6 ms·

> Their illegal behavior weakened the rights all of us depend on. I disagree. It's good to be wary of this sort of thing, but Australia (where this happened) d

by chroma 11y ago

> Their illegal behavior weakened the rights all of us depend on. I disagree. It's good to be wary of this sort of thing, but Australia (where this happened) doesn't seem to have a police brutality problem. Had the police done the legal thing, an innocent child would have been cooked alive. So in this case, I'm glad they broke the law. Laws and morals don't always agree. When they disagree, that is a failing of laws, not morals. Many things are illegal, but moral. For example, it may be necessary to steal or trespass to help save a life. Sometimes, despite your best efforts, those actions are for naught, and the person dies anyway. Does that make those actions wrong? No. And in those cases, you'd be hard-pressed to find a DA willing to prosecute. I'm OK with that. Again, I think torture should be illegal. I think programs like the CIA's extraordinary rendition are abhorrent. I think Guantanamo Bay will be rightfully condemned by future generations. I'm certain the post-9/11 institutionalization of torture has caused far more harm than good. But I also think that torture can, in some cases, be morally justified. And I think my example demonstrates that.

ridgeguy 11y ago
I'd feel better about the Stanford example you cited if the cops' use of torture had been disclosed - that is, if they had been held accountable for using illegal methods. The law recognizes extenuating circumstances such as those in the example, and provides reasonable outcomes - the DA/Grand Jury could have declined to charge, a jury could have declined to convict, a judge could have vacated a jury's conviction, and/or the governor could have pardoned them if they were sentenced. Under the circumstances, I think the cops would not have been punished. I'd endorse that outcome, given the facts. But instead, the cops committed crimes and covered them up. That's bad for us, because it reduces transparency of state conduct. Basically, it's bad for our society if its police use illegal force without accountability. If the right thing, the moral thing to do in a particular situation involves breaking a law, well ok, but we all (through the law) should know about it and we should all (through the law) hold accountable those who acted illegally. That doesn't mean they'll be punished - but IMO moral conduct must include accountability. I think a better view of these types of situations is to affirm that torture is never legal, nor is it moral - but it might on rare occasion be an effective tactic to achieve a better outcome. But accountability has to be part of the picture. I think if we had held that as our standard of conduct following 9/11, we would not have Guantanamo as a national shame today. The law can help when morality drifts due to fear and panic.

by chroma 11y ago

ridgeguy 11y ago

I'd feel better about the Stanford example you cited if the cops' use of torture had been disclosed - that is, if they had been held accountable for using illegal methods. The law recognizes extenuating circumstances such as those in the example, and provides reasonable outcomes - the DA/Grand Jury could have declined to charge, a jury could have declined to convict, a judge could have vacated a jury's conviction, and/or the governor could have pardoned them if they were sentenced. Under the circumstances, I think the cops would not have been punished. I'd endorse that outcome, given the facts. But instead, the cops committed crimes and covered them up. That's bad for us, because it reduces transparency of state conduct. Basically, it's bad for our society if its police use illegal force without accountability. If the right thing, the moral thing to do in a particular situation involves breaking a law, well ok, but we all (through the law) should know about it and we should all (through the law) hold accountable those who acted illegally. That doesn't mean they'll be punished - but IMO moral conduct must include accountability. I think a better view of these types of situations is to affirm that torture is never legal, nor is it moral - but it might on rare occasion be an effective tactic to achieve a better outcome. But accountability has to be part of the picture. I think if we had held that as our standard of conduct following 9/11, we would not have Guantanamo as a national shame today. The law can help when morality drifts due to fear and panic.