Jump to content

What are your thoughts on physical torture?


Alex Mercer
 Share

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

All depends on your definition of torture.
If your two year old child, being curious, wants to stick a fork in the electrical outlet, do you slap his/her hand  hard enough that they remember the pain and never do it again, or do you explain the dangers of electricity to them, and hope that they understand, and don't kill themselves the next time you're not looking ?

Are you seriously comparing torture to slapping a child hand in order to teach him a lesson? I don't have a formal definition of torture but certainly that was not what I was thinking about.

That's how italian police treats prisoners. It's what came to my mind when the OP asked whether we should use torture for criminals or not. A system like this creates even more criminals and probably contribute to the anti-social behaviours of detainees. Does a criminal feel in peace with society once he get out of prison, the same society that convicted him to that destiny?  How can cruel violence contribute to re-education? There aren't many situations in life where answers are simple but for me this is one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, that depends on your definition of torture.

6 minutes ago, Neuron said:

but certainly that was not what I was thinking about

Not being telepathic, I have no idea what you were thinking about.
( and I still don't since I cannot watch your video link )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, beecee said:

Can any excuse be made for what they did? An account here of there upbringing....

How should i know? I'm not familiar with any of the people involved. Nor am i in the business of making excuses. I do try, however, to look at each case on its own merits, rather than lump all Americans (as many as 3% of the population) who are, or have at some time been, incarcerated into the word "criminal".

I asked how prevalent is the crime you cited (to the exclusion of all the burglaries, embezzlement, shoplifting and car theft) for the same reason: before applying any judgement derived from that case to "criminals" generally, we need to know how broadly it applies. My guess is, it tells us very little about lawbreaking and criminilatity in the UK.

12 hours ago, beecee said:

Another question I will ask you [I raised and commented on earlier]...which would be worse, a state endorsed execution or life imprisoment?

That would depend on a number of factors:

1. Perspective - "worse" for whom, in what way?

2. The nature of the crime.

3. The soundness of investigative and legal process.

4. The state of mind of the perpetrator.

5. The nature of the prison.

6. The method of execution being considered.

12 hours ago, beecee said:

In summing up, I hate bullies.

noted. I hope you never become a prison warden.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Seems Peterkin wants to eliminate any, and all, options that a person can make that would be unlawful.

How does that follow from asking what the person's practical options were in each particular situation where a law was broken?

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Shift all responsibility from the person to 'society'; that will solve all sorts of problems ( 😑 extreme sarcasm 😑 ).

If individuals are not part of a society, what is society? The individuals in concert, under the auspices of a social structure which predates them and which they learn how to inhabit during maturation, create the problems. Who else can solve those problems?

1 hour ago, MigL said:

If your two year old child, being curious, wants to stick a fork in the electrical outlet, do you slap his/her hand  hard enough that they remember the pain and never do it again, or do you explain the dangers of electricity to them, and hope that they understand, and don't kill themselves the next time you're not looking ?

In fact, the wise parent does neither. My younger brother was just such a curious child. Whenever she caught him flirting with a danger he didn't understand, she scared him off it with a threat he did understand. She never hit and taught us a great deal about living; my father struck out all the time (was a bully who never, afaik, broke a law beyond traffic infractions) and taught us very little besides how to avoid him.  

Edited by Peterkin
fix three words
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

Again, that depends on your definition of torture.

Since you want an explicit definition of torture I will use the definition of art. 613 bis of our penal code.

Putting it simple: slapping a child hand is not torture, beating up prisoners because you are frustrated and your life sucks and you are sadistic is torture.

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

and I still don't since I cannot watch your video link

Don't worry, you missed nothing. Just one of the many beating up of prisoners that rarely (according to police) or often (according to every other evidence) happen.

Edited by Neuron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Neuron said:

Don't worry, you missed nothing. Just one of the many beating of prisoners that rarely (according to police) or often (according to every other evidence) happen.

Do you happen to know how the video was made? Sight unseen, I'll guess it was done secretly and the person who made it was taking a risk. And it was probably illegal, so if that person is caught and convicted, he'll suffer a most unenviable fate. Not sure we can categorize that as Justice.

This might work.

Edited by Peterkin
insert link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Whenever she caught him flirting with a danger he didn't understand, she scared him off it with a threat he did understand.

What threats do you understand at two years of age, other than disconfort/pain ?
Please give an example.

