Is torture acceptable? Torture is a way that pain and suffering is felt, like mental or physical pain, so an action is implied on a person in order to get information about something for being suspected or someone who have information which may be useful in order to save others life or anything else that might be important to get the information about it. Moreover, torture might be acceptable and might not be in most of the world but according to UN’s reporters in the security council that torture is still global since 102 countries still support torturing like Egypt, china, Korea and also most African countries (The print edition: International, 2007) .Therefore, torture is acceptable because it can decrease terrorism, know the truth, …show more content…
On the other hand, the use of modern technologies and the high transfer between different agencies all over the universe with high speed and accuracy so these techniques decrease the level of having inaccurate information and evidence and also decrease the risk of arresting a wrong person. Furthermore many people agree that torture is acceptable since it can save others life. Supporting that idea and according to (Dershowitz),torture should be used as a last hope in order to help others innocent people lives and it should be done at public, with liability, and the president should approve on it .Furthermore, Torture is acceptable if the evidence leads that it is the only way in order to save good pure people ,than torture in this case is justified and acceptable since it will help others and this is the right thing that the government could do in order to save innocent person and its better than allowing the offender to keep the information (Bagaric, 2005) . Finally, torture can save hundreds of innocent people whose lives is in danger because of people who have information and evidence about something that going to happen and they won’t talk unless they are tortured
The United Nations defines torture as any act by which severe physical or mental pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining information or a confession, or punishing a person for an act that he is suspected of having committed. Torture also includes intimidating or coercing a person for any reason based on discrimination of any kind when a person acting in an official capacity inflicts pain or suffering (Convention Against Torture para. 2). Although some people believe that torture is acceptable, in reality it is neither an acceptable nor a reliable method for obtaining information and should not be continued.
Torture has been practised for several centuries. Whether it was the Iron maiden or waterboarding, its goal, inducing pain on a certain victim, has stayed the same. Despite all of our social advancements, this heinous and barbaric act is continually defended and justified. Torture is a crime against all living things and should never be practised.
People’s imaginations start to go wild when they hear the word torture. However, there are enhanced interrogation techniques that are more humane than others. Waterboarding, for example, simulates the effect of drowning and is highly recommended by people such as former Vice President Dick Cheney (Defrank). It is highly unpleasant, but breaks no bones and leaves no bruises. It also exposes those performing the interrogation to lesser psychological strain than other methods that could be used would. Torture is accused of being a cancer in society, but if regulated and reserved for the “especially” bad guys, societal homeostasis would be maintained.
Can torture, the infliction of intolerable pain to extract potentially life-saving information from war criminals, ever be justified? What if this torture or activity is sanctioned or ordered by those in authority? Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, numerous reported incidents of torturing detainees by the United States have been covered in the media all over the world. The public first learned about the horrific actions of the United States when the truths of Abu Ghraib surfaced. Most Americans are shocked by those horrendous and disturbing photographs of the abuse of prisoners broadcasted. When the humiliation of Abu Ghraib surfaced, the US government argued that it was solely the work of a couple soldiers. However, the truth is that prisoner abuses have expanded with the soldiers knowing that it is possible for them to get away with such atrocious actions. Moreover, the use of torture by the United States is setting a bad example for the authoritarian regimes abroad, and sending out the wrong signal that torture is legitimate (Greenberg, 2009). It further damages United States' authority to act as international police to speak out against authoritarian regimes that are treating detainees in even less humane ways. Some government officials believe that life-saving torture is morally justified, because the lives of innocent people prevails the infliction of physical pains to criminals. Others reject torture as both unreliable and an insult to basic principles
There is an ongoing debate on whether torture should be used and if it is ever “ok”. There are many different points of view and both sides have very clear, convincing arguments on whether torture should be used as a way to obtain information. One side says that torture is not necessary even in extreme cases. The other side it should be used if it mandatory. Although these sound like a compromise they do have a few conflicting ideas. Even though both essays are trying to sway the reader to one side or another, it is the reader’s choice on how he or she feels on torture.
