A recent BBC survey of 27,000 people from 25 different countries indicates that roughly one third of the world's population support the use of torture in prisons. This is a bit disconcerting, but not suprising considering the current state of the world. We all have the need to feel safe and most of us will go to varying degrees of extreems to have that feeling. If putting extra bolts on your front door, installing extra smoke detectors in your home, or buying a licenced firearm helps you feel more secure then who am I to criticise.
Generally, the definition of torture is the infliction of severe pain or mental suffering, especially as a punishment or as a means of persuading someone to give information. However, this level of pain and/or mental suffering would vary from person to person as we all have different pain thresholds.
In extreems of definition smacking an unruly child could be seen as torture, but so could denying a child the right to watch their favourite television programme (mental suffering) if they have mis-behaved. As a parent I would consider these acts as disipline (although I am against smacking, but have used it on rare occasions), but someone with different views may consider them as excessive and torturous.
The Geneva Convention prohibits the use of all torture and cruel and degrading behaviour, and all the countries surveyed have signed up to it, but it is worthy to note that countries where political violence and torture have been more prevalent in recent history are more willing to accept torture than others who have had a longer history without it.
This factor could be put down to desensitisation, or simply an apathetic acceptance of life situations. It could also be a nurture-learned acceptance through the religious, or political beliefs, of the parents and /or educational establishments in each environment. Without experiencing life in these countries it is impossible to comment fairly as to why torture is more acceptable than in other countries.
However, I have detracted slightly from the main point of this blog. Is torture right or wrong?
From a moral standpoint, yes, torture is most definately wrong.
However, it has been used to great effect and has possible saved thousands of lives throughout history, but does this make it right. Does obtaining information through any means neccesary to save lives justify the pain and suffering of one individual, who is most probably only doing his job as an employee of his countries government or monarchy. Does it state in his contract of employment, written or unwritten, that the risk of torture is part of his job and must be accepted?
I know in the old war films torture was depicted, and officers were often told not to give up their secrets. The phrase "Death before Dishonour" being bandied around like a magic shield, but were soldiers really expected to keep their mouths shut as their captors tortured them in many graphic ways that I won't describe here as youngsters may read this post (although they are probably taught about it in schools).
I don't know, but it wouldn't suprise me if there were unspoken rules regarding captivity and what would be expected of you as a prisoner of war which, ultimately, is why this survey was conducted.
Some people would probably even argue that they (our captors) would do it to us, so we have the right to do it to them, but does this make it right.
Throughout history torture has been used in wartime, by religious establishments and by individuals, to obtain information that is considered to be important or beneficial, and I suppose if people with knowledge were not instructed to keep it to themselves then torture would not have to be used as a means to get an advantage over the opposition.
It has also been used as a way of inflicting nasty and painful death on people considered to be wrong-doers in the eyes of the person ordering the torture. In this second case torture is most definately wrong.
In the first case (torture to obtain knowledge), well, at the end of the day I don't know. I feel that it is morally wrong, but is it not also morally wrong to risk the lives of thousands of people by not allowing it, people you and I could be related too. I am going to have to sit on the fence with this one. I cannot and will not condone it, but cannot see an alternative where lives could be saved. Eutopia does not exists yet, and probably never will.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Very true and accurate point Leak. I think I am at the point of falling of the fence.
However, what alternatives do we have? In this time of terrorism and fear knowledge is needed to counteract, and prevent, mass catastrophe. Yes, our 'intelligence' groups can intercept emails, and scour the web for 'keywords' but how many people who are planning wrong-doings are stupid enough to use real words in their communications. They will use code words to hide their tracks.
On the other side of this though, how many wrong-doers are fed false information to throw their potential captors off course.
It's a no win situation and, sadly, until tolerance and acceptance becomes the 'norm' these attrocities will continue no matter how the general population feel.
Propaganda is marvelous... do as I say don't do as I do.
This debate has been around in various forms for so many years now. At the end of the day all governments and people in authority are a law unto themselves, and do not teach by example but by fear, intimidation, or deprivation. In the UK most people you ask about voting and elections will apathetically say 'it makes no difference, they're all the same'. This is a sorry state of affairs, but it does seem that all politicians are only out to line their own pockets.
The trouble is this causes people not to vote, so at the end of the day the same party gets in time and again under the illusion that it is popular and therefore must be doing things right. This is happening in a 'civilised' society where crime is soaring as it is one of the few outlets people have to air their views and make ends meet. The government responds by making more laws to imprison people, and by increasing taxes and stealth taxes further to pay for these changes, which innevitably don't happen as planned.
These tax increases cause further poverty, ill-feeling, and increased crime rates... and the circle goes on.
Change needs to happen, but it can't in the society we currently live in.
The governments don't want the changes, even if they claim to, because it lines their pockets and sets them up with a nice big pension while the rest of us scrimp to make ends meet... and it's spiralling. Eutopia does not exist, and never will.
That is the precise problem, the lack of future planning. This is what has caused the country's present state, along with the opposing parties childish attitudes that compel them to change things that have been instigated by another party whether they are working or not.
The current labour policy seems to be, if it's working... fix it, but this is true of so many parties over history.
We need a forward thinking politician who is not just hot air (maybe that should be bottled and sold as 'green gas') but who will act as well, putting real world solutions into force that will benefit the long-term well being of this country and the entire world...
Any volunteers?
Post a Comment