What would you do?

[KBTibbs]

In September 20, 2002 Alan Dershowitz (law professor at Harvard)went on ?60 Minutes.? During his interview he posed the following hypothetical to Mike Wallace.

Consider that a terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb somewhere in New York City. The authorities have captured the man that they believe is responsible, but he refuses to speak. Every man, woman, and child in New Your City is in mortal danger, and time is running out. Should the authorities torture the suspect to obtain the needed information?

What do you think?

 

[Evadman]

if i am sure he planted it, and I mean 100% sure, then yes. Without hesitation.

There is a long process I went through to arive at that, that i am not going to share. sorry.

 

[rgwalt]

Truth serum.

Torture =/ Death. He'll live. Just don't do any permanent physical damage.

Ryan

 

[jayglick]

How do we know there is a bomb? How do we know he planted it? What led us to him in the first place? If he planted a bomb in NYC and he is still in town he doesn't care how much you torture him so it probably wouldn't do any good.

 

[notfred]

No. Absolutely not.

If he's innocent, then they tortured a man for no reason, and NYC blows up anyway.

If he's guilty, he probably gives false information. Torture stops while it's investigated, time runs out, NYC blows up anyway.

The 6th amendment to the constitution says:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

the 8th amendment to the constitution says:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

[Kevin]

Of course. If lives are in danger then why save one life only to lose millions. I don't understand the big deal on torture, they;ve been torturing people for the last thousands of years and only now is it considered wrong.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: notfred
No. Absolutely not.

If he's innocent, then they tortured a man for no reason, and NYC blows up anyway.

If he's guilty, he probably gives false information. Torture stops while it's investigated, time runs out, NYC blows up anyway.

The 6th amendment to the constitution says:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy . . .

the 8th amendment to the constitution says:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

But this isn't to obtain a conviction nor is it sentencing, it is to prevent mass murder.

I would do it if I was 100% sure he is the culprit, for example if he's arrested in a workshop where the bomb was packaged or with plans for the bomb.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: notfred
No. Absolutely not.

If he's innocent, then they tortured a man for no reason, and NYC blows up anyway.

If he's guilty, he probably gives false information. Torture stops while it's investigated, time runs out, NYC blows up anyway.

The 6th amendment to the constitution says:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

the 8th amendment to the constitution says:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

There were no nuclear weapons or other WMDs at the time the Constitution was writtenl

Torture him and have no mercy!

 

[jjones]

Between you, me and the fencepost, he wouldn't have any fingernails to chew worrying about if he'll get out of town in time.

 

[KBTibbs]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: notfred
No. Absolutely not.

If he's innocent, then they tortured a man for no reason, and NYC blows up anyway.

If he's guilty, he probably gives false information. Torture stops while it's investigated, time runs out, NYC blows up anyway.

The 6th amendment to the constitution says:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

the 8th amendment to the constitution says:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

There were no nuclear weapons or other WMDs at the time the Constitution was writtenl

Torture him and have no mercy!

True...but you are forgetting that the Geneva Convention, and several international treaties that ban torture were made post WWII. So there were WMDs when they were signed.

It is interesting to see how many people are willing to ignore the rule of law when the stakes are high enough. It reminds me of Arthur Koestler's book Darkness at Noon and how it refers to "Sunday school ethics" vs. "vivisection ethics". Just remember, with vivisection morality you will eventually end up with a "moaning, numbed, apathetic lump of sacrificial flesh" (Koestler referring to society).