Author Topic: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?  (Read 10056 times)

injest

  • Guest
Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« on: December 08, 2007, 11:01:25 pm »
I think about this a lot. At one time I thought it would be impossible for us (USA) to use torture. I was wrong.

Offline ifyoucantfixit

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,049
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2007, 11:54:38 pm »
          NO NO NO A THOUSAND TIMES NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  It is immoral
  It doesen't work. 
  It wins us a thousand times more enemies than we have already
  Its impractical, because you can never believe the information is true..or something
  that was manufactured in order to stop the torture.
  But:   I think most of all It starts a slippery slope toward the worst kind of inhumane
  being, we will become if we do it.  
  Also It will leave our position very tenable, in case any of our people are confiscated..
  If we are known as torturers, it will leave the door open for all the people in the     
  world to  perform those activities , and retaliate in kind.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2007, 06:01:06 pm by ifyoucantfixit »



     Beautiful mind

injest

  • Guest
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2007, 11:56:24 pm »
studies have shown it is not reliable...yet we still hear about people in OUR government wanting to do it.

 :-\

Offline David In Indy

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,447
  • You've Got Male
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2007, 12:14:04 am »
Absolutely NO! Never is torture appropriate! NEVER!

I can't believe there are some Americans (and Europeans too) who feel torture is okay. I thought we were above these kinds of tactics. Apparently not.

Jess, I think you may have opened up a huge can of worms with this question, but I applaud you for having the courage! Remember my "Death Penalty" thread?  :laugh:


Run it on up the flagpole and let's see if anyone salutes it.  :)
Dogs have owners. Cats have staff.

injest

  • Guest
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2007, 12:34:39 am »
Absolutely NO! Never is torture appropriate! NEVER!

I can't believe there are some Americans (and Europeans too) who feel torture is okay. I thought we were above these kinds of tactics. Apparently not.

Jess, I think you may have opened up a huge can of worms with this question, but I applaud you for having the courage! Remember my "Death Penalty" thread?  :laugh:


Run it on up the flagpole and let's see if anyone salutes it.  :)


are you calling me an agitator??  >:(

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

yep...

Offline David In Indy

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,447
  • You've Got Male
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2007, 04:00:45 pm »
I enjoyed participating in your death penalty thread, David.  Did we get too out of hand for you, or something?   :( 

BTW, I was against the death penalty.  And I'm very much against toture. 

No Gary. Nobody got out of hand in the death penalty thread. If I had thought it was going in the wrong direction I would have locked it. Everything was fine in there, but a few of the debates became a little heated, which is perfectly fine with me, so long as no one is being attacked personally. Fortunately this never happened. :)

Dogs have owners. Cats have staff.

mvansand76

  • Guest
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2007, 05:38:58 pm »
Maybe you should change the title of the thread to Torture by the US Government is it ever acceptable. In that instance I would say no, neither should any other country.

However, more personally, if somebody would harm or kill one of my loved-ones I would be very willing to take a course informing me about all the possible torture techniques possible nowadays so that I could practice them on the perpetrator.

Offline Kelda

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,703
  • Zorbing....
    • Keldas Facebook Page!
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2007, 06:23:24 pm »
Well, it appears I'm the only maybe. But like Mel I was taking it from a non American viewpoint.
http://www.idbrass.com

Please use the following links when shopping online -It will help us raise money without costing you a penny.

http://www.easyfundraising.org.uk/idb

http://idb.easysearch.org.uk/

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,761
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2007, 07:22:33 pm »
Yes, I think torture is acceptable. But ONLY if you're Jack Bauer and you have captured a terrorist who is the only one in the entire world who knows the code to disarm the nuclear bomb that is set to go off in 10 minutes, destroying a third of Los Angeles and killing millions of people, including the visiting U.S. president, his sister, the irreplacable computer whiz Chloe, and your late brother's son (who, incidentally, I secretly suspect is actually the son of you, Jack Bauer, from a previous illicit dalliance with your sister-in-law). If all those conditions are in effect, then sure, have at it, torture away! With my blessing!

Luckily, this situation isn't one we have to worry about confronting very often. Not least because Jack Bauer is a fictional character.

Under any other circumstances, forget it. Torture is one of the most incredibly inhuman (and yes, I mean inhuman, not inhumane) that people do.