 

14 minutes ago, Neuron said:

Putting it simple: slapping a child hand is not torture,

Doesn't that depend on the reason for doing it ?
If you smacked a prisoner's hand every day, for the period of his incarceration, would that be torture ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope we can get a fairly objective, and agreed upon, definition of torture before we start calling conscientious parents torturers!  LoL!

I fear that equating hand slaps, or maybe large servings of Brussels Sprouts, with torture, might somewhat erode the actual meaning of the word in the context of criminal law and penology.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

What threats do you understand at two years of age, other than disconfort/pain ?
Please give an example.

At that age, he was afraid of fireworks, so when he tried to play with electrical outlets, she told him it would explode; every time he needed reminding, she (or I) would say "Boom!!" He'd been sickly baby, so he was afraid of needles and hospitals. When he tried to put bad things in his mouth, my mother would say, "If you get sick, we'll have to take you to the hospital." Her threats were never fantastical, but were always tailored to the mind of the child and the situation. 

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

If you smacked a prisoner's hand every day, for the period of his incarceration, would that be torture ?

That also depends on the circumstances, but it would probably escape the legal definition - like many psychological abuses prison guards and police get away with every day.  I can see that 18-year-old joy-rider who had his hand smacked every morning, to the amusement of his hardened armed robber cell-mate reforming after his two year stretch - becoming a law abiding alcoholic recluse.   

5 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I really hope we can get a fairly objective, and agreed upon, definition of torture before we start calling conscientious parents torturers!  LoL!

Quote

From the International Justice Research Center article, which also says

Quote

Determining whether certain treatment rises to the level of ‘torture’ can be a challenge and will depend on which legal instrument applies, based on which treaties, if any, the State in question has ratified and whether the victim or advocate is engaging with the United Nations system or a regional human rights system.

It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to list every possible way people can torture one another ... If humans put the half the ingenuity they use for the invention of devices to kill, maim, hurt and damage others into crime-prevention, we probably wouldn't have any crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Do you happen to know how the video was made? Sight unseen, I'll guess it was done secretly and the person who made it was taking a risk. And it was probably illegal, so if that person is caught and convicted, he'll suffer a most unenviable fate. Not sure we can categorize that as Justice.

This might work.

We are talking about the same episode. The video I posted is an edited mix of various footages recorded by the prison security cams (doing so knowing of being recorded also helps understand how untouchable policemen thought to be)

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

Doesn't that depend on the reason for doing it ?
If you smacked a prisoner's hand every day, for the period of his incarceration, would that be torture ?

If I have time I will search the link but I remember the topic about using educational violence on children has already been discussed. And, from my interpretation, the conclusions were along the line of "violence is bad but children don't have the understanding of a grown-up so sometimes slapping them is the only way to go". 

You asked about a specific case (teaching a child to not put a fork in the electric outlet) and in that case the law allows that (based on my knowledge).

It's unlawful if you slap your child too often without need, slap a prisoner once, or slap a prisoner every day. Whether it's torture or not I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Neuron said:

It's unlawful if you slap your child too often without need, slap a prisoner once, or slap a prisoner every day. Whether it's torture or not I don't know.

The lines between legal and illegal, acceptable and unacceptable, punishment and torture (for that matter, enhanced interrogation and torture) may be so fine that people who get off on hurting other people, or believe hurting other people will accomplish desirable outcomes, can quibble over them all century. People who prefer to avoid hurting other people have no such difficulty figuring out what the word means.

Beating children was never a good idea. Even a slap on the cheek or buttocks that doesn't cause much physical pain can cause shame far out of proportion to the infraction it's intended to correct. A slap on the wrist, arm, leg or back of the head is less humiliating. Much worse than any of these mild physical reprimands is the underlying assumption: "They're dumb animals; hitting is all they understand."  You think children don't get that? And resent it? And learn to imitate it? Dogs and horses resent it and learn it. Corporal punishment is nowhere near as effective a teaching tool as understanding how the student's mind works.  

Edited by Peterkin
wrong words in right places
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the philosophical stances portrayed in this thread in my very humble opinion, appear to go from the sublime to the ridiculious.🤮

Before anyone attempts to take that out of context....https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/from-the-sublime-to-the-ridiculous#:~:text=phrase,to something silly or unimportant.

Note:  If you describe something as going from the sublime to the ridiculous, you mean that it involves a change from something very good or serious to something silly or unimportant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Neuron said:

Putting it simple: slapping a child hand is not torture, beating up prisoners because you are frustrated and your life sucks and you are sadistic is torture.

