Evidence gathered by torture is legally suspect because it derives from psychological damage. It's usually wrong.
Gathering wrong information will not break a case. Good forensics and good detective work get far more satisfactory results without corrupting the relationship between the police and the people.
Let's imagine the police are allowed to torture and do so when they perceive a need. That need will have a tendency to expand. If a suspect -- or even a hostile witness -- is "taken downtown", chances are they will sing like a canary, and tell the police whatever they want to hear, to avoid having their genitals shocked or pins driven under their fingernails. The lyrics of the song will be whatever the police want to hear. Is it true? Who cares? The important thing is to get the hell out of the police station.
You can expect a lot fewer people to come forward with information, too.
Let's train our officers better and get them the equipment they need. Rubber hoses and cattle prods not included.
Current Events » in reply to I think it would be more cruel to leave a victim abandoned somewhere.
There is absolutely no evidence that anyone would be saved by allowing brutality to become ensconced in our legal system.
The whole thread (40 posts)
- A poll
- The poll is now closed
- Once you start doing that, no self-respecting garbage can will accept your body. Plus, it almost never gets the victim back alive. Plus, the guy has not been convicted yet. etc. (n/t)
- my vote
- A scifi example
- An unusual situation
- I think it would be more cruel to leave a victim abandoned somewhere.
- There is absolutely no evidence that anyone would be saved by allowing brutality to become ensconced in our legal system.
- And if the police have 10 suspects?
- I think it would be more cruel to leave a victim abandoned somewhere.
- re: A poll
- re: Never -- and Carlie Brucia's body has just been recovered . . .
- depends on what you call torture
- Torture