To torture or not to torture...

[Lumpy]

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.

Wow. Your powers of telepathy and foresight are remarkable!

[john9001]

the question is flawed, it should have said the bomb was in the same room with them.  

[Shamus]

Hypothetical's are great for mind expanding ethical debates, but I would be more interested in how the following information was obtained "A known terrorist has just swallowed a piece of paper with the disarm code to a nuclear device on it" before I made a decision.

shamus

[Toad]

So they WOULD torture for 100,000 lives but they WOULDN'T torture for 10,000 lives?

Reminds me of an old joke:

Billionaire to woman: "Would you have sex with me for a million dollars?"
Woman: "Well ... yes"
Billionaire to woman: "Would you have sex with me for ten dollars?"
Woman: "What kind of girl do you think I am?"
Billionaire: "We've already determined that. Now we're just arguing over the price."

[Neubob]

So they WOULD torture for 100,000 lives but they WOULDN'T torture for 10,000 lives?

Reminds me of an old joke:

Billionaire to woman: "Would you have sex with me for a million dollars?"
Woman: "Well ... yes"
Billionaire to woman: "Would you have sex with me for ten dollars?"
Woman: "What kind of girl do you think I am?"
Billionaire: "We've already determined that. Now we're just arguing over the price."

I think that that's one of those legendary Churchill quotes. Whether he actually said it remains a mystery.

[Toad]

It fits though; they'll torture all right. The price just has to be right.

If you'll torture to save one or you'll only torture to save 100 thousand, you're still a torturer either way.

They are the typical hypocrites.

I'll wager if the Prof had made it personal (would you torture to save your mother/wife/child) he would have had a much different answer.

[AKIron]

The question shouldn't have been would you torture him but how would you torture him with only two minutes to get the code. Perhaps just promise him a slow agonizing death with many excruciating details. Maybe cut off a couple of sensitive body parts during the process to make sure he knows you're serious.   

[james]

Pair of pliers and a blowtorch.

[Trell]

Torture to save 10k lives?,   Sure,  But if i was the one doing it,  I would understand going to jail afterwords.

Would just hope for a quick parole.

[EskimoJoe]

Pair of pliers and a blowtorch.

Nevermind the pliers, get a Popsicle and almost frozen beef.

[Arlo]

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.

Having an actual "college professor" present the classic neocon blogger "24" (What would Jack Bower do and how does this relate to your morality versus your patriotism?) scenario to "educate" seems even sadder. *ShruG* Rationalizing torture as an accepted policy based on an imaginary scenario is rationalizing torture ... period. Historically speaking ... it's not anything remotely American.

[Arlo]

I think that that's one of those legendary Churchill quotes. Whether he actually said it remains a mystery.

Clemmons aka Twain.

[Shamus]

Having an actual "college professor" present the classic neocon blogger "24" (What would Jack Bower do and how does this relate to your morality versus your patriotism?) scenario to "educate" seems even sadder. *ShruG* Rationalizing torture as an accepted policy based on an imaginary scenario is rationalizing torture ... period. Historically speaking ... it's not anything remotely American.

In a law class its a valid question Arlo.

shamus

[Arlo]

In a law class its a valid question Arlo.

shamus

As valid as "If you had a throw away gun on you or in your police cruiser and you thought you could get away with it would you shoot the perp?"

And it was a weed-out session.

[Shamus]

As valid as "If you had a throw away gun on you or in your police cruiser and you thought you could get away with it would you shoot the perp?"

And it was a weed-out session.

I would say more so.

I think the question makes the students think about torture in the broad sense and do we as a society condone it.

A throw away used in the way that you are referring to is already illegal, torture is not yet defined it would seem.

These folks are going to be the judges at some time and this needs to be debated and wrung out.

Weed out session went over my head, sorry

shamus