Don't worry, you missed nothing. Just one of the many beating up of prisoners that rarely (according to police) or often (according to every other evidence) happen.

Agreed. Corporal punishment per se is not torture, but certainly sometimes administrators of corporal punishment can be and are sadistic. If one enjoys it in the least, I believe they are sadistic. My old man had cause to "slap" me, and there probably was not a child from my generation that was not slapped by their parents for being little bastards. Most of us, the vast majority of us all lived through it and are now comfortably retired without any lasting after effects. We would also cop the strap at school when serious enough. And let me say, yes, out of all my "Christian Brothers" teachers, there was one sadistic bastard amongst them. The rest were pretty good blokes in actual fact. ps: Yes, I have also administered corporal punishment to my Son, and hated the need to do it. He is now a successful IT expert and apparently suffering no ill effects.

Beating up prisoners by wardens or Police is wrong and against the law, but hey! let's look into sometimes the reasons why a Policeman may see the need to go beyond what seems normal. We had a case in Sydney where a woman was confronted by a Policeman for speeding...she immediately started being aggresive and swearing, then [as shown on his body cam] spat at him directly in the face. The Policeman literally threw her on the ground and cuffed her before putting her in a paddy wagon and taken away. This Policeman then had to undergo an inquiry into his actions. Seriously, if any of us in this current situation, was the victim of someone spitting on him, what would be your reactions?The woman claimed that she was on her way to get tested for COVID-19 

https://www.timesnownews.com/international/article/coronavirus-muslim-woman-spits-on-police-officer-in-australia-netizens-call-it-bio-terrorism-video/570720

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

  • 'The woman was travelling at the speed of 120km/h in a 50km/h zone, ran a red light and attacked police'
  • The woman claimed she was on her way to get tested for COVID-19
  • 23,495 people all over the world have died due to coronavirus

Sydney: A woman was arrested for allegedly spitting at a police officer in Sydney, Australia. 

According to local media reports, the woman was travelling at the speed of 120km/h in a 50km/h zone, ran a red light and attacked police. She was pulled over by police at around 5 pm in Greenacre, southwest Sydney, on Friday afternoon but she allegedly refused to get out of her car. She also claimed that she was on her way to get tested for COVID-19. 

In the video, the policeman can be heard saying: "Do not spit on me or I will put you on the ground" and asks her if she can understand why she has been arrested. The woman, however, spat on the officer's face once again after which he yelled "do not spit on me' and slammed the woman onto the ground. 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

On wardens beating up prisoners unecessarily, the full force of the law should be brought down upon them, and in my country that has happened. We also have had the case of a female prison officer, being dismissed for having sexual relations with an inmate.

3 hours ago, Neuron said:

And, from my interpretation, the conclusions were along the line of "violence is bad but children don't have the understanding of a grown-up so sometimes slapping them is the only way to go". 

Yes, sometimes sadly, corporal punishment is the only option. Like anything else though,  there are always those that take it too far, and sadistically enjoy it. 

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

I really hope we can get a fairly objective, and agreed upon, definition of torture before we start calling conscientious parents torturers!  LoL!

I fear that equating hand slaps, or maybe large servings of Brussels Sprouts, with torture, might somewhat erode the actual meaning of the word in the context of criminal law and penology.

Bingo!

 

5 hours ago, Neuron said:

That's how italian police treats prisoners. It's what came to my mind when the OP asked whether we should use torture for criminals or not. A system like this creates even more criminals and probably contribute to the anti-social behaviours of detainees. Does a criminal feel in peace with society once he get out of prison, the same society that convicted him to that destiny?  How can cruel violence contribute to re-education? There aren't many situations in life where answers are simple but for me this is one of them.

Not that up with the mind set of Italian Police. But I would say we all remember the Policeman in the US that had his knee on the throat of a detainee named George Floyd. Four [from memory] were dismissed and the main culprit charged and convicted. Justice was done in that case, just as it should have been. Australian Police personel in general act with more constraint. Even to pull out his weapon, could see an inquiry into why. Bad eggs amongst them, sure! but generally they are OK. The highlighted bit in your statement, surely should be "some" Italian police. If that is not the case, then indeed your Police force needs reformation to the highest degree, just as happened in Minneapolis.

Then again perhaps it is more concerned with the level of crime...perhaps US police and Minneapolis Police in particular are more likely to be the victim themselves, and is why the gun is there first option. Thankfully, that situation generally does not exist in Australia.

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Then again perhaps it is more concerned with the level of crime...perhaps US police and Minneapolis Police in particular are more likely to be the victim themselves, and is why the gun is there first option. Thankfully, that situation generally does not exist in Australia.

No, it's nothing to do with crime against police. Shooting a fleeing teenager in the back does not qualify as self-defence. Sometimes suspects, people being evicted from their homes, armed robbers and other people the police are trying to arrest do shoot back, but there are very few unprovoked attacks on police. There are very many shootings of suspects and rough handling of subdued prisoners by police, who tend to be far better armed.

Spitting isn't nice, but neither is it life-threatening. He was just angry. Anyone would be angry, but law-enforcement officers are supposed to keep their cool and not lash out like provoked six-year-olds. They often have to deal with people who are emotionally unstable, mentally ill, desperate, inebriated or drugged and not in control of themselves.  

It's not about crime at all. It's about the culture of police forces and the social climate of the communities they police. Giving them more leeway to use force against the citizenry is rarely a constructive solution to crime. 

Edited by Peterkin
mo linx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Some posts on this thread are ambiguous, lacking the courage of their author's convictions -  and not necessarily on topic. 

It appears that the whole issue of torture, particularly, what is and isn't torture, and how it differs from administered justice and deserved punishment  is in itself ambiguous. It is rather nice and gives one a warm inner glow, to hope for a perfect sanitized society, based on philosophical jargon, but it aint gonna happen. 

All situations are different, and all situations must be taken on their individual merits or otherwise. I have given many cases, illustrating those facts. Some humans are evil and bad, very evil and bad! The softly softly approach sometimes does not work. Sometimes violence deserves and begets justified violence in return, as per my own experiences.

13 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No, it's nothing to do with crime against police. Shooting a fleeing teenager in the back does not qualify as self-defence.

Absolutely! So why would you raise it? Are you denying that crimes against police do not exist?

13 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Spitting isn't nice, but neither is it life-threatening. He was just angry. Anyone would be angry, but law-enforcement officers are supposed to keep their cool and not lash out like provoked six-year-olds. They often have to deal with people who are emotionally unstable, mentally ill, desperate, inebriated or drugged and not in control of themselves.  

Of course it is life threatening! in the current situation. And yes police officers, do and are in my country at least, generally keep their cool. In this current life threatening situation, the woman got exact justice, irrespective of her possible emotional personal position. Police are not punching bags or spittoons.

We recently had a law breaking march in Sydney by redneck ratbags, protesting the wearing of masks and lockdowns, thereby threatening in this current situation, the lives of the rest of us. They [the police] were admirable in their handling of the situation and many arrests are still being made of that rabble.

The man's colleagues were pictured helping wipe the thick ink from the officer's skin and uniform, as frenzied activists continued to chant anti-vax slogans

The man's colleagues were pictured helping wipe the thick ink from the officer's skin and uniform, as frenzied activists continued to chant anti-vax slogans

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Then again perhaps it is more concerned with the level of crime...perhaps US police and Minneapolis Police in particular are more likely to be the victim themselves, and is why the gun is there first option.

 

59 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No, it's nothing to do with crime against police. Shooting a fleeing teenager in the back does not qualify as self-defence. Sometimes suspects, people being evicted from their homes, armed robbers and other people the police are trying to arrest do shoot back, but there are very few unprovoked attacks on police.

46 minutes ago, beecee said:

So why would you raise it?

I didn't. 

48 minutes ago, beecee said:

Are you denying that crimes against police do not exist?

I linked the FBI statistics.

50 minutes ago, beecee said:

Of course it is life threatening! in the current situation.

Perhaps police should wear their face-shields, which they usually have, unlike grocery clerks, who are spat on, cursed, rammed by shopping carts and occasionally chased with cars - by sane, sober, impatient customers - and nobody gives them guns or permission to throw those customers to the ground. Oh yes, some people in dysfunctional societies sometimes behave in destructive and bizarre ways. Some of the police sometimes included.

So.... should the spitting woman be beaten and raped in prison, or what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I didn't. 

Yes you did. 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

 Shooting a fleeing teenager in the back does not qualify as self-defence.

In reply to my statement thus...."Then again perhaps it is more concerned with the level of crime...perhaps US police and Minneapolis Police in particular are more likely to be the victim themselves, and is why the gun is there first option. Thankfully, that situation generally does not exist in Australia."

The above was said, actually hypothesised in criticism of police and society in general in the US and Minneapolis in general, particularly in relation to the Floyd case debacle, and in comparing to Australian police where the drawing of a gun is the last resort.

