Netflick's "Daredevil" & Torture

[happyninja42]

DareDevil is a unique case in my mind, since he actually knows what information is true and what it a lie

I guess this is the part that really throws a wrench in the moral conundrum.

But couldn't one simply use "trust, but verify" as justification if they don't have the ability to know immediately if the victim is lying? Just because you've extracted the information and stop the torture at that moment doesn't mean you can't pick it up again if the victim turns out to be lying after you check the information.

The fact that Daredevil does torture people for information, isn't a statement about the validity of the act for other people. It's a fictional situation, with a fictional character, who has a fictional super power to actually be able to discern truth from lie. None of us have that. And in a dramatic show, that builds tension in an hour long episode that a life is hanging in the balance, and every second counts, the hero simply doesn't have time to trust but verify. He has to act on the information he gets immediately, so he has to use the most direct, harshest methods to get it.

The difference between this fictional interrogation, and real life interrogation, is that there is no way to instantly confirm accuracy of the statement. In a real torture moment, a person will say whatever he thinks you want to hear, to get you to stop hurting him. And in real life, if that is what the torturer wants to hear, then yeah he's going to stop. "I got him to admit that it was Billy that stole the car" But Daredevil can actually tell if that statement is true or not, and can then go "Nope, that's bullshit, I know it is, tell me the truth" Once he hears that, he's done. He's working out of a different playbook than your typical "torture for information" scenario.
And if you want to get technical about it, I doubt Daredevil's power would actually work when the person is already stressed. He says he can tell a lie by your heartbeat speeding up. But if you are already panicked, in pain, bleeding, and winded from running from him, how likely is it that your heart rate is going to change enough to distinguish life from truth? So it's already a false premise anyway.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

I find it funny when people complain about torture in Daredevil and 24. Yet the criminals and terrorists get a free past to do what they want. lol. End of the day its not real, its a tv show and people need to stop taking real life issues and using them against entertainment. After all every person he tortures are a known criminal anyway so who cares. Oh the libs and the poor victimization of criminals.

 

[That1Guy]

I would agree with your point, but the Netflix series is making Daredevil look morally sketchy on purpose. He and Kingpin are supposed to be two sides of the same coin in this series, morally grey characters that are just one step from being the very thing they set out to destroy. Kingpin's the "infiltrate and destroy from the inside" guy who ends up getting his hands dirty with some of the most reprehensible crimes a person could possibly imagine, and Murdock (Daredevil) is the guy that channels all his inner rage at the terrible thing crime has done to his city through his fists, beating his victims within an inch of their lives in some cases. So Daredevil torturing people is supposed to make you feel uncomfortable, to make you question his actions in a moral sense. Yes, he is the 'good guy,' but they does not make him The Man Without Flaws. It's one of the things that makes this series so interesting for me.

Also, I like how they gave Kingpin a character other than the stereotypical crime boss/ fake businessman he's been depicted as for years, it's great.

[Edit] I'm just now realizing that at this point, I'm just reiterating points that others have already made in this thread. Please just enjoy my terrible Man Without Flaws pun

 

[theNater]

I find it funny when people complain about torture in Daredevil and 24. Yet the criminals and terrorists get a free past to do what they want.

The criminals and terrorists don't get a pass. They get punished, in the form of being arrested/beaten/killed by the protagonists.

 

[briankoontz]

The primary purpose of torture is not information extraction - it's terror and the creation of fear among the target group. It's an intimidation tactic, saying "do what we want, or you'll end up like this". Or euphemistically - "the establishment of peace and order". OUR peace and order.

"Information" is mostly a cover, not that the line-level torturers don't believe it themselves - it's better that they do. Information gained can sometimes be useful, but as stated many many times by professionals previously, torture is a bad way of gaining intelligence.

It's perhaps a given in the "noble" United States that American media depicts torture done by "bad guys" as how I describe - a way to define power relations and to intimidate others currently not being tortured. The error is to define that same torture done by "good guys" as being nothing like this, as having the noble end of "saving lives through gaining useful information", which is widely recognized by people not beholden to domination by American imperial ideology as utterly bogus.

 

[happyninja42]

The primary purpose of torture is not information extraction - it's terror and the creation of fear among the target group. It's an intimidation tactic, saying "do what we want, or you'll end up like this". Or euphemistically - "the establishment of peace and order". OUR peace and order.

"Information" is mostly a cover, not that the line-level torturers don't believe it themselves - it's better that they do. Information gained can sometimes be useful, but as stated many many times by professionals previously, torture is a bad way of gaining intelligence.