« Last Edit: December 09, 2007, 11:44:14 pm by ineedcrayons »

Offline David In Indy

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,447
  • You've Got Male
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2007, 05:11:36 am »
Well, it appears I'm the only maybe. But like Mel I was taking it from a non American viewpoint.

Hi Kelda!

Well, I think Americans may be jumping the gun here, because we just learned the CIA has managed to destroy valuable evidence regarding their torture tactics during the past several years. >:(

Yes. They destroyed it, and yet the White House claims they have no idea. How about THAT for a kick in the ass? So, I assumed Jess meant Torture in regards to the US government.

Jess, what did you mean? We're a bit confused here.


Dogs have owners. Cats have staff.

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2007, 12:45:08 am »
I guess we better define torture here.

Do we mean the rack?  Cutting off thumbs?  Flaying someone alive? 

Or do we mean psychological torture?  Deprivation situations, etc?

injest

  • Guest
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2007, 12:51:12 am »
Glenn Beck was talking today about waterboarding...he says it is not torture because there is no physical harm.

they laughed and joked about it....then cut to a commercial for a board game the 'WHOLE family can enjoy". The juxtapostion made me physically ill.

he described how they put a wet towel over a persons face and then pour water over it. They did it to some terrorist and he broke in like three minutes. Beck and a senator were laughing about how reporters and soldiers let it be done to them just to see what it is like. I think it would feel much different if it was being done by strangers who you knew wouldn't hesitate to kill you (and that you knew wouldn't stop if you asked them to)

I think a good rule of thumb (regarding what is or is not torture) is not whether you would subject YOURSELF to the procedure...but if you would subject your loved one to it; a wife, child, lover.


Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2007, 01:15:16 am »
Glenn Beck was talking today about waterboarding...he says it is not torture because there is no physical harm.

they laughed and joked about it....then cut to a commercial for a board game the 'WHOLE family can enjoy". The juxtapostion made me physically ill.

he described how they put a wet towel over a persons face and then pour water over it. They did it to some terrorist and he broke in like three minutes. Beck and a senator were laughing about how reporters and soldiers let it be done to them just to see what it is like. I think it would feel much different if it was being done by strangers who you knew wouldn't hesitate to kill you (and that you knew wouldn't stop if you asked them to)

I think a good rule of thumb (regarding what is or is not torture) is not whether you would subject YOURSELF to the procedure...but if you would subject your loved one to it; a wife, child, lover.



I would put waterboarding as a physical torture.  From what I remember reading, the person is getting water into their nose and mouths and they feel like they are drowning and could conceivably drown.  Drowning someone on purpose most certainly causes physical harm, so IMO it's a physical torture.

I'm in the 'maybe' section.  Like needcrayons implied, facetiously or not, how desperate is the situation?  How many lives are at stake?

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,761
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #13 on: December 13, 2007, 11:12:32 am »
I'm in the 'maybe' section.  Like needcrayons implied, facetiously or not, how desperate is the situation?  How many lives are at stake?

Just to clarify, yes, I was being facetious, because on "24" the situation is always as desperate as it imaginably could be. Real life almost never meets that level, where the immediate fates of lots of people rest entirely on information held by an individual.


moremojo

  • Guest
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #14 on: December 13, 2007, 11:15:16 am »
No, torture is never acceptable. I can't believe that a nation founded on Enlightenment principles (one of which is an antipathy to "cruel and unusual punishment") is now engaged in precisely this practice. It shames all Americans.

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #15 on: December 13, 2007, 08:17:20 pm »
No, torture is never acceptable. I can't believe that a nation founded on Enlightenment principles (one of which is an antipathy to "cruel and unusual punishment") is now engaged in precisely this practice. It shames all Americans.

The argument goes "We're in a war.  And in a war, principles get set aside."  Indeed humane behavior does as well.  So much for Enlightenment principles.  In the Civil War, habeas corpus along with other 'civil rights' were set aside.  During peacetime, the rights did come back.

I think it was the Morality Thread we were discussing the hard decisions that have to be made in war.

One that comes to mind is when the Brits broke the Nazi secret code in WWII.  They found out that the Nazis were about to bomb a certain section of English countryside, where they thought some munitions plant or something was.

The Brits had just evacuated hundreds of children out of London to that very area.

