Raechard
Posts: 3513
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: S.E. London U.K.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou
I initially majored, than ultimately minored in criminal justice while a college student. One of the hypothetical scenarios that is presented to first year students is the, "Dirty Harry Dilemma." Do you remember that movie?
If not, Harry is a San Francisco Police Inspector. He is investigating a string of killings perpetrated by the self described, "Scorpio." Scorpio has kidnapped a young woman and buried her alive. He sends a note to the SFPD demanding a ransom. He threatens to allow the woman to suffocate to death if his demands are not met.......Harry is sent to give the ransom......Harry delivers, and Scorpio breaks his word. Scorpio attempts to kill Harry, but is wounded by Harry's partner.......Going on that incident, Harry finds Scorpio through a local hospital......He locates Scorpio and gives chase......He shoots Scorpio from behind in the leg.......Harry demands the location of the girl.....Scorpio demands a lawyer......Harry steps on the bullet wound of Scorpio and demands the information again......We hear Scorpio screaming as the camera pans out.
The question is, what would you do? Would you follow the law and allow this woman to die, or would you torture the suspect? Take a guess how most people answer.
We want to feel safe from killers and madmen, but we want to maintain our sense of civilization and decency. Sometimes, that line blurs. I don't like the idea of torture, and I don't like it being done in my name. But I will take it over dying in a terrorist attack any day.
I understand the dilemma but you could just as easily say: "why have a trial if you are allowing individuals to presume guilt” i.e. by saying “we know he is guilty so let’s not treat him humanely"? I doubt the case for torture is really ever that clear cut in real life. Even if you take the moral decision that it is right to torture this person to save another, you still have to decide if he can tell you anything anyway, if he will say anything to avoid the torture and what is the criteria being used to decide you don't have to treat him as a human being? Who is judging who should be tortured and why should they have this power alone? Going by that we can all take it upon ourselves to seek justice this way as the only thing that separates me or you from the person deciding to torture someone is a government job and political pressure. Why is it on some issues people will trust the actions of government and assume it can do no wrong but in other areas that effect them they want every decision to be scrutinised and transparent for the public to see?
It’s only recently the US government even admitted to water boarding, if everything has always been above board why the denial of the usage? This is the actions of a government that says one thing in public and does another thing in private.
I'd let the girl die because sometimes there is more at stake than a thousand lives. Writing in this thread I was wondering the other day who won the war on terror. My conclusions were that the terrorists won and our governments won, the only losers were us who have to put up with this new reality. They used to say "Don't let the terrorists win by changing our civil liberties or the way we treat suspects." what happened to that sentiment?
_____________________________
えへまにんへえや
Nobody wants to listen to the same song over and over again!
|
RE: The Real 'Torture' Disgrace - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread