Please read carefully, Emotional Question?

Question

SENARIO:

You are a 25 year old male / female. Your sister, 7 years old, has been kidnapped. Your family have received a ransom demand for a sum you cannot pay. You have been told that your sister has been buried in a large airtight container with enough air for 72 hours. If you do not pay they will just leave her there.
One of the kidnappers has been caught and is being held by the police. He refuses to disclose the whereabouts of your sister.


Question:

Is physical torture justified? Bearing in mind that if he does not talk your 7 year old sister will slowly suffocate, on her own, in the dark, terrified and calling for her family.


Please it is a serious question, I am trying to gauge emotional reaction to a terrifying scenario, and whether or not it justifies breaking criminal as well as moral law.

I asked this question because in 1966 I was in this position as a police officer in Spain. We were not allowed to do more than normal interrogation, the guy never talked, his involvement was not proved, even though he had 2 previous convictions for involvement in similar crimes, the little girl was not found. 3 months ago, as the guy was dieing of cancer, his local priest got him to confess to the crime, he told where the body was and they found the remains, I was invited back to help close up the case, even though I have been retired for some years. I wish, oh how I wish, I had been brave enough to do what I really thought I should have done all those years ago.

He’s dead; I still have to live with it.

I asked this question because in 1966 I was in this position as a police officer in Spain. We were not allowed to do more than normal interrogation, the guy never talked, his involvement was not proved, even though he had 2 previous convictions for involvement in similar crimes, the little girl was not found. 3 months ago, as the guy was dieing of cancer, his local priest got him to confess to the crime, he told where the body was and they found the remains, I was invited back to help close up the case, even though I have been retired for some years. I wish, oh how I wish, I had been brave enough to do what I really thought I should have done all those years ago.

He’s dead; I still have to live with it.

I asked this question because in 1966 I was in this position as a police officer in Spain. We were not allowed to do more than normal interrogation, the guy never talked, his involvement was not proved, I really thought I should have done all those years ago.

He’s dead; I still have to live with it.

Answer 1

My reaction to this question really surprised me . It would never occur to me to harm anyone, but when I had a think about this, I was already thinking of ways to make the man talk, and then ways to hurt him just for harming my little sister( in real life I dont have a little sister) .wether or not physical torture is justified, if it meant the difference to keeping my sister alive, then being moral wouldnt come into it.

Answer 2

Being an only child it's a tough question to answer! I think I would have to leave it to the police to do the questioning and do whatever I could to help the investigation. Whether it is right or wrong for you to harm the kidnapper or not you need to stay within the law or else you'll only make the situation worse.

It's very easy to sit here and say this though, you don't know how you would react if it really did happen to you though.

Answer 3

If the Kidnapper was being held by the Police then in most countries there would be no question about him being exposed to to torture. The Police have their own methods of interrogation which could achieve results; offering to reduce charges against the one Kidnapper if he tells about the location for example.

In any event the use of torture is wrong and two wrongs don't ever make one right.

Answer 4

If you are cent percent sure that he is one of the kidnappers. If you are cent percent sure that he knows the complete details of the kidnapping and the whereabouts of the 7 year old girl and is not inclined to tell. Torture him, or even shoot him in the leg, or go further. He will surely tell. But before any of this, make sure you are not fishing for information, torturing the man hoping that you will make a breakthrough. You'd better be 100% sure that he is the man, otherwise you will burn in hell if you are torturing the wrong man, and when he gets through he will put you behind bars.

Answer 5

Well obviously if it were my sister I would be entirely subjective and string the kidnapper up by the balls in order to get answers - desperation would cloud all issues. However, I don't know if torture is 100% reliable - too much pain may make the captive kidnapper say anything to get you off his balls, this consideration, i.e. would physical torture = valuable information comes before the moral situation i.e. is it justifiable.

Answer 6

In such circumstances I would say that his actions and refusal knowing the consequences of such an action justifies whatever is required to elicit the information needed to save his victim. My opinion is not however an emotional one but based upon the opinion that knowing that torture and other such extreeme methods could be employed to force the information would deter him from such refusal in the first place. If it didn't then he's already forfitted the right to protection by creating such a situation in the first place.

Answer 7

Torture to save a life sounds like a fair trade - he knew what he was doing when he kidnapped the girl, if you play you have to be prepared to pay.

Kidnappers aren't SAS and they would crumble very quickly, the level of pain would be minimal. In these times physical torture wouldn't be necessary, the threat would be enough.

Answer 8

I think physical torture might be justified but not effective. I would bury him in the same way and tell him he will only get out if he cooperates, kinda puts things in perspective when you in the same position as your captive I would imagine dying slowly all alone in the dark calling for his family don't ya think?

Answer 9

No, torture has always been proven to be an ineffective means of extracting accurate information (the inquisitions of the 14-15th century prove that.

It would be better to interogate him under extreme phychological pressure, frankly letting him no that his information could make the difference between a 10 year prison sentence and a 25 year sentence.

Answer 10

Moral question here. Like the death penalty each person will have their own idea as to right or wrong. Torture, to prevent the death of an innocent person, is justified in my opinion. I say send Jack Bauer in to interrogate them. He can break anyone.