It's perhaps a given in the "noble" United States that American media depicts torture done by "bad guys" as how I describe - a way to define power relations and to intimidate others currently not being tortured. The error is to define that same torture done by "good guys" as being nothing like this, as having the noble end of "saving lives through gaining useful information", which is widely recognized by people not beholden to domination by American imperial ideology as utterly bogus.

Lol, ok first off, nobody in this thread is defending what Daredevil does, or at least none that I saw. The original question was what do we think of the good guy using it to get information. If the question is asking "what do I feel about this in the real world" then my answer is: I think it's a terrible thing, and neither side should engage in it. But this isn't the real world. This is a fictional show, about a dude who somehow got super senses powers because some chemicals spilled in his eyes as a kid. He's a walking lie detector that sees with his nose and ears, it's funadmentally a stupid premise no matter how you slice it. In a fictional world, whatever needs to happen to support the story is going to happen. And this could be anything from the hero torturing people to get information, to ridiculously over the top villains, who do an evil-monologue even though there is no point to do it. Because it's drama, and drama doesn't always follow the rules of reality. And it shouldn't. I don't waste any time on the morality of what Daredevil is doing, because it's just a show. I watch it because I enjoy it so far, and that's it. When it's over, I go do something else, and pay it no further notice.

If the question is "what do you think the validity of his method for obtaining information" Well then I have to say it's a pretty effective one. Because like I said before, he's got a built in lie detector, that's apparently accurate (in the comic universe anyway). So as far as it being an effective method of gaining intelligence, sure, it's super effective. Do I think it makes him much better than Kingpin? No not really, but that's sort of the point of the show, how similar the two of them are to each other, and how hard Daredevil struggles to leash his rage. It makes a for a good story.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

I find it funny when people complain about torture in Daredevil and 24. Yet the criminals and terrorists get a free past to do what they want.

The criminals and terrorists don't get a pass. They get punished, in the form of being arrested/beaten/killed by the protagonists.

Your not understanding me. People complain about what daredevil does - he tortures etc etc No one says "Wow, that baddy beheaded an enemy with a car door, that disgraceful" i just find that funny. Anyway, punishment with a bit of torture thrown in is great. Its a TV show and people need to stop getting so offended by it. Real life torture - that stuff needs to be dealt with, but treating entertainment as reality is stupid. Or are we now going to complain about Jason Voorhees being a mass murderer? Or the guy from Breaking Bad selling drugs? Also remember Daredevil isnt a police officer. He is accountable to no one and can do what he wants.

 

[happyninja42]

Your not understanding me. People complain about what daredevil does - he tortures etc etc No one says "Wow, that baddy beheaded an enemy with a car door, that disgraceful" i just find that funny.

I think the reason nobody bothers to point those types of examples out is because they are so obviously wrong. I mean, does it really need to be stated that crushing a dude's head with a car door is a bad thing? It's usually understood that the stuff the "bad guy" does is, by default, bad. It's what makes him the bad guy. The discussion really only is warranted, when they depict a heroic character doing morally questionable stuff. Because now the question of "is it ok/not ok?" is relevant.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Your not understanding me. People complain about what daredevil does - he tortures etc etc No one says "Wow, that baddy beheaded an enemy with a car door, that disgraceful" i just find that funny.

I think the reason nobody bothers to point those types of examples out is because they are so obviously wrong. I mean, does it really need to be stated that crushing a dude's head with a car door is a bad thing? It's usually understood that the stuff the "bad guy" does is, by default, bad. It's what makes him the bad guy. The discussion really only is warranted, when they depict a heroic character doing morally questionable stuff. Because now the question of "is it ok/not ok?" is relevant.

Thanks for the reply, that makes a lot of sense. I think if you put yourself in Daredevils shoes he is on his own, cant trust the police as they are owned by the criminal, how else do you solve your mission? How do you get the information? Maybe torture isnt the best way but if its the only tool you have then thats what you use. Atleast he did it to scum bag criminals.

 

[DrOswald]

I am totally cool with a protagonist doing dark shit so long as it is depicted as being wrong and presents an internal conflict for the protag.

Here's the thing, the first time he does it, it's NOT depicted as wrong. It directly leads him to being able to save a child from a hostage situation.

Is it when he's with the Nurse? She didn't react to it very well IIRC, but that could have just been because he put the guy in a coma. I'd have to watch the scene again.

I'm talking about how he would simply not have been able to save the child without resorting to torture.

It was a lose-lose situation but torturing a man was better than not doing so. That's a interesting precedent to set.

