the same time closing the door in practice he left it open in theory. His position, by the way, is not supported by anything the Church has said on the subject prior to 1995.

The primary objective of punishment is redressing the disorder caused by the sin, that is, it is retributive. It is an issue of justice. Sin is to punishment as cause is to effect. The severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime for the punishment to be just and for some crimes the only commensurate punishment is execution.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…

And the answers are verified when their answers are investigated.

Why would you need an investigation?

I bear no responsibillity. If a forced confession is proven, then the justice system should punish those involved.

Really you can torture innocent people and you have no responsiblity. And again why would you need to prove anything would the torture not produce the proof?

No, worked means getting the information out of them. If they must be broken after all other means have failed, then so be it. If breaking them force out information, then it “worked”. But I do not support allowing criminals who have information to simply fold their arms and smile with a ziplocked mouth, while we sit and wait patiently for 35 years when they write a book from their jail cell while justice stood still.

How do you know the “information” from the false statement they made to attempt to stop torture?

 

[CatholicLeft]

Oscarthecat;4531914]

Agreed. And all I am saying is it is conceivable that torture could be morally acceptable as well.

Wow, people. Great discussion! But has anyone bothered to pick up a catechism and check out what the official Church teaching is…

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2313: "Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out.”

The Catechism, paragraph #2297, says: “Torture, which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.”

Another passage from the Catechism, paragraph #2298, “In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.”

Well, your justification for this crime against humanity was well thought out and looked really good on paper, but I think that official Church teaching may not have come to the same conclusion.

And as you know we must follow the rules of our church, even those we might not agree with.

Hopefully no one here will ever be in a situation where you have to decide wheither to torture someone or not, but now you know the truth.

Let us pray for the Iraqi prisoners and for their tormentors. Let us also pray for those whose fear drives them to believe that by torturing our fellow human beings that we can become safer.