Is This Torture

[dairygirl4u2c]

some have advocted taht torture is different than killing in that torture the person is no longer actively aggressive. but, if they are for executive for unishment, they really can't use that argument. it simply comes down to ends and means justification arguments.

[Aloysius]

I don't see torture as punishment every being justified, it does not seem to logically follow from any crime... the only crime it might logically follow from is if that person's crime was torturing someone else, then the "eye for an eye" scenario is in play; but Christ converted the mentality of eye for an eye, so that is not always valid (we do not steal from thieves, we do not rape rapists, et cetera). I would answer the eye for an eye justification for torture as punishment with the rape of rapists scenario. It simply cannot be done without the person who administers the punishment losing his own soul in the process; similarly, torturing someone takes a toll on the person doing it, the act of torture is such an inherent evil that it simply cannot be carried out by any person without that person sinning themself, the same way rape is an inherent evil. killing, however, is not; killing can be justifiable as just punishment, both rape and torture could not be justifiable as just punishment.

but again, other than the eye for an eye, I see no crime that torture logically follows from, certainly not terrorism; whereas execution logically follows from the crime of murder (not because of "eye for an eye" but because of the principal of forfeiture, that when one uses his own life to end anothers life, his life as the source of the end of the other's life is forfeited by that action, homicide is a form of suicide, and the state may make that clear by causing his physical body to react to that reality, or it may choose to allow him to live by way of mercy, thus giving him back the life that he forfeited. but any life which is the source of death no longer belongs to the person who caused it to be so. "whosoever sheddeth a man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed" is, in fact, a much different concept than "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"

[dairygirl4u2c]

would you only limit execution to murder? cause if you allowed it for other crimes, then it wouldn't follow given the arguments you've made given torture.
it seems like if you'd allow execution for other crimes, you could use torture for terrorist acts or other crimes.

at least, by your reasoning, it seems like you could say... if you rape another, you've raped yourself.
it seems like fluff to say if you kill another, you've killed yourself. like some budddist nonsense. in order to get around teh eye for an eye argument. it seems like you have to concede that you're doing an eye for an eye.

though if i forced that conclusion, then execution couldn't be used to punish murder, and execution couldn't be used to deter others as that'd be justifying the means. so essentially execution would be unjustifiable.
unless the person might get away and kill again. the idea being that if you're going to kill another, your life would be diminished. i'm not sure how you'd get around ends justifying the means argument though.

i must be missing something, or catholics have to concede that an eye for an eye or justifying th means is true. at least sometimes.
i guess you could define preventing someone from killing another as not bad, but, if you could do that, i don't see how you couldn't define other things as not bad. unless it's just an inherent thing, absolute truth as defined by the catholic church, and arguably, "reason".
note my cynacism on the latter claim, but i could see the argument.

Edited November 25, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

an eye for an eye was not abolished by Christ, it is still an absolutely true statement of justice, but Christ converted it with an exhortation to mercy, He revealed that there was a higher order of things whereby one another's eye was poked out, the act of not poking out the aggressor's eye actually has the amazingly unexpected result of the spreading of peace whereby many more eyes will not be poked out than would have been had you simply gone for basic justice. this same idea can (and has been, especially but not limited to in the modern age when the Church has begun to argue against the death penalty in nearly all cases) be applied to execution, the idea that mercy and forgiveness can and will breed peace.

execution is separated in justification by the bible, the Bible does not include a life for a life in the eye for an eye scheme of things, it says "whosoever sheddeth a man's blood by man shall his blood be shed". this is completely different reasoning than an eye for an eye; the reasoning in the case of an eye for an eye is that the victim deserves that retribution, the reasoning with execution is that the man himself has forfeited his life and he himself deserves to die.

the reasoning goes like this: every human being has the right to their life, provided their life does not end the lives of any other human being. when one's life becomes the cause of the end of another's life, then that murderer's life is, by definition, a life which causes death. by using your life to cause death, you cease to fall under the definition of someone with the right to live, you forfeit that right because you have proven that when you live, others die; it becomes even more necessary that execution be done if it is shown that if you continue to live, others will continue to die.

