in police interrogation, does the end justify the means?

Question

i need this for an LD debate on monday.

and why? should police be allowed to do what they want with a suspect(to a certain extent, not breaking the law) to get a conffession?

Answer 1

Someone posted
"so, yes, but within reason, and always be careful"

WHO'S reason????

I am quite sure that Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, and Auschwitz-Birkenau, or perhaps Dachau ,Sachsenhausen , Buchenwald , Flossenbürg , Mauthausen , and Ravensbrück ....Were very "reasonable"
places under someones warped concepts of justice...........


That's the problem with interjecting ambiguous terms like "reasonable" into laws....
Through brainwashing and retraining the sheep can be led quietly.....


****************************
In another post.
depends...
if the guy is guilty, some level of coersion is sometimes necessary, but you always have to be careful


So there are no Judges nor juries? It would seem that the police have dispensed with all of that and have already made a determination of guilt???
WTF?

***************************
Oh and for those totally lost...
We DO NOT have a Democratic government!. Never did. Never will.
It is a REBUBLIC.....Look it up.

Democracy is Two Wolves and a Lamb Voting on What to have for Lunch. Liberty is a Well-Armed Lamb Contesting the Vote
Ben Franklin

Answer 2

Zanthrus you crack me up.

The end never justify the means. When police use coercive or violent tactics to ellicit a confession that confession most likely will be thrown out in court not to mention this is how false confessions occur.

Would you confess just to get the police to quit beating the crap out of you or if you are child because the police said if you did it then you could go home? Most people would.

If the police have a person in custody that they believe is guilty it is there responsibility to get a good confession that will withstand any challenges by a defense attorney. This is exactly why some police stations are starting to record all interrogations. If the police officer does something they shouldnt in order to get a confession then all you need is a half decent attorney to get the statement thrown out of court; not to mention that any evidence found as a result of the confession could also be thrown out of court as fruit of the poisonous tree. Police officers who engage in this behavior are doing the community a disservice because they are ensuring that these people remain free.

And what if this was allowed who is to stop the police from deciding you or someone in your family did something and beating the hell out of you?

Answer 3

You are speaking of the philosophical ethical issue of 'moral relativity'. This can lead to a question posed in ancient Roman by the poet Juvenal: Who guards the guards?' (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)

Moral relativity means that depending on the situation do you decide on how rough should the interrogation be.

If you are interrogating a suspect about a stolen pack of cigerettes than you should not beat him into a coma to get that information; but if the suspect is holding out on a buried kidnapped child or a terrorist holding out on the location of a ticking hydrogen bomb in a U.S. city then you might have to beat the snot out of them to get that info.

So when do use use excessive force in any interrogation? That would be a morally relative question to answer. Then who interrogates the interrogators?

Answer 4

depends...
if the guy is guilty, some level of coersion is sometimes necessary, but you always have to be careful

on the other hand, whether innocent or guilty, a suspect under duress will likely say anything to make it stop, get a sandwich, get a blanket, whatever... then you end up with faulty intelligence and sometimes an innocent person in jail and a guilty person on the streets to offend again.

so, yes, but within reason, and always be careful

Answer 5

well it depends who you are asking, in ethics there are several ethical theories the ones in question here are utilitarianism and deontology. a utilitarian would say that defenitly the ends justify the means as long as the consequences are promoting general well-being, in this case getting information out of ppl in an inhumane manner to protect the majority.
on the other hand some one who believes in deontology (a kantian- named after ther theorist immanuel kant) will say that principles, especially equlity and respecting human dignity are above all and regardless to the consequences we must never lay down our principles and we must respect others rights at all times and in all situations.

so its really a matter of opinion.

what are you a utilitarian or a kantian?

Answer 6

Everything is back to front with criminals. What's good is bad and vice-versa.

However, the target may actually be innocent. Then dirty tricks are really obscene.

Then there is the prisoner's dilemna. The end does not justify the means as the object is to find the truth rather than to secure a conviction.

Answer 7

no beacause we have a democratic government and there was a book wrote by a guy named machiavelli for kings and it was meant for an absolute monarchy in which people had no rights but we do the end justifies the means is saying you can do what ever you want as long as you accomplish your goal and a cop cant do that and question what grade you in
so no the end doesnt justify the means

Answer 8

Absolutely not !How many people have buckled under the intense pressure and ended up incrimminating themselves.I am sure the tactics the police use can be terrifying to most people especially the innocent ones whose only crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Answer 9

There is a saying that the end doesn't always justify the means.Which would imply sometimes it does.Hypothesis is open to ambivalence.

Answer 10

Someone put a body inside the frame of a whipping stick then named it.