What do you do?

Evacuate the children - and risk having the Nazis figure out the Brits had broken their code? 

Or let the children be bombed but in the long run, save more lives and win the war?

I'll let you figure out what the Brits decided on.

In a circumstance where thousands of lives are at stake during a war...what would you be willing to do or condone?

In Israel, you only hear about the terrorist activities they fail to stop.  You don't hear about the ones they do stop.  How do they get the information they need?

In the U.S. we haven't had a real terrorist event happen since 9/11 and the anthrax scare.  Is it because there haven't been any attempts or because the perps have been getting caught?

Terrorism isn't just about the act, it's about instilling fear.  They want to terrorize you with violence or just the threat of violence.  A responsible government would not want to constantly advertise all the terrorist activities they have stopped.  That would cause, fear, anxiety, paranoia and witch hunts to spring up and turn society into a tinderbox.  The government has enough to worry about with foreign problems, much less domestic ones.

Currently one of the big fears is a nuke falling into the hands of terrorists.

needscrayons says s/he doesn't condone torture, because it is rare that one person holds such crucial information.

I'll go for that.

But what if multiple people might hold different parts of the crucial information needed?  When the lives of millions are at stake, how many people tortured is too many compared to what is at risk?

And it doesn't even have to be as dramatic as a nuke.  How about someone flying a plane into a nuclear power plant?  Or the Hoover Dam?  These would be disasters on a massive scale, thousands of lives affected if not lost outright.

[shrug]

That's why I'm a 'maybe'.

moremojo

  • Guest
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #16 on: December 14, 2007, 11:01:55 am »
So, Del, do we only live by our principles when it is convenient to do so? I understand the points you're making, but I find this kind of moral relativism disturbing (I find Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus a lasting mark of shame against him, and not at all admirable). I realize that not very many of us could die a martyr's death, but those who do are among the true heroes. Jesus showed by his example that it is better to be killed than it is to kill. Likewise, it is morally superior to be tortured than it is to torture.

moremojo

  • Guest
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #17 on: December 14, 2007, 03:03:09 pm »
Thanks for reminding us of that, Gary; Jesus is probably the single most important figure in human history.  I should point out here that I am not a Christian, though I do find much to admire in Jesus as a human being and teacher.

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,761
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #18 on: December 14, 2007, 03:16:23 pm »
Thanks for reminding us of that, Gary; Jesus is probably the single most important figure in human history.  I should point out here that I am not a Christian, though I do find much to admire in Jesus as a human being and teacher.

On "The Colbert Report" yesterday, Larry King was the guest. Colbert asked King who he'd most like to interview on his show. And King, who BTW I guess is Jewish, IMMEDIATELY said "Jesus."

His runner-up, BTW, was Abraham Lincoln.


injest

  • Guest
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #19 on: December 14, 2007, 08:33:03 pm »
First, consider the American and European witch trials. During these trials a significant number of people confessed, under brutal torture, to being witches. If torture is an effective means of acquiring truthful information, then these trials provided reasonable evidence for the existence of witches, magic, the Devil and, presumably, God

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/provocations20.htm

Del, studies consistantly show that torture does NOT provide accurate information. People will say anything to get the torture to stop.

If I were a terrorist with the location of a bomb about to go off and I was being tortured...i would give the wrong location...knowing the enemy would look in the wrong place and by the time they figured out I lied, my bomb would have done its work.

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #20 on: December 14, 2007, 08:45:40 pm »
So, Del, do we only live by our principles when it is convenient to do so? I understand the points you're making, but I find this kind of moral relativism disturbing (I find Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus a lasting mark of shame against him, and not at all admirable). I realize that not very many of us could die a martyr's death, but those who do are among the true heroes. Jesus showed by his example that it is better to be killed than it is to kill. Likewise, it is morally superior to be tortured than it is to torture.

Of course we only live by our principles when it's convenient.  We do it all the time.  Do you think WWII shouldn't have been fought and won?

What does your answer to that question say about your principles?

I find Lincoln winning the war admirable.  That was his goal, against all odds.

Jesus - if he existed at all - was a major influence over this world, but unfortunately a poor influence and he failed almost completely at his mission.

He taught to 'turn the other cheek', to 'love thy neighbor as thyself'...

How many who claim to be his followers actually follow his teachings?