Well, the idea of such a lose-lose situation is realistic. Not particularly that one, as we have discussed the unique traits of Dare Devil that let him use torture effectively, but a situation where the only route to the preferable final outcome is morally bankrupt is realistic.

I just watched the scene and I really don't think what he did was depicted as a "good" thing. It was more a thing that he did than the right thing to do. I think the idea they are trying to get across is that black and white morality breaks down under scrutiny. What is right in this situation? Embracing torture of the guilty, or letting an innocent die? In a vacuum you would never condone either but when they are opposed, as they can be in a complex world, we have a moral dilemma that is interesting, thought provoking, and gives us insight into the character.

The point is not to say that the decision he made was good and right or evil and wrong. Agree with his decision or not, it tells us something important about how Dare Devil views and reacts to the world.

 

[happyninja42]

Your not understanding me. People complain about what daredevil does - he tortures etc etc No one says "Wow, that baddy beheaded an enemy with a car door, that disgraceful" i just find that funny.

I think the reason nobody bothers to point those types of examples out is because they are so obviously wrong. I mean, does it really need to be stated that crushing a dude's head with a car door is a bad thing? It's usually understood that the stuff the "bad guy" does is, by default, bad. It's what makes him the bad guy. The discussion really only is warranted, when they depict a heroic character doing morally questionable stuff. Because now the question of "is it ok/not ok?" is relevant.

Thanks for the reply, that makes a lot of sense. I think if you put yourself in Daredevils shoes he is on his own, cant trust the police as they are owned by the criminal, how else do you solve your mission? How do you get the information? Maybe torture isnt the best way but if its the only tool you have then thats what you use. Atleast he did it to scum bag criminals.

And your comment is the crux of this debate. xD Is it ok to let the "hero" do the same actions that make the "villain" look evil and unrepentant? It's a good debate, and I have no answer to the "right answer" of it. Other than my previously stated opinion that it's just a fictional show and I'm not really going to waste much mental effort on it. xD

 

[kyp275]

snip

Leave it to the internet to find a way to turn a discussion about the conduct of a fictional superhero into a way to bash America.

"Heya, how much is that hot dog?"

"OMG I HOPE YOU DIE YOU DIRTY AMERICAN IMPERIALIST!!!"



*slowly backs away*

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

Q1: I think it's already been said to death that Daredevil has a built in lie detector that's pretty damned accurate. So he can keep torturing the guy until he gets the truth. If he lies, hurt him a little more. It definitely shouldn't work for guys like Batman, but it does and I think we all know why.

Q2: For Daredevil, or any other character with superhearing, it's plausible. In other situations, it's to make the character dark or gritty. I somehow doubt it's a right wing thing.

Q3: Nope. I don't care if some fictional scumbag that's trafficking humans or something like that get's his arm broken or is thrown off a roof. I just cant' bring myself to give a damn.

Q4: No, and I don't know why anyone would even want this.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

I am totally cool with a protagonist doing dark shit so long as it is depicted as being wrong and presents an internal conflict for the protag.

Here's the thing, the first time he does it, it's NOT depicted as wrong. It directly leads him to being able to save a child from a hostage situation.

Is it when he's with the Nurse? She didn't react to it very well IIRC, but that could have just been because he put the guy in a coma. I'd have to watch the scene again.

I'm talking about how he would simply not have been able to save the child without resorting to torture.

It was a lose-lose situation but torturing a man was better than not doing so. That's a interesting precedent to set.

Well, the idea of such a lose-lose situation is realistic. Not particularly that one, as we have discussed the unique traits of Dare Devil that let him use torture effectively, but a situation where the only route to the preferable final outcome is morally bankrupt is realistic.

I just watched the scene and I really don't think what he did was depicted as a "good" thing. It was more a thing that he did than the right thing to do. I think the idea they are trying to get across is that black and white morality breaks down under scrutiny. What is right in this situation? Embracing torture of the guilty, or letting an innocent die? In a vacuum you would never condone either but when they are opposed, as they can be in a complex world, we have a moral dilemma that is interesting, thought provoking, and gives us insight into the character.

The point is not to say that the decision he made was good and right or evil and wrong. Agree with his decision or not, it tells us something important about how Dare Devil views and reacts to the world.

I think the more interesting part of that scene is how Claire reacts to the torture. We know Daredevil does tons of illegal shit for the greater good, a lot of the times when he beats someone up he could probably be charged with assault.

But Claire is at first against the torture. Only when the guy talks about selling the kid for sex is when she comes on board and helps Daredevil torture the guy. But then she freaks out when he drops him off the roof, so it was a lot more revealing of her character and where she draws the line.