execution is most justified in the case of murder; it is also justified by extension of this reasoning to other grave crimes, with the understanding that their crime was the cause of the potentiality of human death, thus they made their life an active force for death, and any active force of death does not have the right to continue since it violates the rights of every other person to live.

but the same does not follow for torture; one cannot say "you have the right to live without being tortured so long as your life is not the cause of someone else's torture", so long as one either has the right to live, or it is given back to them in mercy by a benevolent state after they have forfeited it, they have the right not to be tortured. since torture itself is a grave crime, you could say "you have the right to live so long as your life is not the cause of someone else's torture"; torture is a grave crime that can be seen, by extension, to be an active force towards the death of others.

one can forfeit his right to live, one can never forfeit his right to live humanly if he is to live. because forfeiting your right to live means you have been expedited to face final judgment because your life on earth has proved to be a negative to the continuation of human life; and that is something which every human being must do eventually, but no human being deserves to live like anything other than a human being. whereas death is absolutely human, the state of being tortured is an inhuman state.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]whereas death is absolutely human, the state of being tortured is an inhuman state.[/quote]

i wasn't really following you until you said this. this is an interesting argument. i can see how you'd say they are different now. there is a certain inherent difference here then, in the act of torture or death to the person being inflicted.

i'm not sure execution of an other is a humane action though. i'm sure most theologians would say it's not, at least unless it's an extreme situation. i'd bet JPIIwould have said only when the person might escape or in order to deter in a special situation. i doubt he'd be all about punishment for the sake of punishment.

i'll look up that bible quote to see if there's anything that could justify killing, say Joe Blow because he saw his wife cheating on him. he's not going to blow up the world trade center. if we executed consistently, it might be a deterrent, but. yeah. i dunno.

[Aloysius]

But one individual's life cannot be a means to the end of deterring future crimes in society; that person must merit the execution, and only then can

JPII did not abolish the traditional Catholic teaching on the principal of forfeiture, he affirmed it and then said BUT the state should, in mercy, give the person's life back to them (though they do not deserve it) unless it was absolutely necessary that execution be done because they cannot be contained et cetera. It's all in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. He proposed the idea that the state had a moral obligation to grant mercy when it had the means to contain the criminal and this is where the harsh statements against the modern death penalty come in. But, even though some in the hierarchy began to carry that message to an extreme that said the death penalty was basically murder in principal, this was all always meant to be understood in this framework; ironically, the ends of both frameworks are the same (to abolish the modern death penalty), but the means utilized by the teaching of the CCC and JPII were accurate within the scope of traditional Catholic moral theology.

death is human because human beings will all eventually die. torture is not human because human beings are not ordered towards eventually being tortured.

but the sin argued against by the current hierarchy is the sin of refusing mercy to one who has forfeited his life over to the state when you have the means to be merciful. People who extend this into being against executions in principal (rather than in practice, which is permitted) have stepped outside of the scope of Catholic teaching, they have been swept up in the current of the heresy of modernism by a philosophy which springs from the Enlightenment's rejection of life after death; because with a rejection of life after death, many of my arguments here would be weaker (though they could still stand) because we would not be expediting the final judgment but eternally ending that life with no final justice or mercy.

[HotRod]

Hmm, i have read this thread with much interest. For me, the treatment of suspected terrorists and Iraqi insurgents is much more than a hypothetical situation to play through in my mind. I am at the end of my 2nd tour of duty at a Internment Facility for just the type of people we are talking about. In my 12 months of experience with detainee's, I can honestly say, I've thought of just about every evil thing possible that I would like to do to these guys, but I've also met some were were decent Iraqi people, and found myself praying for the release of the ones who have been wrongfully accused and imprisoned (there are more than a few)

But I can also say, i have never actually contemplated torturing or beating or doing anything of that sort to any of them. First as a Catholic, I find the idea morally repugnant. If that was part of our mission here, I dont think I would remain in the US Armed Forces. I think it is hugely important for us to try to maintain the moral high ground, not only because it is the right thing to do, politically, another incident like Abu Graib or a confirmed sanctioned torture, would be a disaster to our efforts in the region.

