Society claims to be pro- human rights, yet the same individuals amongst society are prone to torture others. Torture is an act of giving one excruciating pain, either physically or physiologically, in the means of getting information or simply being cruel enough to feel pleasure by someone else’s pain. Torture is an act that was used many hundred years ago by empowers who brutally used such techniques to governance their empire. Although humans have moved out of that era, many feel as though this cruel system should and can still be used. Many individuals amongst society believe that torture is absolutely necessary in extreme conditions but what they fail to realize is that regardless of how intense the situation may be, torture cannot be justified. Torture is a vindictive and inhumane act because it can be misused on innocent people, there are many physiological affects afterwards, the interrogators are negatively affected, and the information extracted from individuals is unreliable.
Primarily, torture is erroneous because often times, it is unjustifiably used on innocent people. Many individuals resort to torture others without having any clear evidence that the victim is wrong and deserves what they are being put through. This can be seen clearly by what the US government did to individuals they assumed were suspects following 9/11. The 9/11 attacks are a series of terrorist attacks launched by the al-Qaeda upon New York City and Washington DC. Subsequent to these attacks, once the government started investigating, they arrested many individuals, without any reason, if they felt as though they had part in the activity. Some dense reasons given to the arrests included the names of those held captive matched those of the suspe...
... middle of paper ...
... not only affect the victim negatively but also has some serious impacts on the torturers themselves as they are to live with the guilt of what they have put others though. Lastly, many individuals feel as though torture is absolutely necessary as it should be used in extreme cases. However, the information given by individuals being tortured is not reliable enough for a country to waste time and money on. Because of such reasons, torture should not be used and remain immoral. (I NEED A CONCLUDING SENTENCE)
Works Cited
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/waronterror/p/torturelite.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/08/opinion/l-arrests-after-9-11-are-we-safer-006750.html http://www.irct.org/what-is-torture/effects-of-torture.aspx http://protorture.blogspot.com/ http://www.constantinereport.com/psycho-self-mutilation-the-traumatic-effects-of-torture-on-the-torturer/
closing statement, I feel that eventually, the case for torture is an exercise that is acceptable
The notion that fear will make a human leak information is not a novel idea. Torture has widely been used throughout the world by many groups of people. After World War II, The Geneva Convention prohibited any nation from partaking in torture. The emergence of terrorist activity on American soil brought up the question whether torture should be advocated or prohibited from a moral standpoint. The US changed the definition of torture in order to forcibly attain potentially important information from captives. Even though the new clause suggested that many of the methods the US used were now legal, other countries still had an issue in terms of honoring the Geneva Convention and basic human rights. Advocates for torture promise that countless innocent lives can be saved from the information obtained from a single torture victim. Opponents to the advocates suggest that torture often results in misleading information. Morally, torture is not justified as it degrades humans and often leaves victims scarred for life and possibly dead.
Capital punishment and torture are often looked down on in today’s societies because they are viewed as cruel and unconstitutional, but perhaps they would help in more ways then we would like to admit. They can be beneficial in many ways such as encouragement to be truthful, encouragement to live by the laws, and as a source of punishment. Capital punishment and torture are thought to be too painful, and the person doing the punishment is also committing a crime.
...s invaluable. The efficacy of torture can be seen in the capture of Zubaydah and the prevention of the “Dirty bomber,” Jose Padilla. Effectiveness has also been proven; it has hypothetically saved many lives and has prevented many plots known to the general public. Ex-Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech in 2009 that the “enhanced interrogation” of detainees “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people” (“The Report of The Constitution Project's Task Force on Detainee Treatment”, 1). Since it has been deemed illegal by the UN it has to be done in secrecy. In result, it cannot be deduced how much has been prevented by this procedure since that information is classified. However, it is irrefutable that torture, in its essence, is beneficial and should be accepted as a means of ensuring public safety.
...hinks the interrogator wants to hear."[4] Torture is not only ineffective in obtaining both accurate and useful information, but also makes it more difficult to obtain future coöperate
In today’s society there are many issues surrounding the topic of torture. There are two sides to this argument. One side would be that torture should never be used, the other side would be that torture should be used if it is absolutely necessary. Many times when torture is used it is used to get information out of an individual. On many occasions people hear of torture being used on terrorists that have been captured. Torture is also used on Soldiers that have been captured during war. During times of war torture is often used by both sides to gain an advantage over the other side. The use of torture is a widely debated topic in today’s world.
The motivation to torture is guided by gut feelings and “what if” stories. Using torture to gain information involves a tremendous amount of assumptions. The Torturer is assuming that there is an actual danger, they are assuming that they have the correct person as well as assuming their level of their involvement and guilt in the situation, and lastly by using torture they are assuming that there is no alternative way to extract the information.
