Netflick's "Daredevil" & Torture

[Abomination]

So I have been enjoying the first 3 episodes of Daredevil but there have been two scenes that have sat somewhat off with me.

Without going into too many spoilers, Daredevil is able to extract information from two goons on two separate occasions using what could only be described as torture.

One case is essentially a life and death situation of an innocent and the other is information pertaining to an elaborate conspiracy.

The "problem" is that Daredevil would not have been able to obtain this information at all or in a timely manner without torture and both were successful.

I had thought series were moving away from this kind of depiction of torture, especially after watching Burn Notice which would (almost routinely) inform the audience that torture does not generate reliable information.

What is your feeling of torture being used by the "good guys" when it actually results in useful information?

Is it plausible or just right-wing ends-justify-means wank?

Does it make you dislike/despise the protagonist when they engage in torture? Even when it effectively saves lives?

Since torture is illegal should it also be illegal for media to depict torture resulting in a "good" outcome?

 

[Zontar]

DareDevil is a unique case in my mind, since he actually knows what information is true and what it a lie, and tends to stop the moment he gets what he wants out of the perp. On top of that, he's a very grey hero to begin with, the Netflix series going to great lengths to remind us that he's just one small step away from becoming one of the villains he's fighting against.

As for its representation in the media, I say "no, it shouldn't be illegal", not only for the artistic reasons, but also because there are a lot of things which are illegal the media depicts as being able to be turned around for "good", or at least a lesser evil, in a morally cloudy story.

 

[Abomination]

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.

 

[Lilani]

I often feel like it's a cheap way out, and as the OP said I often wonder how they know the information isn't false (unless the character can somehow tell truth from lies), but how much it takes me out of the story depends on the context and the character doing the torturing. As much as I love NCIS, the show is really prone to abusing this sort of thing and stretching it's viability, and it annoys me.

Since torture is illegal should it also be illegal for media to depict torture resulting in a "good" outcome?

Nah. There are plenty of things which are illegal which are allowed to not only have good outcomes but can be glorified in media. Besides, here in America we are perfectly fine with torturing terrorists, so what's it even matter? Fuck standards of humanity, we will take eyes for eyes and teeth for teeth. Amirite?

 

[Thaluikhain]

In most cases, it's rubbish, and tends to promote a dodgy ideology. Now, drag someone to an ATM and demand their PIN, and that;d work, because that's simple and you can check right away. Detailed information, that you have to wait some time to see if it's accurate? Not reliable at all.

Generally, it makes me despise the protagonist, because they haven't saved lives, the contrived situation the writer has come up with has.

But...make it illegal to depict like that? That's a massive overreaction, getting into really murky grounds, and doesn't apply to similar crimes, AFAIK.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

As someone already pointed out, it's sort of apples and oranges here.

One of DD's abilities is that, thanks to his ability hear heartbeats and notice incredibly subtle changes that a normal human couldn't, he already knows that the person is lying to him. So torture actually would work in his case, because he knows when people are lying, and even when he puts the person under the duress of torture, he'll know if they're lying to him during the torture as well.

To me, though, it actually works well within the context of the show, because (and granted I'm only on EP 4) the first season seems largely to be about showing how he doesn't 100% know what he's doing yet. He's largely flying by the seat of his pants and making things up as he goes. That's why his tactics are frequently "walk in and fight everyone and hope for the best". So it's to be expected that he might use tactics and ideas that aren't going to be the best.

I'm kind of hoping they don't rein him in too much as the show goes on. One of the things I didn't like about Arrow was how they activated a "no kill" policy with him in the 2nd season, so now he's basically just Batman all over again.

 

[Veldel]

I never understood why people have such a problem with torture in any forms of art hell I loved that mission in GTA5

OT: im only on episode 2 but im really loving the show so far

 

[xaszatm]

Well, that's kind of the thing with this incarnation of Daredevil. Daredevil knows that he is just like the criminals he faces, and he's willing to stoop to their level in all cases except for murder. It's the running theme behind Daredevil, how far is too far? You've seen in the second episode how there are people who are hesitant (at least at first) to watch someone get tortured. I think its shown to show how close Daredevil really is to his enemies, especially when you get the episodes that show who the main villain is. You will see how similar they are and why their difference in where they draw the line is the most important difference between them.

 

[Callate]

I don't think anything should be "illegal" to suggest in a fictional narrative. I'll grant I was surprised (...and appalled... and occasionally sickened...) to hear some on the right using a show like "24" as justification of real-world "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation" techniques, but it was almost as appalling to hear those they shared the panel with usually fail to respond with the obvious: "It's a fucking television show; how did you ever get to a position to make policy decisions on this scale if you can't tell the difference?"

It's also not black-and-white within a fictional narrative; it's possible for a comic book villain to be so foul, and their motives (if their motives can even be said to exist) so despicable that they become impenetrable to an audience's sense of empathy.

But I will certain acknowledge that characters drawn that way are usually not the result of good writing, and in any narrative with aspirations to depth and complexity, the act of torture should cause one to question the torturer's decency and mental state.

 

[Fappy]

I think it fits the character and gives a good sense of where his head is at. The main point of Matt's character arc throughout this first season is the question: how far is he willing to go? Is he willing to stoop to the badguys' level in order to stop them? While he gets results from it I think the writers make it clear he is doing something very wrong. 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.

 

[Abomination]

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.

 

[Fappy]

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.

 

[Abomination]

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.

 

[Tommasaurus]

So I have been enjoying the first 3 episodes of Daredevil but there have been two scenes that have sat somewhat off with me.

Without going into too many spoilers, Daredevil is able to extract information from two goons on two separate occasions using what could only be described as torture.

One case is essentially a life and death situation of an innocent and the other is information pertaining to an elaborate conspiracy.

The "problem" is that Daredevil would not have been able to obtain this information at all or in a timely manner without torture and both were successful.

I had thought series were moving away from this kind of depiction of torture, especially after watching Burn Notice which would (almost routinely) inform the audience that torture does not generate reliable information.

What is your feeling of torture being used by the "good guys" when it actually results in useful information?

Is it plausible or just right-wing ends-justify-means wank?

Does it make you dislike/despise the protagonist when they engage in torture? Even when it effectively saves lives?

Since torture is illegal should it also be illegal for media to depict torture resulting in a "good" outcome?

While the conversation about torture is an interesting one to say the least, making it illegal to depict torture as being effective is, in my opinion, dangerous thinking to say the least. It's that sort of moral absolutism that led us to things like the Hayes and Comics codes which demonstrably stifled creative works for decades.

 

[wulfy42]

It's not true that torture never works. It works 100% of the time when used against certain types of people. It doesn't work nearly as often vs others, but if you had the ability to tell if someone was telling the truth (without them knowing you could) that would certain increase your chance of getting accurate information from torture. As far as it being bad, there is a difference between a society accepting torture as a necessary evil, and one man, working outside the law, doing so. Vigilanteism itself is not a good thing to propose or paint in a good light, but there are multiple shows on right now that are doing so anyway. In the show "Arrow", torture has also been used more then once to get answers, so it is certainly not unique, even right now, to daredevil.

Does using torture make you as much of a monster as the people you are fighting against? I say not even close. You are only hurting those that hurt others, and doing so to prevent suffering. Can it lead you to eventually becoming like them, not caring about the suffering of others in the pursuit of what you want? I think that depends on the individual, and having not tortured anyone myself, I certainly can not make an educated guess about how torturing someone would affect you.

I do think people are inherently empathetic, able to identify with the feelings of others, or not. If a person is not naturally selfish, but is forced to be in positions where they cause suffering to others, this could eventually burn out their ability to feel for others, cause small pains and harm to no longer register, and therefore, eventually make them unable to empathize with people as much as they originally could. So yes, in that way I can see how torturing others could eventually lead you to being more like the "bad guys".

I think a larger problem with such shows is not that it condones torture when fighting evil, or vigilanteism, but that the bad guys would win, completely and totally, unless a hero (or more then one) was there to fight them. In real life the bad guys often do win, but normal people can make a difference. If you look out for your neighbors and they look after you, if you do what you can to help people in need and work to make the world a better place, you can make a difference. Yes, you may get taken advantage of, you may cause more harm then good sometimes or have efforts wasted, but if you keep trying to make a difference, you will. Not only by your own actions, but by inspiring those around you to try as well, and showing them that good people exist and care. I think we need more TV shows that put forth that message, instead of the message that a man in a mask is needed to save the day.

 

[Tommasaurus]

It's not true that torture never works. It works 100% of the time when used against certain types of people. It doesn't work nearly as often vs others, but if you had the ability to tell if someone was telling the truth (without them knowing you could) that would certain increase your chance of getting accurate information from torture. As far as it being bad, there is a difference between a society accepting torture as a necessary evil, and one man, working outside the law, doing so. Vigilanteism itself is not a good thing to propose or paint in a good light, but there are multiple shows on right now that are doing so anyway. In the show "Arrow", torture has also been used more then once to get answers, so it is certainly not unique, even right now, to daredevil.

Does using torture make you as much of a monster as the people you are fighting against? I say not even close. You are only hurting those that hurt others, and doing so to prevent suffering. Can it lead you to eventually becoming like them, not caring about the suffering of others in the pursuit of what you want? I think that depends on the individual, and having not tortured anyone myself, I certainly can not make an educated guess about how torturing someone would affect you.

I do think people are inherently empathetic, able to identify with the feelings of others, or not. If a person is not naturally selfish, but is forced to be in positions where they cause suffering to others, this could eventually burn out their ability to feel for others, cause small pains and harm to no longer register, and therefore, eventually make them unable to empathize with people as much as they originally could. So yes, in that way I can see how torturing others could eventually lead you to being more like the "bad guys".

I think a larger problem with such shows is not that it condones torture when fighting evil, or vigilanteism, but that the bad guys would win, completely and totally, unless a hero (or more then one) was there to fight them. In real life the bad guys often do win, but normal people can make a difference. If you look out for your neighbors and they look after you, if you do what you can to help people in need and work to make the world a better place, you can make a difference. Yes, you may get taken advantage of, you may cause more harm then good sometimes or have efforts wasted, but if you keep trying to make a difference, you will. Not only by your own actions, but by inspiring those around you to try as well, and showing them that good people exist and care. I think we need more TV shows that put forth that message, instead of the message that a man in a mask is needed to save the day.

I kind of like it when the bad guys win every now and then to be honest, keeps things nice and interesting if you know your hero isn't infallible.

In regards to what you are saying about torture and it's effectiveness; I can see what your getting at there however there has been at least a couple of recent major studies that indicate that it tends to be largely infective so really cannot be condoned under normal circumstances HOWEVER in this particular case with daredevil's ability to tell whether or not they are lying with his super hearing means that Daredevil can make torture almost totally effective.

remember daredevil can not only tell if someone is giving him false information but also he can tell if they are withholding information by asking them if they are telling him everything

this in turn raises some interesting moral questions, does Daredevil have not only the justification but the moral responsibility to torture someone in order to save a life?

is the SHORT TERM suffering of one bad person truly to high a price to pay for even one life?

 

[Fappy]

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.

Just because something is effective doesn't make it right. That, coupled with Matt's struggle with whether he should kill or not, is the central conflict of his arc. In the real world torture is abhorant, but people wouldn't have used it all throughout history if it never actually worked. The show gets to kind of sidestep some of the isues with torture because Matt can sense when someone is lying.

I don't think simply looking at the result is a good way to gauge whether or not a story is condoning an action. Clearly he is struggling with his actions, despite the good it is doing, hence the frequent visits to the priest.

 

[Abomination]

Just because something is effective doesn't make it right.

Of course not, but in this case it was both effective and saved the life of an innocent child at the cost of a career criminal. It was also the ONLY way Daredevil was able to save the child. If no torture was employed there'd be a dead child. In this case torture was the righteous act.

I don't think simply looking at the result is a good way to gauge whether or not a story is condoning an action. Clearly he is struggling with his actions, despite the good it is doing, hence the frequent visits to the priest.

I don't ever presume to guess what the story, author or producer is "condoning" by the content of their creation unless it's explicitly delivered. I do not believe Daredevil is condoning torture but in the case of the missing child the rooftop torture was the ONLY way that child would survive.

 

[Fappy]

Just because something is effective doesn't make it right.

Of course not, but in this case it was both effective and saved the life of an innocent child at the cost of a career criminal. It was also the ONLY way Daredevil was able to save the child. If no torture was employed there'd be a dead child. In this case torture was the righteous act.

I don't think simply looking at the result is a good way to gauge whether or not a story is condoning an action. Clearly he is struggling with his actions, despite the good it is doing, hence the frequent visits to the priest.

I don't ever presume to guess what the story, author or producer is "condoning" by the content of their creation unless it's explicitly delivered. I do not believe Daredevil is condoning torture but in the case of the missing child the rooftop torture was the ONLY way that child would survive.

Maybe it's just that torture was the only way Matt saw to deal with the situation. He was on edge, running out of time and pissed off. I'm not so sure we're explicitly told torture was the only way the kid could be saved, but that's really just up to interpretation.