[dairygirl4u2c]

would you find it morally right, if you knew the person had the info to save millions? i realize that knowing is very unlikely, so tough real torture would be very limited in use in a good situation.
perhaps i'm not cynical enough, and should be aware if we allow it in theory, it might be abused. i don't think so too much, and if a few mistakes are made, it's rare, and that's life.

what about lesser forms, like water boarding, or whatever it's called?

you're there. i find it hard to put myself in the situation. i can feel that it'd be difficult to do, gnereally. but when i think about the proprotionate nature of the torture to whatever they know, i don't find it so bad. i think i could in good faith use rough torture on someone if they know info that would save millions from dying.

you have a much better perspective there than i do.

[HotRod]

Sleep deprivation doesn't bother me in the slightest, it is used in mild forms in all levels of interrogation and interview, and used in Military training as well. I'm not a trained interrogator, but i have been a Cop for 12 years, so i've done a few interviews.
As has been stated above, the ends can never justify the means, so as a Catholic desiring to remain in full communion with the Church, I am obligated to be against torture, even if I THOUGHT I would be serving the greater good. From what I've heard, although I dont have the training to know firsthand, torture derived information is not always reliable. Besides, the real world is very rerely like an episode of 24.

As for waterboarding, I think it is torture. If I use the perspective of how I'd ike to be treated, and tht is a benchmark I use here often, I would consider myself as being tortured if waterboarding was used on me, i dont like water and it would be absolutly horrific experience for me. Now, if they sleep deprived me, to a reasonable extent, i would notconsider myself as being tortured.
Is it a subjective benchmark, yup. But this isnt always a black and white world.

Edited December 2, 2007 by HotRod

[Aloysius]

yes, the extent of the sleep deprivation is key. anyone with experience with insomnia knows that there is a point where you might lack the energy to resist against questioning, but then there is also a point where you begin to really suffer from absolute exhastion; when there are extreme headaches as your brain just wants to shut down. one cannot take them to the point of suffering, bringing them to the point of suffering is torture.

keeping them up past their bedtime, though, isn't going to bring them to a point of suffering. ask any college student: an all-nighter never brought suffering to anyone (well, make sure they have a proper understanding of the term "suffering"; they might say they suffered going to classes the next day, but that's not "suffering")... when you get into 2, 3, 4 all-nighters without sleep, the line is crossed there in just about everyone... the line is different for everyone, of course, but you really have to err on the side of not causing suffering... my personal record of staying awake is 5 days, and I didn't feel like I was suffering (though if it had been forced rather than voluntary, it may have been suffering: the way you don't suffer if a dentist pulls out your teeth (you just feel pain) but if a terrorist started pulling out your teeth for no reason, you would suffer)... the world record is 11 days by a guy named Randy Gardner; though from what I understand he would've probably been pretty useless to interrogators (If he needed to be interrogated) for the last 5 days or so, when his speech became slurred and he was in a sort of conscious unresponsive state... i mean, he was conscious but probably not up to answering questions about where the nuclear bomb was hidden in NYC lol

I say one all-nighter of interrogation is probably an acceptable means of wearing down their refusal to answer. Any more than that will push the limits into torturous realms; leaving them with a few hours of sleep a night for a few days while they are being interrogated could also be acceptable.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]i'm not sure execution of an other is a humane action though.[/quote]

i realize that you're bound by catholic tradition. so, if it says execution is not an inherently unnatural action, you have to beleive it. and i realize the tradition you've brought up. and maybe that you inherently think executing for punishment is inherently different than torture for punishment.

i guess torture is worse, because the act to teh person is unnatural, and the actual occurance to the person is unnatural. whereas wieth execution, the actual accurance is natural as people die but the act i argue is not natural.
so i see that they are not in the same park.

but still, execution is still analogous enough to ask... why is the act of executing natura? do you ultimately rest on an inherent judgement call that the act of execution is natural?


also you hinted that execution cannot be used to deter others. that is consistent with yoru torture ideas, and commendable in that regard. but, if execution is not wrong, how can it be said to be evil? if not evil, how can you be said to be justifying the means? afterall, the whole idea of justification of means argument is taht you cannot do evil to acheive a good end. so if it's not evil, why can't you use execution purposefully to deter, at least as long as it's coupled with an arguably good punishment?

