Moral Justifications for Torture

1952 Words4 Pages

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)
Within this paper I will argue that torture can be morally justified in some extreme emergencies. However, I will also analyse the reasons and arguments for the support of the prohibition of torture and the implications of this. However, notwithstanding my argument on the validity of the use of torture in certain circumstances, torture ought not be institutionalised or legalised in any way whatsoever. I will justify my argument through two case studies as well as the “ticking bomb” scenario by discussing the mitigating factors it possess and why torture is crucial in the potential to obtain life altering information.
I have suggested that the defining purpose of the process of torture is to break a person’s will, with that being said, different kinds of torture have different purposes; terrorising a political group, gratification through desire on part of th...

... middle of paper ...

...aw on this one occasion. However, the consequences and repercussions of what happens to military officers and police officers after a torture scenario could be controversial to say the least. Naturally, the person in question would be tried, convicted and if found guilty, sentenced on the crime of torture. However, due to the circumstances and the justification of the act, it is of my opinion that the sentence should be substantially reduced and he or she dismissed from their positions; public institutions cannot be allowed to deteriorate within its ranks by those who commit the crimes they are defending the public against. However, with the knowledge of thousands of innocent lives to be saved, with the repercussions being the loss of their job and minor punishment, would many people justify their actions through a greater moral justification? I believe they would.

Open Document