It would be a good idea

[mdlbear]

There are some crimes that are universally condemned in the civilized world. Murder. Slavery. Torture. Terrorism. Genocide. Sometimes one has to condone one evil in order to prevent a greater one; most civilized countries have standing armies, and some conscript their citizens into them. All civilized countries draw the line at torture.

There are several reasons for this, besides the obvious fact that history has proven time after time that it does not work: the "information" one obtains from a person who is give it in order to stop intolerable pain is likely to be of little value. Likely, even, to be deliberately misleading. But the chief reason has to be that it's evil. Like Sauron's ring, it corrupts any person, any organization, any nation that uses it. Like other great crimes, torture cuts the perpetrator off from civilization. From humanity.

It's possible to construct a "ticking time bomb" scenario in which torture is the only possible way to get some necessary, vital bit of information needed to prevent a greater crime. Fine. Leave the law on the books. If somebody is willing to break that law, in public, with all the records on video, and put their career, their reputation, and their life on the line in front of a jury of their peers, I'll grant them the right to try it.

If they're not willing to pay that very personal price, if they want to warp the law to let them get away with unspecified acts in secret that, when found out, do untold damage to their country's reputation in the civilized world, well, that's a crime, too. It's called treason.

Just as an aside, you'll find some other blog entries more-or-less aligned with my point of view here, here, and here. Opposing view here.

Oh, and the title? It's what Gandhi said when asked what he thought of Western civilization. I'd really like to be living in a civilized country again.

Comments

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Like Sauron's ring, it corrupts any person, any organization, any nation that uses it.

Yes. Yes! That is such a great way of putting it. I wish I'd thought of that.

[mdlbear]

I hope there won't have to be a next time, but feel free to use it if there is.

[mithriltabby]

Yes. If there ever is a Hollywood-style scenario where there really is a ticking time bomb, and someone did manage to save lives through torture, that the district attorney might decline to prosecute, or that a jury would fail to convict, or a governor or president issue a pardon. Leave the laws on the books forbidding torture and leave such hypothetical exceptional cases for the mechanisms we already have in place to handle them.

[danceswthcobras.livejournal.com]

Oh, I don't know, when it's safe and consensual it can be great fun. ;)

Otherwise, not so much. But I still wouldn't hesitate to do it under some circumstances. Eg, a hypothetical scenario if I personally got hold of a kidnapper who had stashed a loved one somewhere. That would definitely get me to haul out the red hot pliers. If the kidnap victim were unknown to me? Hmmm. At that point I would be far more likely to let the cops take over and try to extract the information in a legal manner, even if I wasn't entirely sure how effective they might be. If the victim were a child? I don't honestly know, but I suspect I would lean more towards applying immediate persuasion of the non legal forceful sort.

Make the situation any more nebulous, like "for my country", and I'd be out of there.

[mdlbear]

;) indeed. "taking the consequences" for that kind of torture might be well worth while.

In the second case, well, I'd be looking for a good defense lawyer, and hoping that however I killed the kidnapper hid the burn marks well enough.

[danceswthcobras.livejournal.com]

Good point. I'll be sure to dispose of the remains properly, or else use subtler and more creatively horrible torture methods that don't leave any evidence.