Torture, Do the Ends Justify the Means?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rwoehmke
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rwoehmke

Guest
Vice President Cheney is supporting the ok by congress for the CIA to use torture when it sees fit during the interrogation of terrorists. How is it possible for a Christian nation to justify such actions? It would seem that history has not taught us any lessons in this regard. Does anyone have a reference to Catholic teaching with regard to the use of torture? It would seem to me that it is a case of the ends justifying the means. :confused:
 
40.png
rwoehmke:
Vice President Cheney is supporting the ok by congress for the CIA to use torture when it sees fit during the interrogation of terrorists. How is it possible for a Christian nation to justify such actions? It would seem that history has not taught us any lessons in this regard. Does anyone have a reference to Catholic teaching with regard to the use of torture? It would seem to me that it is a case of the ends justifying the means. :confused:
Click to expand...
Fortunately the question is moot anyway, as it has been proven over and over again that torture doesn’t work. Thus the only thing torture achieves is to make oneself feel better by the suffering of others, which should be against the rules of any society, Catholic, Christian, or otherwise.

Mike
 
While, historically, torture may have been the only means available to extract information from prisoners, it has not been the only means available for some decades.

So, what I am saying is that ends-justify-the-means thinking may have been operative in times past among well-intentioned authorities, those with a true taste for torture – a true talent for it – were never interested in the ends. They were never interested in the information they could extract and always interested in silencing their prisoners.

This is not ends-justify-the-means thinking. This is gratuitous violence; violence for the purposes of pleasure and entertainment. Qusay Hussain was allegedly an aficionado of this form of violence.

By the way, it is normal to post a link to the news story when starting a thread on the News Forum. Can we have the link please?
 
Current teaching of the RCC:
“*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.”
Previous teaching of the RCC:
“In 1252 Innocent IV sanctioned the infliction of torture by the civil authorities upon heretics, and torture later came to have a recognized place in the procedure of the inquisitorial courts.”
It appears that the RCC has made a radical change in its moral teaching on the use of torture in extracting confessions.
 
Real torture is when the guilty can use the system to subvert justice.

When a killer/rapist/kidnapper can refuse to give information about the whereabouts of his victims, society and the victims relatives are further victimized by the system itself.

We live in a society that gives more rights to convicted felons than to the victims that they attack. That’s real torture. Convicted killers etc should be made to disclose any and all information that may assist their victims or the families of their victims.

IF you are convicted of a major crime, you should have no rights to privacy or non disclosure. Your rights most certainly should never surpass those whom you have victimized. Self-in crimination should no longer apply to you.

wc
 
40.png
wcknight:
Real torture is when the guilty can use the system to subvert justice.

When a killer/rapist/kidnapper can refuse to give information about the whereabouts of his victims, society and the victims relatives are further victimized by the system itself.

We live in a society that gives more rights to convicted felons than to the victims that they attack. That’s real torture. Convicted killers etc should be made to disclose any and all information that may assist their victims or the families of their victims.

IF you are convicted of a major crime, you should have no rights to privacy or non disclosure. Your rights most certainly should never surpass those whom you have victimized. Self-in crimination should no longer apply to you.

wc
Click to expand...
Those are items that come into play before you are convicted and they’re very important rights we all have.
 
40.png
wabrams:
Those are items that come into play before you are convicted and they’re very important rights we all have.
Click to expand...
I agree, that these rights are vital part of one’s defense, BUT if a court of law convicts you of a major crime. I think you should lose your rights to not disclose information that may lead to the bodies of victims or possibly lead to the location of kidnap victims or may even lead to evidence of other crimes.

I can see when such a thing could possibly lead to abuse BUT I see far more good coming from a requirement for convicted felons to disclose information rather than harm.

It has to be very frustrating for the families of victims to see someone convicted of their loved ones murder, BUT not have the perpetrator forced into telling where the body (bodies are).