Edited December 3, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[HotRod]

The Church's teachin on the death penalty, is not that is is allowable for the punishment value, it is that it is allowable if it is the only recourse for a society to protect its citizens. Its kind of like self defense on a society scale.

(CCC #2267)"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

"If however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

"Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

[dairygirl4u2c]

thanks hot.

i wasn't clear about it but was moreso wanting al's response. he'd argue i think, you can use execution liberally, to risk a political tone by saying that.

it's interesting though you're more consistent cause you say you ant to use execution very rarealy, whereas some do not.

[Aloysius]

One must understand the Catechism's quote in the light of the tradition it is re-affirming then re-formulating. The tradition it re-affirms is the teaching of it as a punishment in itself which justifies it; the limitations put onto it in modern times suggesting that it only be done when it is a version of self-defense is not part of the Church's traditional teaching, but a prudential suggestion that mercy be offered unless in addition to the traditional requirements, the person also still poses a danger to society.

the traditional teaching is that of forfeiture, that a killer forfeits the right to his own life if his life causes death, and that all who are guilty of grave crimes deserve death, and it is the state which has the decision as to whether they receive what they deserve or not.

dairy, a just execution (one in which the criminal deserves that execution) is not evil. but since a person's life is sacred, it must first and foremost be established that the person deserves that punishment in and of himself, as an end in himself. there can be secondary arguments (I did indicate that in passing in a previous post) about deterence, so long as first and foremost it is a just execution based on that human person as an end in himself who deserves that punishment. but one ought to avoid attempting to justify the death penalty in principal by the arguments of deterence, because whether or not it will deter, the first and foremost question must center around that individual human being who will be executed, he must be looked at as an end in himself first and foremost; secondary effects which include deterence can be good, though.

the act of execution is natural insofar as any life which is the cause of death has forfeited its right to live. one's right to life only remains so long as one does not use that life to end other lives, if one does, then that life is bringing the balance of life and death into the negative, instead of being +1 for life in the world, at the first murder done it is 0 for life in the world, the life of the murdere into the world, the life of the victim out of the world. at two murders, that person has become an effect of -1 for life in the world, then with ever other kill it subtracts another life. At the moment it's at 0, the life is forfeit. A human person retains his right to live when his life causes the natural +1 to life in the world (ie by being born, he's one additional life). if his living causes another death, that's + 1 - 1 = 0, there is no longer a postive contribution to life in the world, thus no right to life... with more deaths it's a negative contribution to life in the world.

I'm all for using execution very rarely, I don't have a big problem with that; that's the Church's current effort; but I want people to understand WHY that is, that every time one does not execute someone who deserves execution by their grave crime, they are showing mercy and granting that person a life which they no longer deserve. It's NOT following the natural law, it's transcending the natural law based upon the higher law of mercy. That's the difference between opposing the death penalty on Secular Enlightenmnet principals, and opposing it on Catholic principals. So then, on the same token, every time one who actually has committed a grave crime gets executed, that person receives what they justly deserved (even though one may question if a state may have sinned in refusing to grant mercy when they could/ought to have)

Remember-Edmund deserved death in the Chronicles of Narnia. He was not spared on the basis that he did not deserve death, he was spared in spite of the fact that he did indeed deserve death according to the natural law which was written in Narnia.

[jeffpugh]

good post Aloysius. Btw, I can't believe this thread is still going... it's quite torturous...

So as an aside, what do you think is the best way of excecution?
(if this question is too weird, feel free to brush it off)