Torture can be morally justifiable when torturing a wrongdoer would prevent them from seriously hurting innocent people for the purpose of gathering information that my not necessarily be the truth. Those arguing against the use of torture expressed the following concerns: that torture is sometimes endorsed as a punishment rather than as a means of extracting information (Carlsmith & Sood,2009), that the wrong people are tortured more often than the right people (Bellamy,2006), and that there are insufficient safeguards in the current system to prevent these misapplications from occurring. Few people agree that torturing innocent people who do not have any relevant information is morally right. This analysis assumes that there is a reasonable probability that the to-be-tortured person has information that, if acquired by the torturer, could potentially prevent some significant harm from coming to others.
Torture has always been a big argument as to the morality of it. As stated by the General Assembly document Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment Punishment, torture means “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other
On the other hand, some believe torture is justified. They may argue that it's important to do whatever it takes to get the information needed, or to save the lives of others. It could also be viewed as justice for the crimes that have been committed. An argument some have is that the ends justify the means. The end does not justify the means. It’s about being the better person and having everyone feel safe and secure in a place where
Torture, in this case, is not used as a punishment rather that a preventive measure. It is used to save future atrocities that would cause more harm. For instance, when a country is planning a war to another country, use of torture to avoid the conflict would be crucial. It would save the country from the future damages and loss of lives.
Torture now, is looked as an old and brutal way of treating someone, in spite of origin, public standing, or any criminal acts carried out; it has remained for ages. Torture is frequently used to discipline, to get facts or a confession, to get payback on an individual/individuals or to generate intense fear within the public. Moreover, it may perhaps be just pure evil or dislike for that specific person. Some of the most generally known ways of torture consist of beating, sexual assault, suffocating, burns, raping and etc. It is morally wrong to torture because it violates the human rights and dignity, and treats the victim as a means to an end and not an end in themselves, however it may beneficial.
Most people in a civilized nation disagree with torture. However, in compelling and threatening circumstances it may be allowed. Here is the reason, Many terrorist organizations take advantage of the situation and make an entryway for an assault. Without the usage of torture, it would take extra time and open doors for another strike later on. Through the use of torture, the CIA gained useful data by interrogating two terrorist group leaders, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, both of them gave significant data, after agents used torture. (Gordon n.p.) Zubaydah showed the way to Khalid Mohammed, who was found to be the mastermind behind 9-11 attacks. (Gordon n.p.) The usage of torture helped gain useful information about terrorist organizations accountable for the assaults and it opened a way to stop possible assaults driven by Al-Qaida later on. (In -Debate n.p.) Present and former U.S. authorities have claimed they found key data
According to Mis and Vagner, “36% of people think that torture can sometimes be justified to gain information that may protect the public”(trust.org). Torture is often used to gain information or to punish individuals who have committed a crime. Without influence, some information may remain unknown unless the suspect is forced into talking. This can lead to many issues such as invalid information and the violation of human rights. Normally, the thought of punishment by anguish is appalling, but under the right circumstances, some believe it may be justified. It has been used many times in the past by some government agencies to gain information that is deemed essential for public safety, but does that make it justifiable? Torture is never
The issue of torture is being very current and it arouses debate between those who are totally against it; those who think that it sometimes can be used for good; and those who are in between. The idea of torture was seen only as something that happened far away in time, and it should not even be considered as an issue of the modern society. Furthermore, torture was seen as a violation of the fundamental human rights, which were protected by different human rights conventions. But then something happened and actually influenced the general opinion about the issue of torture. Criminal attacks nowadays are not very rare. As long as we continue to be threatened from those criminal attacks, this issue will
Torture, an act of punishing people by harming them physically or psychologically. Recently, a lot of debates have been arguing about torture and of course, laws have been set in order to control the use of torture. However, torture is not completely banned, or I should say nowadays there is people still resort to torture. Even in those liberal democratic communities like Canada and the United States are still using torture as a tool in order to get information. Hence, there are people that are against torture and suggest that the use of torture should be completely banned. However, there are people that argue torture should be used under some circumstances. Recently there is a debate between two authors on torture. The two authors are: Charles Krauthammer, who suggests that torture should not be completely banned (2005); and Andrew Sullivan, who suggests that torture, should
Is torture morally justifiable? In Bagaric and Clarke’s article “Not Enough Official Torture in the World? The Circumstances in Which Torture Is Morally Justifiable” we read that there are conditions under which torture is morally justifiable. Although prohibited worldwide, we are shown that torture is still in use. Are there benefits to torture and what are the conditions in which it is? Let us begin with what torture is.