To me this is saying that felons rights are more valued than victims, and that is a gross miscarriage of justice.

wc
 
40.png
wcknight:
I agree, that these rights are vital part of one’s defense, BUT if a court of law convicts you of a major crime. I think you should lose your rights to not disclose information that may lead to the bodies of victims or possibly lead to the location of kidnap victims or may even lead to evidence of other crimes.
Click to expand...
I’ve never really heard of this being a major problem. Lets take a look at this:
  1. Bodies of victims - usually someone is promised a lighter sentence to reveal where they are.
  2. Location of kidnap victim - If someone is convicted of kidnapping, I think it’s VERY rare the victim hadn’t been found.
  3. Lead to evidence of another crime - I’m not 100% sure what you mean by this. Would you mind providing an example?
40.png
wcknight:
I can see when such a thing could possibly lead to abuse BUT I see far more good coming from a requirement for convicted felons to disclose information rather than harm.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying, but how are you going to get him/her to cooperate if their rights are dissolved?
 
To get information it is frequently unnecessary to use torture. For those ‘stubborn’ cases, even torture is of limited use.
 
40.png
wcknight:
Real torture is when the guilty can use the system to subvert justice.wc
Click to expand...
I think we had best be careful of hyperbole and rhetoricism in describing torture. To misuse the term is like crying wolf in a world where many are still hidden in holes and brought to the limits of physical and psychological torment. This is not right.
 
I understand the Church’s view is that the end (no matter how good) does not justify the means (if not good).
 
I don’t believe in torture. People will sign anything under torture. Remember how many have signed that they were witches and their cats and dogs were devils?
 
40.png
Veronica1952:
I don’t believe in torture. People will sign anything under torture. Remember how many have signed that they were witches and their cats and dogs were devils?
Click to expand...
Do you understand why I say that people genuinely interested in extracting information will not use torture but other means? That leaves those who torture – not for information – but for pleasure.
 
I don’t know how to post a link, but it was an article in today’s ( Wednesday October 26) on line New York Times.
 
40.png
rwoehmke:
I don’t know how to post a link, but it was an article in today’s ( Wednesday October 26) on line New York Times.
Click to expand...
Let’s say you have your Catholic Answers screen in front of you. Go up to the left upper corner of your screen and pull down the ‘file’ menu. Choose ‘new’ and ‘window.’ That will give you a second window.

At the bottom of your screen click on the second window. Google your article. When you get to the webpage on which your article is, then go to the search window beside the green box with the white arrow in it marked ‘Go.’ Click in the search window. That will hilite the link to the article. Press CTRL and at the same time press ‘c.’

Then click the first window at the bottom of your screen. That will bring you to your Catholic Answers screen. Click ‘quote’ which you already know how to do. When you get a posting window, click your mouse where you would ordinarily write.

Then right-click your mouse. A menu will appear. Click on ‘paste.’ That will write the article link on the Catholic Answers screen. That’s it.
 
40.png
Veronica1952:
I don’t believe in torture. People will sign anything under torture.
Click to expand...
I would have to agree with this. I don;t know why the Pope has approved the use of torture to extract confessions. Also, in addition to torture, there is the threat of horrific punishments, for example, burning people alive at the stake if they want to translate the Bible. I would not agree with the policy of burning people alive at the stake, because they want to get a translation of the Bible into the hands of everyone. For example, when William Tyndale was working on a translation of the Bible into English, he was seized and burned alive at the stake. I would be opposed to this policy of executing heretics which was the policy endorsed and supported by Doctors of the Church such as St. Thomas Aquinas. I think it is better to show a certain amount of good will toward people who are of the Protestant persuasion.
 
40.png
wabrams:
I’ve never really heard of this being a major problem. Lets take a look at this:
  1. Bodies of victims - usually someone is promised a lighter sentence to reveal where they are.
  2. Location of kidnap victim - If someone is convicted of kidnapping, I think it’s VERY rare the victim hadn’t been found.
  3. Lead to evidence of another crime - I’m not 100% sure what you mean by this. Would you mind providing an example?
I understand what you are saying, but how are you going to get him/her to cooperate if their rights are dissolved?
Click to expand...
The most recent case is this girl who disappeared in Aruba.

It is possible that someone will get convicted of her kidnapping, and not have to disclose what really happened to her.

I’ve heard of other cases (not recently) where someone was convicted of a murder and the body was never found, and the murderer was not forced or cooperative in the search. One such case was in our area, where a women was killed in her house, the body taken elsewhere and never found. A vagrant was convicted of the crime, and he never disclosed what he did with the body.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top