Is Torture Justified?
Torture may seem like a barbaric and outdated way to deal with prisoners but according to Human Rights Watch.org torture was documented in the at least 16 different countries around the world. Although it is out and in the open that these countries perform torture on prisoners, there are many others that were caught still using torture like methods as a means of gaining valuable information. In war, no matter what war information is like a weapon. Information is a huge key to victory for either side on the battlefield, but what happens when the only way to get information from an enemy is by using methods like these that are seen as barbaric or evil such as torture, i believe sometimes things such as these are a unfortunate
…show more content…
Although this is a view seen by many people there is also those like me that believe it's a necessary evil, necessary in ways that can save countless lives in return for a little inhumanity shown against those that are showing no humanity themselves to others. According to Author of “The Ethics of Killing”,Jeff McMahan “Torture can be morally justifiable, and even obligatory, when it is wholly defensive – for example, when torturing a wrongdoer would prevent him from seriously harming innocent people”. Author Jeff McMahan agrees with those that believe torture is acceptable in a few situations. Commentator Charles Krauthammer from MLive media group argues the same that there are times when torture is the only choice. “Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent's life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy...The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives”. Another formidable lawyer and commentator, Sydney Kentridge, came up with a more sinister plot. “The nuclear device is ticking, we have a member of the terrorist group but we have also found his wife and children, may god forbid this situation ever arise but we would not only have the right to torture but we would have the duty to do
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 2 Cruel and Unusual Punishment in the United States: Continuity and Change within the Last Two Centuries A significant aspect of the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution is that the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments is prohibited. However, interpretations of the definition of what a cruel and unusual punishment consists of have become extremely ambiguous. For example, many argue that the death penalty is unconstitutional because it is cruel to take another person’s life willingly; however, others argue that it is acceptable if it is done in a controlled and humane manner. Over the course of the United States history, punishments have ranged from public whippings and hangings, to the electric chair and life in prison. Physical punishments have decreased as society has progressed, yet they continue to be a major source of controversy.
The issue of torture is nothing new. It was done in the past and it’s done now in the 21st century. Without saying one side is right and the other side is wrong, let us discuss the part that we agree on and find common ground. We as Americans want to protect Americans from harms. So how do we prevent that from happening without torturing? It is impossible to get answer without some sort of questioning and intimidation techniques, since we know captured prisoners during war are not easily going to give up information. We know the enemy we face doesn’t follow the Geneva Convention or any law that pertains to war, so does that mean we shouldn’t also follow the Geneva Convention also, which prohibits torture? Of course not, because we want to be example for the world. Republicans argue that we have to do whatever is necessary to keep Americans safe, and Democrats argue it goes against our values and makes us look bad. We as Americans, as leader of the free world we
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.
One of the ways that the Stanford Prison Experiment was different than the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal is that in the Stanford Prison Experiment they had roles. Half of the boys were given, the role of prisoners and the other half of the boys was given the role of the prisoner guards. This meant that the half that was guards had the power, whereas the prisoners were powerless because they had to do whatever the guards told them to do. Therefore, since the guards in the experiment knew that they had a lot power, they then began to eventually abuse their power as the experiment went on against the prisoners. For example, in the experiment the guard hit the prisoner with a nightstick out
Is it morally right or is it wrong to use torture to gain information during interrogation of suspected terrorists or detainees? It is a difficult ethical question that people in the United States are debating. Our government implemented its initial anti-terrorism measures shortly after 9/11 attacks occurred. The United States has found a way to justify the use of torture on suspected terrorists. Despite opposition of the Constitution, international treaties and Supreme Court rulings, justification for using it was hidden behind the curtain of utilitarianism. One of the landmark Supreme Court decisions was from Brown v. Mississippi and it states, “These measures outweighed many individual rights, including due-process rights and the
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.
“How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” According to DPIC (Death penalty information center), there are one thousand –four hundred thirty- eight executions in the United States since 1976. Currently, there are Two thousand –nine hundred –five inmates on death row, and the average length of time on death row is about fifteen years in the United States. The Capital punishment, which appears on the surface to the fitting conclusion to the life of a murder, in fact, a complicated issue that produces no clear resolution.; However, the article states it’s justice. In the article “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” an author David B. Muhlhausen illustrates a story of Earl Ringo , Jr, brutal murder’s execution on September ,10,
The moral issue of torture is one that has come under scrutiny by many national and international organizations as of late. To talk about torture one must really understand what torture is. As taken from Dictionary.com “1.a. Infliction or severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. 2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony. 3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.” This is just the literal meaning of the word but doesn’t entail the great horror that usually accompanies torture. As stated in the “Ticking Bomb” example given on the instruction sheets, “The interrogation won’t be pretty, and the prisoner may never recover. Shall we do whatever is necessary?” On what moral level is bringing a human being to humiliation, unbearable physical and mental abuse, and most of the time an ultimate end ever an acceptable practice? Torture should be as unthinkable as slavery. In principle it is: since World War II, governments the world over have agreed to ban torture without exception, even when at war or facing acts of terrorism. International treaties banning torture and other, inhuman, and degrading practices are among the most widely ratified treaties in existence. It is not just the United States that endorses these practices; it is over 150 counties according to the United Nations expert on torture Theo van Boven. Since the United States has gone to “war on terror” in Afghanistan, the president and other top officials seem to think that we are not actually “at war” rather these detainees are outside the realm of prisoners of war (POW) status and they don’t have rights under the Geneva Conventions. Now governments are returning alleged terrorists or national security suspects to countries where they are at risk of torture or ill treatment. This is just a reminder as to why the U.S. did not join the International Criminal Court because they have the “bad man” mindset knowing that they will or already use these tactics. There are many reasons as to why torture is immoral and three of these such reasons are; torture is an unreliable source of information and can work against a government, torture is illegal under most every nations’ laws, and torture is just plain immoral and that is the reason it is illegal.