Very very very few.  I have Born Again Christian friends who feel being a 'soldier' in God's work is a blessing.  Going out and killing people in a war is perfectly fine for a Christian.  I keep bringing up the contradiction between what Jesus taught and what he says is OK to do, and he simply rationalizes it away:

Jesus would want Christians to survive, so it's perfectly fine to fight battles and kill people who would kill you and destroy Christianity. 

I see here a massive failure of Jesus' teachings to stick.

People who call themselves Christians simply adopt what works for them and ignore what doesn't.  That's how many modern Christians earn the moniker 'cafeteria' or 'cherry picking' Christians.  I see that as people tossing away their principles daily simply because they're inconvenient.

Jess

As for torture, in this day and age, I haven't done a study on it of course, but I'm sure there are drugs that they use, which lowers one's consciousness and awareness, so while someone may say "I'll misdirect them, tell them what they want to hear."...that may not be an option for the person being tortured.  They may be so out of it, they won't know what they're saying.

People in charge of such things would expect people to lie and misdirect.  Like I said, I haven't done any studying on it, but anyone with a basic knowledge of human psychology would know this and have developed countermeasures.

injest

  • Guest
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #21 on: December 14, 2007, 08:54:49 pm »
not according to the studies I have found. Consistantly the information gleaned from torture has been proven incorrect and unreliable.

what does work is the THREAT of torture;

Ironically, while actual torture rarely yields reliable information, the culture of fear created by the threat of torture often motivates people to bring information to those in power

but then we are faced with the question of what kind of society we want....

 First, it seems likely that adopting torture and the threat of torture as weapons would be morally harmful to the society in question. To see that this is likely, one needs to merely consider the nature of societies that have already embraced the use of torture. Second, the use of torture as a means of coercion and intimidation certainly seems to be a form of terrorism. As such, the reduction in one type of terrorism would be, ironically, offset by the increase in another. Third, terrorism is denounced as a moral evil and its alleged opponents, such as George Bush, seem to revel in claiming the moral high ground. However, a society that accepts the use of torture cannot claim the moral high ground-they are walking the same ground as the terrorist

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #22 on: December 14, 2007, 09:12:36 pm »
not according to the studies I have found. Consistantly the information gleaned from torture has been proven incorrect and unreliable.

what does work is the THREAT of torture;

Ironically, while actual torture rarely yields reliable information, the culture of fear created by the threat of torture often motivates people to bring information to those in power

Very likely.  However, honestly, I doubt that anyone who actually had success with a certain torture would want to publish his findings so that everyone would know and then be able to develop countermeasures...we're not told everything.

Quote
but then we are faced with the question of what kind of society we want....

 First, it seems likely that adopting torture and the threat of torture as weapons would be morally harmful to the society in question. To see that this is likely, one needs to merely consider the nature of societies that have already embraced the use of torture. Second, the use of torture as a means of coercion and intimidation certainly seems to be a form of terrorism. As such, the reduction in one type of terrorism would be, ironically, offset by the increase in another. Third, terrorism is denounced as a moral evil and its alleged opponents, such as George Bush, seem to revel in claiming the moral high ground. However, a society that accepts the use of torture cannot claim the moral high ground-they are walking the same ground as the terrorist

Well, simply saying that we're not walking a higher ground morally and are just trying to protect our people destroys that entire argument.  Self-defense is an extremely high ground to walk, just checkout the nation of Israel.


moremojo

  • Guest
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #23 on: December 14, 2007, 09:24:31 pm »
Well, simply saying that we're not walking a higher ground morally and are just trying to protect our people destroys that entire argument.  Self-defense is an extremely high ground to walk, just checkout the nation of Israel.
Not necessarily. Self-preservation is very understandable, but it's not necessarily indicative of high moral or spiritual stature. I offer the example of Jesus again--the failures of most of his followers notwithstanding, he illustrated how the lack of self-preservation can be a moral/spiritual attainment of the highest order.

I realize that principles are discarded all the time out of expediency, but if they are so expedient, what was their worth in the first place? What is the point of fighting a war to "save" the United States when you shred the very constitutional foundation of the country in doing so? At the very least, such people can be honest about what they are really doing.

