One third support 'some torture'

[mr_a500]

I am totally against government, military or police torture as a method to get information.

However, using basic human instinct... if a child, spouse, relative or close friend has been brutally tortured or raped, then I fully support torturing the guilty person - with the following conditions:

1. Torturing can NOT be done for a simple quick murder like shooting someone or crashing a plane. In those cases, quick revenge death is enough. You can only torture someone who has brutally tortured or raped.

2. Torturing can only be done BY the parent, spouse, relative or close friend of the victim - NOT by governments, military, police or people not directly affected.

3. Guilt must be proven 100%. If you torture the wrong person by mistake, THEIR relatives or friends are free to torture YOU. (personally, I'd commit suicide if I brutally tortured the wrong person by mistake)

[mr_a500]

Every being in the universe knows right from wrong.
Let me tell you something. You humans, most of you, subscribe to this policy of an eye for an eye, a life for a life, which is known throughout the universe for its... stupidity.

Unfortunately, this is nonsense. Most beings that we know of (life on Earth), ruthlessly do whatever is necessary for their own survival. "Right and wrong" or "fairness" is a human invention. Social animals (including humans) have developed a method of dealing with other group members that looks like fairness - but it is merely a way to improve chances of survival. If you hog all the food and your group members starve, there is no one left alive to help you get more food. It is well known that this "fairness" disappears in situations where personal (or offspring) survival is at stake.

It is a tragedy, but overall, life has absolutely nothing to do with fairness. Just about every life form is killing and consuming other life forms. If there is a God monitoring day to day activities, he certainly doesn't care about fairness or justice. Otherwise, how can innocent grazing sheep be butchered and served up for dinner for a CEO of a huge corporation that is polluting and raping the planet for profit?

I don't see it as 'acceptable, providing we attach x,y and z conditions', I see it as wrong. Full stop.

Torture is a horrible evil thing. If this horrible evil thing is done to someone you care about, I don't see how you can ever get over it until you get at least a bit of "anger releasing justice".

Imagine you have a beautiful 5-year-old daughter who was kidnapped, brutally raped for weeks, tortured with cigarette burns, beaten with a pipe, then left for dead in the woods. She lives, but with permanent physical and psychological damage. She will never be the same again. She survived, so the villain is not charged with murder and only gets 12 years in prision. With good behaviour, he can get out in 6-8 years.

Imagine you see the {bleep} in 7 years and he's smiling and laughing at you. He "served his time" so he's free. Meanwhile, your whole family is permanently damaged. How could you live with yourself? Wouldn't you feel more "closure" if you could have caught the {bleep} before the police did and spent a few weeks damaging him? At the least, you need to have done something that permanently reminds him why he shouldn't have done it. (maybe cutting off his genitals and feeding them to your dog?)

[mr_a500]

Such atrocities cannot be done when someone is sane (though it may look like, insanity can be very well hidden).

I don't agree. Some people who could be considered sane do horrible atrocities. There seems to be a percentage of the population that has no empathy. They can't "feel" another beings' pain or suffering. A person with no empathy can easily torture or butcher someone because they don't make the connection with that person's pain.

There are lots of people who have no empathy for "food" animals - skinning snakes while they're still alive (in Vietnam), boiling live lobsters, clipping the eyes and mouth parts off living crabs, confining and force-feeding cows for veal. I've seen live pigs packed on a truck in Korea - the pigs packed on top of each other 3-deep with the ones on the bottom getting crushed and screaming loudly. The truck went over a speed bump and the screams were horrible to hear. The driver didn't care. These people without empathy for animals could probably just as easily have no empathy for people and still be considered "sane".

The point I meant to highlight was that "an eye for an eye" is stupid.

What are your thoughts on that?

It depends on the situation. In some cases, Jesus is right - it's best to "turn the other cheek". In other cases, you just need to kick some ass.

[mr_a500]

There's a big difference between people who has no empathy, and people who have an urge to cause pain (or have an unstoppable urge to have intercourse). It can be proven that such a person actually IS ill.

Yes, of course there are some that are mentally ill too. I was pointing out that not ALL are atrocities are done by someone who is insane, replying to your statement "Such atrocities cannot be done when someone is sane (though it may look like, insanity can be very well hidden).".

Some commit atrocities because of group peer pressure, to get publicity, or even just out of curiosity (a couple cases, the morons said "I just wanted to see what it was like"). It is these people that have a total lack of empathy because if they had any empathy, they couldn't possibly do what they did.

[mr_a500]

...to quote Einstein:
'an eye for an eye leaves us all blind'.

I was wondering when that quote would come up. Did Einstein actually say that? It doesn't really seem logical. "An eye for an eye" would ONLY leave us ALL blind if exactly one half of us are guilty of the horrible crime of personally poking out someone else's eye - the other half being victims. If this is the case, we SHOULD be all blind.

True "eye for an eye" justice leaves only the criminal and the victim "blind". (Einstein was probably referring to stupid endless "blood feuds" and cycles of revenge - where family groups stupidly don't accept the justice done and try to get "revenge" for something that they started in the first place...or the "justice" was done badly and affected some innocent people who then need to get their own justice...and so on)

Still, I don't believe in the death penalty. I don't think any government or organisation has the right to put someone to death. (only personal "eye for an eye" justice when necessary - if 100% sure of guilt)