Rabrrrrr's Friday Ethical Discussion - torture or no torture?

[Rabrrrrrr]

I was watching an episode of Boston Legal last night from the first season - an episode in which the lawyers are defending a policeman who beat up a guy to get information from him about where a kidnapper - the beat up guy's brother - might be so that a young boy child who was kidnapped could be rescued. The policeman was on trial for said beating up of the guy - broke his arm, and did some other kind of damage. Nothing life threatening, but still, he beat him up.

During the trial, the issue was raised that in cases of missing/kidnapped children, police stastistically have two days to find the child. If not found within two days, then a child is almost never found, ever.

The guy who did the kidnapping was also known to have kidnapped (and most likely murdered) another child.

The policeman knew that the kidnapper had stayed with his brother, at least for a few hours, so they went to the brother's place to find out where the kidnapper went. The man wouldn't tell the cops, so the one cop beat him to get the information from him; the guy talked, the cops found the kidnapper, and rescued the boy.

The policeman also knew that it was against the law to beat someone up (they even used the word torture in the show) to get information.


So here's the dilemma - knowing all the above, was the policeman ethically correct (even if clearly legally incorrect) in beating the guy as part of finding the kidnapped boy?

The character Alan Shore gave an absolutely stunning summation which, if I can find it online, I will post in this thread - he swayed the jury to vote "not guilty". A brilliant piece of writing his speech was.

After hearing his summation, and the details of the case, I would have voted "not guilty" as well.

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. Here's the summation:

From the lawyer representing the state or whoever it was that was putting the cop on trial:

A.D.A. Nicholas Preston: He's not above the law because he's a policeman. He doesn't get to be exempt from the law because there's a fortuitous result. He beat up an innocent man. Fractured a cheekbone. Broke an arm. Put him in the hospital. This was an aggravated assault. It was torture. Paul Harris didn't have specific information as to the whereabouts of the supect. All he had was a general idea of the places he liked to frequent. For that, you saw what happened to him.

And here is Alan's summation:

The truth is, as Americans we love torture. We keep it to ourselves of course. But come on, when it comes to evildoers? Torture's okay. Hollywood certainly knows that. Dirty Harry. Boom. Charles Bronson in Death Wish. Denzel Washington in Man on Fire. Heroes torturing the bad guys. In theaters all across the country we cheered. We like torture! Is there potential for abuse? Without question. The events at Abu Ghraib prison were deplorable. But do we really think they happened in a vacuum? Alberto Gonzalez, our Attorney General, wrote a memo to the administration saying torture's okay. Our Supreme Court just recently held that evidence gained from torture can be used in trials. Alan Dershowitz, one of the leading civil rights activists in our country, raised the idea of using torture warrants so as to at least to be more open about it. Torture warrants. Love that torture. Shhhh. Mr. Preston talks about the witness here being an innocent man. Now come on. He wasn't that innocent. He did harbor a fugitive. One who kidnaps and kills children. He did have information that ultimately led to the rescue of the child here. And he refused to give it up until he was… coerced. As for my client being above the law? Well, the law in this country has always been subject to evolving community standards of humanity. So the twelve of you get to go back there, as a community, and asks yourselves "Was this a good thing or not?" He's happy (He points to the child). He's alive. They're sure as hell happy (He points to the child's parents). My client saved a life! That little boy's life. If it were your child wouldn't you want the police to do whatever was necessary? This officer got the job done using a method that our government, our military, our attorney general and, yes, even our Supreme Court has said is sometimes okay. Sometimes. Depending on the situation. (Whispering and with exaggerated facial expression). Torture's okay. In a normal voice again. Just don't tell anybody.

[Orrex]

2. The mistake comes in assuming one's own unaccountability

According to Bush Doctrine, for example, torture (under whatever veil of Newspeak) is justified because the potential benefits outweigh the moral implications. We torture that guy so that we can protect 1,000 civilians, or the like.

Trouble is, that's bullshit. If it were true, Bushco wouldn't have spent so much time building itself a suit of legalistic armor. It would simply have authorized torture and then faced the consequences, knowing that its actions were justified and would therefore exonerate them of all harm.