I have stated elsewhere that  I do find the intentional taking of human life permissable under certain conditions, and used the Second World War as an example. The kind of evil that Hitler and the Nazis represented had to be met with the only kind of power that someone like Hitler understood and respected--brute, violent force. But killing someone swiftly is very different from torturing them needlessly. And I still find much to admire in those that met the Nazis' bullets with gentleness and meekness, and sacrificed their lives in the demonstration of their faith and principle. Just because most of us are unwilling (incapable?) of doing the same does not diminish the potency and beauty of their gesture.

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #24 on: December 14, 2007, 09:45:00 pm »
Not necessarily. Self-preservation is very understandable, but it's not necessarily indicative of high moral or spiritual stature. I offer the example of Jesus again--the failures of most of his followers notwithstanding, he illustrated how the lack of self-preservation can be a moral/spiritual attainment of the highest order.

It most certainly can be...until everyone who believes so is exterminated...then what was gained?  Some people would rather be a live dog than a dead lion - forget any noble sacrifices.  They'd just rather live.

Quote
I realize that principles are discarded all the time out of expediency, but if they are so expedient, what was their worth in the first place?

That's what makes them so precious and the people who DO stick to them very admirable.  They're extremely hard to maintain.  They're doable, but as I pointed out in my Christian example, most people would just rather live their lives and not worry about the morality of the constant compromise that is their lives. 

Quote
What is the point of fighting a war to "save" the United States when you shred the very constitutional foundation of the country in doing so? At the very least, such people can be honest about what they are really doing.

We've already done so, many times in the past, and now and will probably do so again.

If you read the book The DaVinci Code, the author in his afterword, has several interviews and in one he talks with an ex-govt operative.  This operative actually told him that the U.S. government had been secretly wire-tapping its own people for years - in full violation of the Constitution.  Didn't matter.  It was a matter of National Security and no president alive would go against that.  That was back in 2003 when the book was published.  The gods only know how long its been going on.

My best friend in high school was half-Middle Eastern and I don't know where she learned this, but she told me that if someone in the States called certain Middle Eastern countries more than 3 times in a single year, their phones would start being tapped.  She did this one year and all year, we kept hearing strange noises over her phone during conversations - this was back before cell phones.

[shrug]

Quote
I have stated elsewhere that  I do find the intentional taking of human life permissable under certain conditions, and used the Second World War as an example. The kind of evil that Hitler and the Nazis represented had to be met with the only kind of power that someone like Hitler understood and respected--brute, violent force. But killing someone swiftly is very different from torturing them needlessly. And I still find much to admire in those that met the Nazis' bullets with gentleness and meekness, and sacrificed their lives in the demonstration of their faith and principle. Just because most of us are unwilling (incapable?) of doing the same does not diminish the potency and beauty of their gesture.

It doesn't diminish the picture of their sacrifice, but I don't usually find people going to their death like sheep very admirable.  What did it accomplish except make martyrs of themselves, earn world-wide victim status and leave 6 million dead?  In many cases, the victims outnumbered their persecutors.  How much shorter would the war have been if Hitler had had to deal with constant revolts and civil war in his own country while trying to fight a war on two fronts?  If they had to die, IMO, their descendants and the world in general would have been better served by them doing so to help end the war.  As for the torture, the difference is whether we consider it 'needless' or not.

 

Offline Artiste

  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • ********
  • Posts: 15,998
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #25 on: October 18, 2008, 10:46:24 pm »
I prefer LOVE !

Of course, the civilized world does not think that torture is good.

But those who were in the airplanes that hit in 9/11, were they not tortured by the radicals muslims holding them for that terror?

It is a thought that comes to mind... as many countries or individuals view torture as exential for their cause, don't they?


Offline Artiste

  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • ********
  • Posts: 15,998
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2008, 06:46:46 pm »
Torture is never acceptable, but such criminals do it like they did to this innocent young lady who happen to be on the sidewalk or in a shopping mall:

           First man to be tried in death of Jane Creba guilty of second-degree murder
48 minutes ago
 


By Allison Jones, The Canadian Press


TORONTO - He may not have fired the shot that killed 15-year-old Jane Creba, but by participating in a reckless shootout that sent a hail of gunfire through a street teeming with Boxing Day shoppers, the first man to stand trial in the case must bear responsibility for her death, a jury found Sunday.


