Cost Of Torture Research Paper

Torture is something that is known as wrong internationally. Torture is “deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting on the orders of authority, to force a person to yield information, to confess, or any other reason” (World Medical Association, 1975, pg.1). There is a general consensus that there is a right to be free from any kind of torture as it can be found in many different human rights treaties around the world. The treaties show that all of the thoughts about torture are pointing away from the right to torture someone no matter what the case

Torture has been so well known in history that it is looked upon as a key way to get info out of unwilling parties. However in some cases the use of the torture has completely taken away a humans rights. Besides in most cases than not the one being holded for tortue have did nothing wrong.

Another sad fact is that no one decides if the process is ethical or not it just happens (Einolf 102). Back in the Roman times, they were not allowed to participate in the act of torture (Einolf 107). Torture began being used quite frequently in the Chin century. Many people were still not sure what the difference was between punishment and torture. It was mainly believed that cruel punishment was pretty much teacher no matter what anyone said (Einolf 108). Even as recent as in 2004, many people thought it was unethical and inhumane to punish people (Einolf 101).

There are different laws over all countries that control by every government in the world. For those who is a criminal or a prisoner, their country’s government has different laws of punishment to punish them. Torture is one of them. The function of torture is to force someone to say something and as a punishment. Torture is unacceptable which I disagree on which it is an action of inhumanly.

Also, if the torturee is a suspected terrorist, he is likely to know that there are limits to the amount of pain being inflicted upon him. Furthermore, the torturee will know precisely when the bomb will go off, so he knows how long his has to endure the interrogation. Also according to Brecher, there is a very realistic chance that the bombers are going to leave a very small window of time between the planting of the bomb and it going off, thus preventing a premature finding of the bomb, and also preventing long periods of interrogation if by chance anyone involved gets caught. Brecher also states that it is likely that most terrorists will die for their cause, as we have seen on September 11th, so they are more than likely willing to plant false tales under interrogational torture.

According to the blog The Spector, “A terrorist group is believed to be in possession of a nuclear device. Time is desperately short, but we have captured a member of the group. In such circumstances, torture would surely be justified” (Andersen, 2014). Torture should be used in certain situations. In conditions when a child is being tortured is is not okay, but when it is a terrorist it is okay. Torture should be used when large groups of people are being threatened. According to The New York Times, “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” (Gutting, McMahan, 2015). Torturing people is okay when used right. People should only use torture when many other people's lives are at risk. Although torturing someone to save a large group of people may seem good, it’s not, because they could give false information to get you to stop, and you may injure more people than you

Following along with the ticking time bomb scenario or any other future terrorist attack, many opponents of torture like to argue, how do the investigators really know the person they have in custody is for sure the terrorist who knows where the location of the bomb is or any other information that is needed. What if that isn’t the right person and the one who is in custody is being tortured but is completely innocent. The way that technology is improving and advancing from day to day, the idea of being wrong is very rare (Torture). Before investigators and researchers take the time to arrest the terrorist and get them in custody, they do precise investigations to make sure they are right. They will not take into custody and torture the person

Not only can torture do cruel things to the person receiving the affliction, but it can also affect the torturer. When a person gives torture, it damages the humanity of them, which means they will never be the same person again. When torture is used, the victim is treated as a “thing” rather than a person. The receiver is basically dehumanized to achieve the desires of the torturer. Although torture can be used to discover new information, it does not always work that way. Torture can cause inaccurate information to be provided due to the want for the torture to be finished with. In some cases, torture is not the

Torture is a conversation that is spoken on the moral ethics of it. One side that it disregards human life and others say that it is necessary in acts of terrorism or war. I have the same feelings I do for the death sentence and general imprisonment. Deep investigation and complete objectiveness. Although, there usually isn’t a need for investigation for acts of terrorism, but due to the high amount of prejudice in our current time I would suggest to investigate it anyway just in case.

This causes multiple famous anti-torture supporters to collectively agree, that “Torture is justifiable, only when used to protect others” (Gutting, McMahan 5). So in theory, if someone planted a bomb in Times Square and the only way for the authorities to find it was to use torture, then in that scenario, it’s alright because it’s saving the lives of others. However, while this type of analogy may work for other situations, but it does not work in the defense of torture. This is due to the fact that countless reliable sources have given valid examples of information being gained without the need to use torture. Such as the men who helped locate Saddam Hussein by using non-violent interrogation

When people think about problems in hospitals, they think about triage, or nurses not getting enough sleep and making mistakes on the job. A few might bring up healthcare, but most, will talk about how much they had to pay when they broke their leg. How they had to pay a ridiculous amount of money for something, that can be made dirt cheap. Have you ever wondered why it cost so much? Well a part of these outrageous prices has to do with the pharmaceutical companies that sell the drugs. Since their creation pharmaceutical companies, like Johnson & Johnson NYSE: JNJ, Roche OTCQX: RHHBY, and Pfizer NYSE: PFE have taken far to much edvantige of the fact that hospitals and patients need their products. Is this practice ethical? Is it right to take advantage of people based on this need of products? I say no, it is not only immoral to take advantage of the hospitals need as they have, but also immoral to do so knowing that cost of these products will be forced on to the

Michael Levin author of the article The Case for Torture argues that the general public should change its negative views on torture and that it is justifiable in order to save the lives of innocent bystanders who did nothing wrong. In his given example, he claims that the mass murder of millions of innocent people by a terrorist justifies the use of torture to stop such a barbaric act. When a terrorist has clearly intended to harm the lives of millions, why is it not justified then, to inflict pain on the terrorist, with the motive of wanting to protect the lives of many more innocent people? Well because every single person is born with human dignity and rights, and no matter what somebody thinks they do not have the right to torture anyone regardless of what that person has done or will do. It does not matter what someone threatens to do; it does not make any since how someone can think that torturing someone else to prevent even the most horrible acts is “right” by any means. It’s morally unacceptable.

Taking a closer look into the moral reasoning behind torture, we use the theories of two philosophers, Kant and Mill, to determine whether or not torture is ever ethical. John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant, both proposed different philosophies, using deontological and teleological theories in ethics. John Stuart Mill used a teleological theory, which prioritized the end result of an action, based off the moral nature of the action itself, compared to the deontological theory proposed by Kant, which presented actions as obligations of an individual, leading them to act in a certain way. Mill used a code of ethics, also known as utilitarianism, which provided ideal principles, in the role of each individual. These principles were imperative to how a person should use them, and in the fashion which they must do so. The more happiness produced from an action, was the scale of how right or wrong an action became. Something that produced the greatest amounts of happiness were right, and actions that produced the least amount of happiness, were wrong. These were the standards set into place. In other words, the consequences of the actions were how they were determined moral or not, not the actual actions themselves.

The use of torture has become a prominent matter of dispute as we enter an age of the global war on terror. The debate on whether it has become morally permissible to torture terrorists is argued by many as the legitimacy of such actions are brought into question in a world where global terror is outstanding. With the use of the ticking time bomb scenario, some make a desirable case that in special circumstances, there is a right to torture individuals implicated is acts of mass violence. Yet many would still argue that there are an array of inconsistencies hidden within the ticking bomb scenario and there are no circumstances where torture can be morally permissible, no matter what the consequences may hold.

Torturing shows lack of respect towards the one being tortured. In Evidence, when Instructors torture their students, they do not do it aside, but they do it in front of the