People may try to justify its use by claiming it can be used to gain critical information or in similar situations; this is a feeble attempt to use possible results in order to justify the terrible use of torture as a means of getting there. To deontology, torture is morally wrong, and more than that, it is always morally wrong. There is no situation in which torture should be used, period. The way torture grossly outstrips people’s human autonomy and right to be treated as ends in themselves makes it a moral evil in the eyes of deontology. In addition, torture’s maxim of allowing for one person to harm another for gain is also not universalizable, making it an even more morally corrupt action. Deontology examines the critical question of whether or not there are times humanity should allow atrocities of torture in order to achieve an end. Deontology answers with a stern and resounding disapproval of torture. This ethical system sees every person as valuable, equal, and autonomous, who should never be abused or manipulated for any reason. With this virtuous sensibility in mind, it is easy to see why deontology so firmly rejects torture as ever being
First, torture can be used to quickly gather reliable information.Most criminals all have a wide mind set of information. A fugitive under pressure may give officers more information than they even knew to ask (Messerli 4). The correct information is important in generally everything. The reliability of information can make or break a sports injury, or it could save or kill many lives. Torture gives the tortured many reasons to tell the right information. If the criminal gives the correct data it can guarantee many lives (Messerli 1). A common question when dealing with the topic torture is, “Why would criminals give in to torture?” Well, Criminals, fugitives, terrorists, whatever you decide to call them are also people. All people no matter what your feelings are can although feel, therefore no matter who the person, torture would be painful. Human’s natural instinct is to stop the pain, men...
Who wouldn’t have agreed? Yes, torture is cruel but it is less cruel than the substitute in many positions. Killing Hitler wouldn’t have revived his millions of victims nor would it have ended war. But torture in this predicament is planned to bring no one back but to keep faultless people from being sent off. Of course mass murdering is far more barbaric than torture. The most influential argument against using torture as a penalty or to get an acknowledgment is that such practices ignore the rights of the particulars. Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture” discusses both sides of being with and being against torture. This essay gets readers thinking a lot about the scenarios Levin mentioned that torture is justified. Though using pathos, he doesn’t achieve the argument as well as he should because of the absence of good judgment and reasoning. In addition to emotional appeal, the author tries to make you think twice about your take on
Until there is a credible way to determine whether or not torture is in fact effective, I pass judgment that the practice should be discontinued. The question as to if the torture policy is a human rights violation or if it holds crucial necessity, is not answered in the essay. Applebaum explores the reality that torture possesses negative implications on the inflictor. After presented with the compelling stance and evidence, Applebaum raises the interesting question as to why so much of society believes that torture is successful. I agree that the torture policy is wrong, a point emphasized by Applebaum, contrary to the popular attitude surrounding the topic.
Torture can prevent the attacks resulting in terror or can go and prove no one, no one can infringe the right of Americans in the result of another attack, and therefore torture is justifiable. The similarities between ISIS and Al Qaeda is scary and torture needs to be in the back pocket of all officials to prevent similar disasters. The clock stopped ticking on 9-11, and anyone on the street can tell oneself where they were the minute they heard. The use of torture could save the lives of thousands, send the message that America is in charge, and can become more commonly accepted in the eyes of disaster. A ticking bomb could be going off at any time, it could destroy a spouse, a son, a daughter, a friend, a neighbor, or maybe the threat is to oneself, torture could get the information to destroy the bomb before it destroys one’s life. Torture is justifiable.
In his essay “The Case for Torture,” printed in The Norton Reader 13th Edition, Michael Levin argues that torture is justified and necessary under extreme circumstance. He believes that if a person accepts torture to be justified under extreme cases, then the person automatically accepts torture. Levin presents weak argument and he mostly relies on hypothetical scenarios. There is not concrete evidence that torture solves problems and stop crime but rather the contrary. Under international law, torture is illegal and all the United Nation members have to abide by those rules. The use of torture does not keep people safe, but rather the opposite. Torture has a profound effect on democracy. As the use of torture becomes normal in society, the right of the citizen will suffer greatly.
In conclusion, the convention against torture, has brought many people together, and has informed many people of the horrible tortures which go on everywhere from the US to Syria. It has tried to set fine lines which prohibit torture under all circumstances. However, since there is no governing body over countries, it remains difficult to enforce the human right standards sought after by the Convention against torture. The convention has therefore done a good job at identifying the torturers. This has in turn lessened the amount of those persecuted. It will remain a gradual process to eliminate torture from all countries, but nevertheless a necessity, in the quest for universal human rights. Torture will continue until all countries decide for themselves, and not from a third party convention that freedom from torture is a human right everyone deserves.
Torture is the process of inflicting pain upon other people in order to force them to say something against their own will. The word “torture” comes from the Latin word “torquere,” which means to twist. Torture can not only be psychologically but mentally painful. Before the Enlightenment, it was perfectly legal to torture individuals but nowadays, it is illegal to torture anyone under any circumstances. In this essay, I will demonstrate why torture should never acceptable, not matter the condition.