Creba's 2005 death sent waves of outrage rippling through Toronto and beyond with dismay over the random shooting of the bright young girl on downtown Toronto's busiest street in the waning hours of the busiest shopping day of the year.


The now 20-year-old man, who can only be identified as J.S.R. because he was under 18 at the time, remained stoic after the jury found him guilty of second-degree murder, two of six counts of aggravated assault and five weapons charges.


The Crown exchanged hugs and huge smiles, while the defence was incredulous. Lawyer Mara Greene's tear-stained face spoke volumes about their utter shock.


Outside court, lawyer Gary Grill said "in our combined experiences as defence lawyers, Ms. Greene and I, we've never, ever, ever had a stronger defence case."


They will "obviously" be appealing, he said.


"We maintain our client's innocence and we will not stop fighting as far as we can go in order to make sure that everyone knows that he indeed is innocent."


The defence called no evidence, but in his closing remarks Grill said the Crown's allegations defied common sense.


The Crown alleged the group of men J.S.R. was with that day escalated a confrontation with another man, Jeremiah Valentine, by pulling guns out, which prompted Valentine to allegedly fire the first shot.


One of the shots that came from Valentine's gun is the one that killed Creba, piercing her back and exiting her body at the base of her throat, the Crown said.


In her closing arguments, Crown attorney Kerry Hughes likened it to street racing, and the courts have said if one driver involved in a street race kills a bystander, both drivers are guilty.


Three guns were fired that day: Valentine's .357, a .25-calibre pistol and a 9-mm Ruger.


Though J.S.R. was arrested carrying the 9-mm gun, the defence argued that another man, Louis Woodcock, was the one who fired shots with that gun, then handed it off to a naive and underage J.S.R.


The Crown alleged J.S.R. took Woodcock's gun and began shooting after Valentine fired the first shot.


The fact that Woodcock brought the gun downtown that day and had it when the shooting began was in the agreed statement of facts and apparently gave the jury trouble, as they went back to the judge with a question about it.


Valentine, Woodcock, five other adults and one youth are charged with either second-degree murder or manslaughter in the case and are expected to stand trial next year.


As the jury's deliberations dragged into a fourth day, many began to wonder if the jury of 11 people (one was excused for personal reasons) would in fact be able to reach a unanimous verdict.

"Of course as time went on we all started thinking, as everybody else here did, as to which way it was going to go," lead investigator Det.-Sgt. Savas Kyriacou said

"(But) I knew what the right thing was and I knew that ultimately they would come up with the right decision."

The defence, however, was stunned.

"I can't explain this jury's verdict," Grill said. "Most of the observers can't explain this jury's verdict. It really is confounding for us."

In his closing arguments last week Grill urged the jury not to let anger over Creba's senseless death cloud their judgment, but outside court Sunday he suggested that's exactly what happened.

"That's obviously what goes through our heads right now, but I don't know and we'll never know what this jury was thinking," Grill said.

Kyriacou said he knew the jury would make the right decision.

He said he spoke with the Crebas and they are also satisfied with the verdict.

When Kyriacou heard the word guilty in the courtroom he said many things went through his head, but primarily the young girl who was shot while shopping with her sister then lay dying on the cold street that day.

"We've been thinking about Jane since Dec. 26, 2005," he said.

"We always think about Jane and I'm sure anyone that's a parent or has siblings or loved ones would also think about her."

A date for sentencing will be set on Thursday.

             


..........

So, these murderers will not be hanged because that would be torture? Better to hang them instead of letting them murder again, again, again.. innocent peoples ! ?

Here is a pic of Jane, the innocent person shopping....
and the one holding the newspaer is or was the girlfriend of the murderer(s) !!!

Offline HerrKaiser

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,708
Re: Torture: Is It Ever Acceptable?
« Reply #27 on: December 09, 2008, 01:38:10 pm »
Experts on information-getting techniques generally concur that newer means of engaging captives and creating a nearly mentoring scenario with friendly overtones is more effective in getting bad guys and girls to talk.

the problem is, that takes time.

when there are only seconds or minutes or even hours to avert a disaster, time is of the essence and mafia tactics need to be employed to do whatever is necessary to get information, imo. Experts also agree this works, just with a somewhat lower rate of good info, but again, when you don't have time to nurture a relationship, gotta act.