khizarsaud
Forum Addict
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 1
- Messages
- 281
Can anyone define torture, it is not protected in our consitution by the amendment" cruel or harsh punishment".
So a parent grounding their children from watching TV for 2 weeks would be torturing their kids?Torture in my book is anything unpleasant for the victim that goes on for prolonged periods of time.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
In this business of legislation, your members of Congress will loose the restriction of not imposing excessive fines, demanding excessive bail, and inflicting cruel and unusual punishments. These are prohibited by your declaration of rights. What has distinguished our ancestors?--That they would not admit of tortures, or cruel and barbarous punishment.
But Congress may introduce the practice of the civil law, in preference to that of the common law. They may introduce the practice of France, Spain, and Germany--of torturing, to extort a confession of the crime. They will say that they might as well draw examples from those countries as from Great Britain, and they will tell you that there is such a necessity of strengthening the arm of government, that they must have a criminal equity, and extort confession by torture, in order to punish with still more relentless severity. We are then lost and undone.
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
So a parent grounding their children from watching TV for 2 weeks would be torturing their kids?
I'm certain the kids would find it unpleasant, and I'm sure 2 weeks constitutes as a prolonged period of time.
That may be an accepted definition in general terms, but not in constitutional terms.Torture is when someone experiences something that they find extremely displeasing, so yes if the kids find it extremely displeasing and causes them discomfort or pain (mental or emotional), it is torture.
That may be an accepted definition in general terms, but not in constitutional terms.
Well, Jimmy stated one above:Well really there can't be constitutional definitions of torture because its all personally based.
the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
If someone takes pleasure in those aforementioned activities they would be masochists. If someone for some random unexplainable reason took pleasure and gained no pain from having boiling water poured on there back, then inflicting such a 'punishment' on them would not be torture. Quite frankly, no one would be stupid enough to continue such a 'punishment' if someone took pleasure from that. I digress, just because 0.0001% of the population are immensely different, does not mean you cannot solidify a definition.If someone likes being excessively taxed or given cruel or unusual punishment, do they not apply to the laws? Because then it wouldn't be torture.
The actual wording of the Bill of Rights (1791) is as follows:
When discussing the ratification of the Constitution, Patrick Henry wrote:
This pretty clearly condemns torture as unconstitutional. As for the definition of torture, the one offered by the U.N. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984) is satisfactory:

