To torture or not to torture...

[Neubob]

Sitting in my Criminal Procedure class this afternoon, the Professor presented the following hypothetical:

A known terrorist has just swallowed a piece of paper with the disarm code to a nuclear device on it. The device, if detonated, will kill a 10,000 Americans. The bomb has been located, but cannot be moved, and there are 2 minutes remaining before it goes off...Would you torture him to get the code?

A large minority (close to half) within the class was audibly shocked to hear somebody say 'yes, I would.'

When asked further, people generally placed the number of lives great enough before an act of torture is justified at somewhere around 100,000. By that same reasoning, torturing one known terrorist would not have been justified the day before 9/11.

Moral high ground is thus more important than survival for this group of people, many of whom will be earning 6 figures on graduation next year, and some of whom will go on to careers in leadership.

Sad state of affairs, in my opinion.

[Curval]

1.  Torturing him would be a waste of time.  Why would he have a disarm code written down if he could remember it.

2.  Why not simply gut him and take the piece of paper out of his terrorist gullet?

[Shuffler]

1.  Torturing him would be a waste of time.  Why would he have a disarm code written down if he could remember it.

2.  Why not simply gut him and take the piece of paper out of his terrorist gullet?

My thoughts exactly! I'd be moraly obligated to save lives. As Alvin York once said...

Alvin: Well I'm as much agin killin' as ever sir. - - But it was this way Colonel. - - When I started out I felt just like you said, but when I hear them machine guns a-goin' and all them fellas are droppin' around me - - I figured them guns was killin' hundreds, maybe thousands, and there weren't nothin' anybody could do, but to stop them guns. And that's what I done.
Maj. Buxton: Do you mean to tell me that you did it to *save* lives?
Alvin: Yes sir, that was why.
Maj. Buxton: [amazed] Well York, what you've just told me is the most *extraordinary* thing of *all*!

[Neubob]

1.  Torturing him would be a waste of time.  Why would he have a disarm code written down if he could remember it.

2.  Why not simply gut him and take the piece of paper out of his terrorist gullet?

These are good points, and definitely flaws in the hypothetical. However, forget these flaws for a moment and imagine that the only way to stop the bombing would be to beat the answer out of the terrorist.

Given that my esteemed classmates weren't ready to even hurt him for the answer, I doubt they'd be willing to cut the guy open.

[indy007]

These are good points, and definitely flaws in the hypothetical. However, forget these flaws for a moment and imagine that the only way to stop the bombing would be to beat the answer out of the terrorist.

Given that my esteemed classmates weren't ready to even hurt him for the answer, I doubt they'd be willing to cut the guy open.

Hell, I'll do it. Just give me a place to plug in the battery charger.

[Airscrew]

1.  Torturing him would be a waste of time.  Why would he have a disarm code written down if he could remember it.

2.  Why not simply gut him and take the piece of paper out of his terrorist gullet?

or just ram something down his throat and make him puke it back up.  either works

[mensa180]

I don't understand how this is a thinker, maybe I'm missing something.  One life of a terrorist, someone who wants to hurt us and would have no sympathy for anyone, to save thousands of civilians.  How is this a difficult trade off?  Who wouldn't do it?

[Lumpy]

Sitting in my Criminal Procedure class this afternoon, the Professor presented the following hypothetical:

A known terrorist has just swallowed a piece of paper with the disarm code to a nuclear device on it. The device, if detonated, will kill a 10,000 Americans. The bomb has been located, but cannot be moved, and there are 2 minutes remaining before it goes off...Would you torture him to get the code?

A large minority (close to half) within the class was audibly shocked to hear somebody say 'yes, I would.'

When asked further, people generally placed the number of lives great enough before an act of torture is justified at somewhere around 100,000. By that same reasoning, torturing one known terrorist would not have been justified the day before 9/11.

Moral high ground is thus more important than survival for this group of people, many of whom will be earning 6 figures on graduation next year, and some of whom will go on to careers in leadership.

Sad state of affairs, in my opinion.

"Survival" is perhaps a bad choice of words on your part. The hypothetical premise does not mention that your classmates or their families or your nation were at risk.

[Hornet33]

I don't understand how this is a thinker, maybe I'm missing something.  One life of a terrorist, someone who wants to hurt us and would have no sympathy for anyone, to save thousands of civilians.  How is this a difficult trade off?  Who wouldn't do it?

Apperantly half the people in his class with manginas wouldn't do it but in this day and age it doesn't really shock me.

Me on the other hand, well I always have my Leatherman multi tool hanging on my belt. Bet your butt I'd gut him like a fish and not think twice about it.

[Neubob]

"Survival" is perhaps a bad choice of words on your part. The hypothetical premise does not mention that your classmates or their families or your nation were at risk.

True. When I said survival, though, I meant survival of our way of life as a whole. To me this attitude from people who may one day be deciding such things spells doom for us all. When the barbarians have all the willpower, and we have none of it, high tech armies or not, I think we're more or less screwed.

[lasersailor184]

I would have pulled a Black Jack Kershaw move.


Brought in a pig, slaughtered it in front of the terrorist, and start to dip the torture instruments in the blood.

Torture is one thing, but it really starts to get fun when you bring in eternal damnation.   

[Lumpy]

I think you need to have more faith in the American way of life. It has endured far more than 10.000 deaths in the past. The only way the terrorists will change your lives is if you willingly change your lives. To me the so called war on terror is a far greater threat to your way of life than the terrorists are.

[Tango]

Moral high ground is thus more important than survival for this group of people, many of whom will be earning 6 figures on graduation next year, and some of whom will go on to careers in leadership.

Sad state of affairs, in my opinion.

The sad thing is, those same people would have a loved one as one of those 10,000 victims and they will come back after it happens saying why didn't we do it.

[Yeager]

If we are willing to allow ouselves to be destroyed by upholding a supremist moral code of conduct then we as good as dead.  

With 2 minutes left there would be no question...eviscerate the terrorist immediately.

[Shuffler]

These are good points, and definitely flaws in the hypothetical. However, forget these flaws for a moment and imagine that the only way to stop the bombing would be to beat the answer out of the terrorist.

Given that my esteemed classmates weren't ready to even hurt him for the answer, I doubt they'd be willing to cut the guy open.

Next class look around...... know that your life means nothing to them at all. On one hand it's a shame there are such weak folks in this world today but on the other.... if things get tough around you, you'll know who not to depend on for any help.