评论
打印
It is doubtful that torture can be confined to extreme situation and not become routine.
我们无法确定酷刑可以局限于极端情况下而不会变成一种例行程序
McCoy sites evidence that to get useful information it is usually necessary to torture many most of whom will not or cannot reveal anything very useful.
McCoy援引证据提出要得到有用的信息我们通常有必要酷刑很多人其中大多数不会或者不能提供什么有用的信息
If so the hope of being able to confine torture to a few extreme cases is unrealistic.
如果果真如此那么想要将酷刑限定在
In general, it is not predictable who has truly vital information and who will break.
一些极端的案例下就是不现实的一般而言我们无法预测谁有真正关键的信息
The broken say anything incriminating the innocent including themselves,
谁会屈从让步那些屈服的人会说出任何归罪于包括他们自己在内的无辜者的信息
whereas the strong prepare to die making torture in those cases unreliable or worse than useless.
而意志坚强的人宁死不屈使得酷刑变得不可靠无意义
McCoy says, and this has been mentioned by other speaker that FBI interrogators claim, persuasion and gaining trust
刚刚其他的发言者也讲到 McCoy指出FBI的审问员称说服嫌疑人赢得他们的
and confidence are far more effective methods to gain truly useful intelligence, though those methods have their own problems.
信任和信心要远远有效得多能够得到真正有用的情报当然这些方法也有各自的缺陷
Dashuitz is not the utilitarian many think him.
Dershowitz并不是许多人所认为的功利主义者
That misperception is based on his lively presentation of the utilitarian case for torture
这种误解来自于他对于酷刑的功利主义案例的生动描述
and of the likely hood from informal pose that ticking bomb torture would get popular support on utilitarian grounds.
以及定时炸弹酷刑在功利主义基础上会得到大众支持的
His hope seems to be that by instituting torture we could secure procedural justice and accountability
可能性比率的表述他希望通过规范化酷刑我们可以保障程序上的公正问责
but interrogation torture is procedurally a moral disaster.
但是酷刑在程序上就是一个道德灾难
The problem is not preemption, preemptive interventions can be justifiable, Dashuitz has an interesting book on that too.
问题并不在于抢先干预抢先干预可以是有正当理由的
The procedural problem is that although torture is more severe than criminal punishments, interreges have not been found by tolerable standards of evidence, guilty of anything.
Dershowitz对此也写了一本有意思的书过程的问题是尽管酷刑比刑罚处罚要更为严重酷刑者并没有足够的证据证明有过错