38 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Perhaps police should wear their face-shields, which they usually have, unlike grocery clerks, who are spat on, cursed, rammed by shopping carts and occasionally chased with cars - by sane, sober, impatient customers - and nobody gives them guns or permission to throw those customers to the ground. Oh yes, some people in dysfunctional societies sometimes behave in destructive and bizarre ways. Some of the police sometimes included.

Anyone that spits at another person, particularly in the present crisis [which you appear to want to ignore] deserves the full wrath of the law, or private citizen. The only real dysfunctional action was from the woman concerned.

And yes, I also remember vaguely a case where it happened with regards to a shop assistant, and the customer was thrown from the store, as she should have been.

38 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

So.... should the spitting woman be beaten and raped in prison, or what?

Don't be silly. The spitting woman was arrested, charged and convicted just as she should have been, and the Policeman involved was exonerated after an inquiry, just as he should have been after experiencing such depravity.

 

Perhaps you missed.....https://www.timesnownews.com/international/article/coronavirus-muslim-woman-spits-on-police-officer-in-australia-netizens-call-it-bio-terrorism-video/570720

"In the video, the policeman can be heard saying: "Do not spit on me or I will put you on the ground" and asks her if she can understand why she has been arrested. The woman, however, spat on the officer's face once again after which he yelled "do not spit on me' and slammed the woman onto the ground". 

 

 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

It's not about crime at all. It's about the culture of police forces and the social climate of the communities they police. Giving them more leeway to use force against the citizenry is rarely a constructive solution to crime. 

Just to once again, make my position clear, the culture of some police forces, and some police, certainly needs to change, but just as obviously, care, caution, and readiness is necessary for police, when confronting criminals or crimes in process.

And yes, police in some circumstances, certainly must be given more leeway, as they were in Sydney, in response to the anti mask wearing/anti vax protests/anti  health advice and science/redneck ratbags that took part in the illegal march in Sydney.  And they handled it with much restraint as possible, against these provocative  redneck ratbags, who threatened the health of all Sydneysiders.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Anyone that spits at another person, particularly in the present crisis [which you appear to want to ignore] deserves the full wrath of the law, or private citizen. The only real dysfunctional action was from the woman concerned.

I'm not ignoring the pandemic - if that's what you mean by "present crisis" - I'm aware that the incidents I mentioned are due to the frustration caused disease-control restrictions, which store clerks are expected to enforce. It makes everyone edgy and it makes some people crazy. I have no idea what the spitting woman's problem was, but if that were the only dysfunction in your society, you'd be a shining beacon to the whole world.  

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:
2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

So.... should the spitting woman be beaten and raped in prison, or what?

Don't be silly.

Attempting to get back on topic is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I'm not ignoring the pandemic - if that's what you mean by "present crisis" - I'm aware that the incidents I mentioned are due to the frustration caused disease-control restrictions, which store clerks are expected to enforce. It makes everyone edgy and it makes some people crazy. I have no idea what the spitting woman's problem was, but if that were the only dysfunction in your society, you'd be a shining beacon to the whole world.  

The only crazy person in the example I gave was the fool doing 120k/hr in a 60k/hr zone, was stopped and subsequently spken to, acted disgracefully and was arrested appropriatly. I'm not that concerned with her personal problem, the same as I'm not too concerned with the problem of the cop that killed Floyd. Both were wrong, [the woman and the cop] although obviously the cop's crime was far more serious. And no, certainly not the only dysfunction in our community, we also have questionable cops.

23 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Attempting to get back on topic is all.

I believe we are on topic, after all the ambiguous nature of physical torture, has not yet really been established, although I certainly have my thoughts on what is and what isn't physical torture.

Does the concept of physical torture get pushed to the back ground, in time of war? Can it be condoned at all in time of war?  Are there justifications for physical torture in time of war? Worth thinking about, seriously and deeply. And no, I abhore war, and thankfully have been lucky enough to have just missed out on conscription during the Vietnam war...a war incidently, in which I marched in Moratoriums, claiming it unjustified, and in the ending that war.

That did not stop me though from appreciating the actions of the Soldiers, Sailors and Airman that were sent to that war by government decree, and the sacrifices some of them made, along with the sacrifices of the Vietnamese people on both sides also.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

people who get off on hurting other people, or believe hurting other people will accomplish desirable outcomes, can quibble over them all century. People who prefer to avoid hurting other people have no such difficulty figuring out what the word means

So people who want a definition of torture 'get off on hurting other people' ???
But those who agree with your unstated definition are saints who wouldn't hurt anyone ?

Am I in the right thread, or am I in the 'transgendered athletes' thread, where questioning gets you accused of being part of the problem ?

This thread has wondered all over the place ( currently criminal police behavior ) , and we still have no definition of torture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MigL said:

This thread has wondered all over the place ( currently criminal police behavior  and we still have no definition of torture.

Anything from being hung, drawn and quartered, to a slap on the wrist it seems. Which is why I made my going from the sublime to the ridiculous comment earlier.

My definition of physical torture, being the act of inflicting severe physical or mental pain on a person. The next considerations ought to be, to what extent does corporal punishment, state sanctioned deprivation of freedom for a misdemeanor or crime, or parental policing of children, constitute physical torture?

My answer to that is twofold....[1] In a society where someone commits a serious crime, the sentence/punishment should fit the crime, while every attempt is made to reform that person.[2] if someone has proven to be incorridgable and a continued danger to society, and beyond redemption, then lock them up and throw away the key. Crimes, really horrific crimes, would see life sentences considered, rather then capital punishment due to the possibilty as shown earlier of an error in judgement/conviction, keeping in mind the reformation of the criminal. 

Sometimes the softly softly approach is useless, particularly with young bullies, who are more likely to take advantage of bleeding hearts. This was illustrated with a prisoner in Sydney given parole for good behaviour, only to be found guilty of raping a little girl.https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-12/anthony-sampieri-sentenced-for-dance-studio-child-rape/11955590

Key points:

  • Anthony Sampieri sexually assaulted the young girl for 40 minutes
  • He slashed people who tried to save the girl in 2018 with a knife
  • He was on parole at the time of his attack

 

 Personal accounts with potential bullies and standing up to them, even if it means a minor act of violence,  have shown me that this is generally the case. 

What do I mean by minor? [1] Stiff arming a bully who is part of a pack of bullies terrorizing shop attendants and customers, [2] Advising Son that if another child the same age continually assaults him, to return the favour, and [3] Whacking the school bully around the head with your globite school case after being assaulted. 

All cases are detailed in this thread, and all cases involved an eventual good and desired outcome, for both parties. I can only go on personal experience.

 

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MigL said:

we still have no definition of torture

I proposed one but apparently for you is not enough. Do you realize whatever definition we take there will always be a certain degree of ambiguity? So why were you questioning such strange and unrealistic situations?

Have you ever seen police quell a riot slapping prisoners hands? Why don't you prefer talking about more realistic example such as the beatings up of prisoners that happen more regularly? We still don't have your opinion after all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Neuron said:

Have you ever seen police quell a riot slapping prisoners hands? 

Have you ever seen police trying to quell a riot or stop an illegal march, having horses assaulted, flower pots thrown at them or ink being splurted all over them?

8 minutes ago, Neuron said:

Why don't you prefer talking about more realistic example such as the beatings up of prisoners that happen more regularly? We still don't have your opinion after all

In my country, as I said previously, they are generally  brought to justice.

You have any facts and/or figures on that happening more regularly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, MigL said:

So people who want a definition of torture 'get off on hurting other people' ???

That's the wrong way around. There are dozens of definitions ready to hand, in legal codes and international conventions regarding the conduct of war.  I was the second poster on this thread to cite one of these definitions; most civilized nations have enshrined some form of it in their constitutions. I mentioned that these definitions are necessarily incomplete, since the drafters of the documents can never imagine as many ways of inflicting suffering as torturers can invent. These earnest attempts at definition were made by people who wanted to outlaw torture. People who want to employ torture, or who want the definition to remain vague so that at least some of their methods are accepted into legal procedure, raise objections - often in courts - or cite exceptions or won't agree on the degree of suffering required to meet the standard. 

54 minutes ago, MigL said:

But those who agree with your unstated definition are saints who wouldn't hurt anyone ?

Not mine, the UN's, in this case, and it's stated, but not comprehensive. 

Quote

Whether its drafters would hurt anyone, I have no way of knowing; as an atheist, I certainly wouldn't beatify them.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

we still have no definition of torture.

We have as many as we want. Google it. Every civilized country has a clause in its constitution, bill of rights, criminal code, or all three, forbidding torture and providing a legal definition. (Slaps on wrists not mentioned in any i sampled). Within that framework, the courts have to determine whether the specific case it's hearing meets the criteria. Courts vary in their application of both definitions and standards.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.