Who SUPPORTS violating the law to save a life?

[RetiredGySgt]

Ok lets get this out in the open. Who actually supports violating the law to achieve a goal? Knowing this will allow the criminal to walk on all charges INCLUDING murder?

 

[1srelluc]

Care to flesh that out a bit more?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

we have a thread about the kidnap and murder of the Jogger in it a poster claims the cops should have tortured the perp to get him to talk and tell where she was. He claims that lots of people support his position and cited likes to a couple posts to back it up I want those people to either admit they would violate the law or say they would not.

 

[konradv]

we have a thread about the kidnap and murder of the Jogger in it a poster claims the cops should have tortured the perp to get him to talk and tell where she was. He claims that lots of people support his position and cited likes to a couple posts to back it up I want those people to either admit they would violate the law or say they would not.

The problem with torture is that the more it’s used, the more it’s needed.

 

[hjmick]

The problem with torture is that the more it’s used, the more it’s needed.

That's not the only problem...

 

[lg325]

Is it okay to blow up abortion clinics to save unborn lives? No. Why? There is a peaceful system called democracy where citizens can work against injustice without violence and by the law. As far as the young woman who was kidnapped, raped, and murdered hunting the criminal down illegally and using torture would not have saved her life. Doing it legally may make sure all other women are safe from him.

 

[BackAgain]

There are shades here. If the cops capture a kidnap suspect, and if they say “screw Miranda because a woman’s life may be in danger” then it is possible that his words will end up being used against him even if he had been questioned and even if he gave it up after “torture.” But it’s far more likely that his words will not be able to be used against him nor anything derived from those words. So, yeah. He could walk.

And it gets worse. What if the victim (as in this awful case) has already been murdered? Wouldn’t the risk of allowing the killer to evade a conviction be a compounding of the tragedy?

There are all kinds of exceptions and exceptions to exceptions. But maybe saving the victim’s life is a higher value than worrying about losing the opportunity to convict the kidnapper/murderer?

 

[Canon Shooter]

we have a thread about the kidnap and murder of the Jogger in it a poster claims the cops should have tortured the perp to get him to talk and tell where she was. He claims that lots of people support his position and cited likes to a couple posts to back it up I want those people to either admit they would violate the law or say they would not.

I'm pretty much a staunch "law & order" guy.

Once we violate the law, even in the name of some greater good, we become criminals, and there's just no escaping that fact...

 

[dblack]

Ok lets get this out in the open. Who actually supports violating the law to achieve a goal?

Criminals?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Is it okay to blow up abortion clinics to save unborn lives? No. Why? There is a peaceful system called democracy where citizens can work against injustice without violence and by the law. As far as the young woman who was kidnapped, raped, and murdered hunting the criminal down illegally and using torture would not have saved her life. Doing it legally may make sure all other women are safe from him.

Cutting his throat and hanging him upside down would definitely make sure all other women are safe from him.

 

[SavannahMann]

There are shades here. If the cops capture a kidnap suspect, and if they say “screw Miranda because a woman’s life may be in danger” then it is possible that his words will end up being used against him even if he had been questioned and even if he gave it up after “torture.” But it’s far more likely that his words will not be able to be used against him nor anything derived from those words. So, yeah. He could walk.

And it gets worse. What if the victim (as in this awful case) has already been murdered? Wouldn’t the risk of allowing the killer to evade a conviction be a compounding of the tragedy?

There are all kinds of exceptions and exceptions to exceptions. But maybe saving the victim’s life is a higher value than worrying about losing the opportunity to convict the kidnapper/murderer?

Ok. So let’s play this out. The kidnapper murderer goes free because he was tortured. That is about all that could happen by the way. So he then kidnaps another. Do we again torture him to get the information again? How many victims do we line up for him to satisfy our insane desire to torture him?

 

[BackAgain]

Ok. So let’s play this out. The kidnapper murderer goes free because he was tortured. That is about all that could happen by the way. So he then kidnaps another. Do we again torture him to get the information again? How many victims do we line up for him to satisfy our insane desire to torture him?

How about we do as I suggested which was not to commit torture?

If we knew that scumbag 1 had buried a victim ALIVE at an unknown location WITH a small and dwindling supply of oxygen, it might make sense to risk losing a criminal case against him in order to try to save the victim’s life. Because it might be that otherwise, you preserve the right to prosecutes him but sacrifice any chance of saving the victim in the process.