Little Jashon was missing after his mother's body was discovered. The suspect in his mother's murder is a multiple felon who has killed a child before.
At 17-months-old, even if unharmed, this little boy wouldn't survive long without care. As John at Verum Serum points out, this is basically the ticking time bomb from torture debates.
Any torture debate usually turns into a disjointed mess because people start talking past each other. There are three questions that must be asked, and they must be dealt with independently and thoroughly.
1) Is torture ever acceptable?
2) Is torture ever effective?
3) Is [a given act] torture?
The first question must be answered before the second is discussed because if it is never morally acceptable, it doesn't matter if it's effective.
The third question is essential because we have to decide if a procedure is torture before we try to apply the other two questions to it. For instance, if waterboarding is not torture, it's pointless to bring it into arguments about whether torture is wrong. Both questions need to be resolved separately.
In any debate — whether the topic is politics, religion, a new pet, or updating procedures at work — we need to make sure we pay attention to what the questions really are and whether they're being addressed properly. We serve our Master better with a reputation for clear thinking and honest discussion. And the debate may even prove fruitful.
As to the matter at hand, I'd love to know how you would answer the above questions, but the real, and heart-rending, question is, would you torture a man to save that little boy?
I'm afraid I probably would, but I'm pretty sure I'd be a bit sick to my stomach afterward either way.
[Oh, and they've found a body that's probably the boy's.]
7 comments:
Well, as humans...most of us would fail the questioning phase at some point.
WWJD? Or maybe WWHFD? (What would His Father do?) Then we just get to another question...
If it is acceptable for Father God...is it acceptable for us........
On that last part, we know the answer is "not always."
Well...I guess that leads us back at #1...
The question is: is it reasonable to torture a suspect in order to determine if he is guilty or not?
According to Hollywood movies, if you torture somebody enough they eventually give in and reveal the truth, however US Army interrogators have long known that torture does not reveal truth.
It simply crushes the will of the victim. That's desirable if you want to force somebody into signing a false-confession, however it's not actually an effective means of obtaining reliable information.
I think it would be for proponents of "enhanced interrogation" or "torture" to justify that their techniques have a likelihood of producing the desired outcome.
"is it reasonable to torture a suspect in order to determine if he is guilty or not?"
That's certainly a reasonable question to add to the mix.
Re: the pragmatic question, I know torture to find out if someone is guilty has a long history of uselessness, but using it as a means of extracting information from one you are certain has it is not the same thing. When you're looking for information the subject knows can and will be verified, that changes the dynamic a bit.
"I think it would be for proponents of "enhanced interrogation" or "torture" to justify that their techniques have a likelihood of producing the desired outcome."
Well, they said KSM sang like an well-informed bird once he finally broke. Of course, they didn't actually torture him (by the legal definition, which they get to set).
But I'm less interested in the question of torture's usefulness than its morality.
Supposing you are a cop with a lead on a kidnapping case but no conclusive evidence. What do you do:
A. Get your best men to secretly observe the suspect in the hope of learning his patterns of movement, associations, motive (etc) in the hope of building a strong case and possibly rescuing the victim
B. Arrest him immediately and rough him up until he talks in the hope he sings like a canary.
I think most cops would choose route A since it produces admissible evidence. Route B is only really an option for fictional movie cops.
Well, they said KSM sang like an well-informed bird once he finally broke. Of course, they didn't actually torture him (by the legal definition, which they get to set).
The people who said this about KSM were also trying to defend themselves against media accusations of torture, so I'd suggest that the statements about KSM are somewhat biased.
but using it as a means of extracting information from one you are certain has it is not the same thing. When you're looking for information the subject knows can and will be verified, that changes the dynamic a bit.
I'm struggling to think of a situation where this is actually the case. How can we know for sure that somebody committed a crime unless of course they were caught in the act. We can never be 100% sure that somebody knows the answer to a question.
But I'm less interested in the question of torture's usefulness than its morality.
I think the two questions are inextricably linked. If torture were very effective we might argue that despite the pain it causes it's a necessary evil because it saves lives. On the other hand, if we cannot make this argument then all we are left with is the pain.
I'm sure most folks would opt for A. What brought this up was option C -- limited time and no good options.
"I'm struggling to think of a situation where this is actually the case."
When you catch them on the battlefield and they say things like "I helped plan the NYC attack."
"I think the two questions are inextricably linked. If torture were very effective we might argue that despite the pain it causes it's a necessary evil because it saves lives."
Well, that's a view, but it's not impossible that one might decide it is never moral now matter how useful it is. Ethics can be annoying like that.
Post a Comment