...less outside of intimidation. Currently we are debating whether torture would be a useful tool in society, but some have solved the answer for us many years ago. Those who commit crimes are often willing to sacrifice their life to keep the secret. Torture simply lowers us to their standards and facilitates increased terrorist activity in the long run. Why put salt on the wound when you have a Band-aid? Torturing cannot be morally justified.
Torture can be defined as the “intentional infliction of physical and mental suffering aimed at forcing someone who is defenceless at the purpose of breaking their will” (Rodley, 2000). It is important to note, that if a person has been tortured, even if their mental will has not been broken, the process and the purpose of torture is to break the victims will. Thus, the purpose does not have to be realised for the process to be considered an instance of torture. With that being said, under international law, torture is illegal in any form or situation whatsoever. Although it continues throughout the world, issues such as the “War on Terror” with the possibility of WMDs has resulted in an influx of questions regarding torture and its moral justifications in some extreme emergencies. The dilemma of “ticking bomb terrorist” is a perfect example of this. (See Case Study 1 below)
First, the ticking-bomb scenarios are cases in which torturing the terrorist will save many innocent lives at the cost of non-lethal suffering to one individual. Torturing the terrorist would thus produce the most happiness/well-being. This approach has great strengths but also creates complex questions: is torture still the lesser evil if it only saves one person? Is it morally right to torture a person’s children to extract a confession? Is it morally right to torture ninety-nine people in an attempt to save one-hundred others? In theory this type of thinking can justify extreme inhumanity as long as it is calculated as the lesser evil. Secondly, one ought to do what produces the most happiness/well-being. Despite the wider case against torture, a person confronted with the immediate choices in the ‘ticking bomb’ case is unlikely to take these issues into account; ‘interrogators will still use coercion because in some cases they will deem it worth the consequence. Few people would be unable to see a moral basis for torture if it was carried out in a reasonably clear ‘ticking bomb’ case and if the intention of the torturer was to ‘do the right thing.’ The difficulties of the immediate choice between carrying out torture and allowing deaths make it difficult to morally condemn the unfortunate person charged with deciding. Therefore, one ought to torture terrorists in such scenarios. The only pragmatic concern would be that torture does not
Cesare Beccaria discusses the issue of torture in his work An Essay on Crimes and Punishments. He states that either a crime is certain or uncertain, and in either circumstance, torture is not a legitimate punishment (Beccaria 530). When a crime has certainly been committed and already has a punishment assigned to it by law, it is useless to torture because you do not need to torture the convicted person to get a confession. If the proof is insufficient to convict the person in question of committing the crime, “it is wrong to torture an innocent person, such as the law adjudges him to be, whose crimes are not yet proved” (Beccaria 530). Torture, therefore, is not acceptable in any case of punishment and should not be used.
Around the world and around the clock, human rights violations seem to never cease. In particular, torture violations are still rampant all over the world. One regime, the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, establishes a strong elaboration of norms against torture. Despite its efforts, many countries still outright reject its policies against torture while other countries openly accept them, but surreptitiously still violate them. The US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia all have failed to end torture despite accepting the provisions of the Convention.
On the opposite side, there are people very much in favor of the use of torture. To them, torture is a “morally defensible” interrogation method (8). The most widely used reason for torture is when many lives are in imminent danger. This means that any forms of causing harm are acceptable. This may seem reasonable, as you sacrifice one life to save way more, but it’s demoralizing. The arguments that justify torture usually are way too extreme to happen in the real world. The golden rule also plays a big rol...
Capital punishment has been a controversial topic in association to any person condemned to a serious committed crime. Capital punishment has been a historical punishment for any cruel crime. Issues associated to things such as the different methods used for execution in most states, waste of taxpayers’ money by performing execution, and how it does not serve as any form of justice have been a big argument that raise many eyebrows. Capital punishment is still an active form of deterrence in the United States. The history of the death penalty explains the different statistics about capital punishment and provides credible information as to why the form of punishment should be abolished by every state. It is believed