That's the thing, I'd feel sympathy for Harry, but not his action. I wouldn't attempt to justify his action and hold it up to any degree of 'good' based on my feelings for Harry--that's not just, and is instead bias. Therefor, his motivation shouldn't even matter to me. I'm playing the devil's advocate here and acting as how the judge of a court would judge this. IF Harry tried to prevent rape by setting the rapist on fire during the crime, then yes, I believe his actions would be pardoned since it's 'self defense.' BUT, if he goes and sets someone on fire AFTER the rape, then that's questionable, and requires further investigation.
Okay, but if you are the judge or jury on both Bob and Harry's trial you might favor convicting both of murder, but surely you wouldn't hand down the same sentence, would you? That Bob, a sadistic, evil fuck who burned somebody alive for his own personal amusement, and Harry, an otherwise decent person driven to vengeful rage by the brutal rape and murder of his family, would receive the same sentence seems self-evidently unjust to me.
Because I think there are better ways to extract information than torture regardless of if the suspect is a spy (or even a criminal) or not.
I think there are normally better ways too, but during war, ordinary morality is often bent or disposed of entirely. If you have enemy troops invading your country, and there is a spy network wreaking havoc on your ability to militarily defend your nation, and you have a captured spy who ain't talking for shit, well, you're probably going to resort to torture. It all depends on how desperate the situation is, how bad you need the info, and if other methods prove ineffective. Again, context matters. And the spy knows damn well that his actions could lead to torture and or execution going into it.
Much different case of torturing a civilian. In the case of war, when it comes to spies and non-uniformed insurgents, torture may be a necessary evil, in which case the relative immorality of the action is dependent on the end it serves and which side holds the moral high ground (e.g. it would be more immoral for the aggressor nation to torture spies during wartime than for the defending nation to so-- arguably the Brits torturing German spies during WWII was more justifiable than the Germans doing the same to British spies).
To me, it's the same as prison executions. I see that as wrong since there have been many cases when the verdict was wrong, and innocent people were executed.
It's not the same because executing a criminal serves no good that life imprisonment in segregation could not also achieve. It's pretty well-established it does not serve as a deterrent, at least not in the US.
As far as International law goes, I disagree with you on that one because that point really was full of shit. If it really is fine to torture randoms based on someones suspicion that a person is a spy, I think that contradicts with the on going debate about torture use in America, and not to mention Obama's closing of Guantanamo Bay.
here is the quote from Wiki:
Here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TortureI wasn't talking so much about current international law on torture as much as there being a historically different standard on what is acceptable treatment for spies vs. soldiers or civilians. It's long been considered much more acceptable in the Western world to subject spies to torture or summary execution than it is to do those things to civilians or soldiers. And under the Geneva Conventions, while POWs and civilians in occupied territories are afforded certain protections and may not be lawfully executed, spies are excluded from these protections and may be subject to any punishments under the laws of the countries in which they are operating, including execution.
Sure, I don't deny your standards for personal satisfaction--personal being the important word there. But, likewise, I still fail to see why it's necessary for one to know, since rationally speaking, it doesn't change anything, and nor does it make the clip any less barbaric. I questioned your original question based on that reason.
Whatever, man. Whether it's "necessary to know" or not by your standards or mine is irrelevant. If a claim is made here, I don't expect to be criticized or questioned for asking for evidence of that claim. It's not "necessary to know" a lot of the shit people ask or talk about here or anywhere else.
Topic: Five people suspected of witchcraft burnt alive in Kenya