Quote:
|
Depends on the circumstances. Let's say that you knew that a terrorist had knowledge which could allow you to prevent a terrorist attack that would kill thousands of people, and that the only way to obtain that information was through torture. Would torturing one person to prevent the deaths of 10,000 innocent people be morally justifyable? You decide.
|
Easy. It does NOT and will NEVER be justifiable. Tricking someone yes, pressuring somewhat(grey area), threatening(this is the one that would need to be justifiable), torture... NEVER.
We could just as well get slavery back and be done with it...
Think of it like this(and here I'm going on the assumption of NOT committing the act):
You are ACCUSED of stealing apples from a merchant.
The merchant says: I SUSPECT you stole something from me so to pay me back you will work for me for the next year without pay.
end of story this is what the law proposes.
Now consider this in a proper legal state:
You are ACCUSED of stealing apples from a merchant.
The merchant says: I SUSPECT you stole something from me but I can't prove it I will report you to the police
Police conduct an investigation and find out you did not commit this and in the process they find that someone else MIGHT have done it.
That someone else is brought in and the police question him then based on the information bring in the attorney and he does the paper work an the ASSUMPTION that the person did it.
The person is brought infront of a JUDGE and hears all sides of the story. He then decides based on the information presented if the person is GUILTY or NOT.
And even on that decision both parties may appeal.
See where this is heading? a) two step process vs b) multi step process...