Torture is never justified. But if it is alleged to be necessary, then the consequences for the torturer must be decided by an impartial judge, during which review the alleged justifications for torture may be considered as mitigating factors, or not. Bush has gone to great lengths to ensure that his policy of torture never gets anywhere close to an impartial judge.

It is not up to the torturer to decide if he is, ultimately, justified in using torture.

[jobycom]

3. They need to show all the people tortured who were innocent

If a cop is justified for beating the truth out of a guilty man, then how is he not justified in beating out of someone he thinks is guilty? If he isn't, then torture becomes okay only if you are right. Laws against torture aren't there to protect the guilty, they are there to protect the innocent. You are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore torture is done to an innocent person in the hopes of finding evidence to make that person guilty. That's what the Constitution and entire justice system is supposed to protect us from.

Beside the living child, place the bodies of those who have been killed in the name of torture.

I'd have trouble convicting a cop in that situation, no question. I probably wouldn't do it. But I would never support a legal system that justified torture, or refused to even try a cop in a situation like that. Make it clear that a person will go to jail if they are wrong, and maybe if they are right. There are cases where pure murder are excused for extenuating circumstances--domestic violence, for instance. It doesn't justify the act of murder.

[Rabrrrrrr]

6. Yes, I like your way of thinking -

Every instance of torture should be tried separately, and judged on its own merits.

I'm not quite willing to say that torture is never justified - there may be times when it does, in fact, become the only option.

But it should never be a policy or a standard mode of operating, and it should never occur without a trial.

[anarch]

4. how about a sliding scale of acceptability?

If some kind of heinous act is prevented by means of torture, then it's ok. If the guy in the story had been tortured, and then the child not saved, then the torturer would need to face punishment. However, since torture saved the child's life, everything is hunky-dory. Of course, only knowing this after the fact would make it pretty hard to determine how ethical or otherwise it might be to torture someone.

How about a case where an "evildoer's" child is tortured, perhaps as the only perceived way to get the "evildoer" to give up information that stops, say, a nuclear explosion in a major city? Is it ethical to torture the innocent child in front of his evildoing parent, inasmuch as doing so might save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people?

There is something very interesting in the summation, at any rate...Americans do love torture. And revenge. And violence in general. Maybe not just Americans, either.

Personally, I would have still voted 'guilty'. In this case it wasn't even a question of ethics, but a question of law, and the cop was guilty of breaking the law.

[Rabrrrrrr]

7. So - let me see if I'm reading you correctly

You seem to believe that yes, there are times when torture could be necessary, and should be used.

But, even so, you still would have judged the cop guilty for breaking the law.

So - does this mean that, while you might accept that a cop (or some other authority) can engage in torture without incurring moral guilt, if that torture was the only way to save another person or persons, you still don't absolve them of legal guilt; and thus, you would expect a cop to break the law to save people, but still hold that accountable for the legal ramifications of that break, no matter the good served? Sort of asking them to take one for the team, or storm the beach, so to speak?

[anarch]

8. I was being ironic

I don't personally think there is ever any justification for torture, although it is ethically complicated by the prospect of possibly saving thousands by torturing an "evildoer"...I just don't see that as ever actually happening. Even the case described in the OP is from fiction. Maybe if there was an identical story from real life, I might feel differently.

I don't know, I just find it hard to believe that there's ever a time when torture is really the "only way". In general, it's been proven unreliable, in that tortured people will tell you whatever you want to hear, just to make the pain stop.

I don't think my absurd hypothetical case would ever be possible, either.

On the other hand, this point of view is asking the potential victims of whatever hypothetical crime that could conceivably be prevented by using torture to, well, take one for the team in order to maintain morality. Although, again, I don't see this as ever actually coming to pass. Loads of people were tortured in the middle ages, but it never stopped any bad stuff from happening as far as I know.

[everythingsxen]

5. Yes he made the right choice

It should be illegal for something like that to happen though, however, so that way the vigilante has to go on trial and a jury can decide if he was justified.

In those circumstances though, I would have done a lot worse to the brother and even worse than that to the kidnapper, then again I would do things to child-molesters and kidnappers that would make most people :puke:

[madinmaryland]

9. How many r's are in Rabrrrrrr?

:shrug:

[Rabrrrrrr]

10. I already posted a thread correcting my incorrect spelling of my name.

So nyah. :P