Is Torture Justified As A Right Form Of Punishment

Levin states: “Suppose a terrorist has hidden an atomic bomb on Manhattan Island which will detonate at noon on July 4... He is caught at 10 a.m. on the fateful day, but preferring death to failure, won't disclose where the bomb is. What do we do? If we follow due process, wait for his lawyer, arraign him, millions of people will die.” What Levin is trying to convince his readers of is that once people’s lives are threatened, the normal way of doing things will take too long to and people will die. Levin does a good job at convincing his readers that when people are not in danger, they do not consider torture as a way of protecting themselves. Levin also asks if torturing terrorists saves millions of lives is there really any reason not

Levin argues that torture should be used on terrorist in order to save people from terrorism. He further implies that this is the morally correct thing to do, because it ensures the good of the people. While his argument would be plausible in a utilitarian society, it is formidable within the cultural ideals of America as democratic societies typically tend to obscure techniques that violate natural rights and or ethics. Hence, Levin

In both of these situations, Levin appeals to the emotion of fear to justify using torture for the greater good, even if it defies a person’s constitutional rights. Presenting the case of millions of lives terrorized by an atomic bomb threat, Levin claims torture is the only resolution if, somehow, the terrorist “is caught [two hours before detonation], but … won’t disclose where the bomb is” (Levin). The author defends torture in this hyperbolic and unrealistic example to set a precedent for the justification of more realistic cases involving more modest numbers. He uses a flawed and weak

Torture is known as the intentional infliction of either physical or psychological harm for the purpose of gaining something – typically information – from the subject for the benefit of the inflictor. Normal human morality would typically argue that this is a wrongful and horrendous act. On the contrary, to deal with the “war on terrorism” torture has begun to work its way towards being an accepted plan of action against terrorism targeting the United States. Terroristic acts perpetrate anger in individuals throughout the United States, so torture has migrated to being considered as a viable form of action through a blind eye. Suspect terrorists arguably have basic human rights and should not be put through such psychologically and physically damaging circumstances.

David Figueroa Eng. 101A Professor Stern 4/20/15 Final draft In conclusion, in discussions of torture, one controversial issue has been on the use of it. On one hand, the people against torture argue that it is cruel and unusual punishment. On the other hand, those for torture argue that it should be used for the greater good. Others even maintain that under extreme circumstances, it may be admissible if it can save American lives. My own view is that no one should be subjected to cruel punishment because it is not only illegal, unreliable, ineffective, time consuming, it also has too many flaws that could potentially ruin innocent lives. The definition of torture is any act, whether physical or emotional, or maybe both, is intentionally subjected to a specific individual or a group for many reasons. Most of these reasons that torture is administered is for extracting information from an individual or just for punishing him/her for a crime that he/she has committed or is suspected of committing. The use of torture can be used to intimidate a person to give information that may be beneficial for a nation. The use of torture has been used for many centuries. The purposes of using torture have changed over the years as well as the methods in which a person is tortured. One crucial piece that has been established that separates us human beings from barbarians is the prohibition of using torture. There are many reasons why torture has been deemed a crime now in society. There are

The coercion and torturing captured terrorist is needed to protect national security in the war against terrorism. There are numerous justifications why the coercion or torture of terrorist is normally a lesser evil than the preventable mass murder of innocent victims (Slater, Summer 2006).

The War on Terror has produced several different viewpoints on the utilization of torture and its effectiveness as a means to elicit information. A main argument has been supplied that torture is ineffective in its purpose to gather information from the victim. The usefulness of torture has been questioned because prisoners might use false information to elude their torturers, which has occurred in previous cases of torture. It has also been supposed that torture is necessary in order to use the information to save many lives. Torture has been compared to civil disobedience. In addition, the argument has been raised that torture is immoral and inhumane. Lastly, Some say that the acts are not even regarded as torture.

Every single person in America today grew up with the belief that torture is morally wrong. Popular culture, religious point of views, and every other form of culture for many decades has taught that it is a wrongdoing. But is torture really a wrong act to do? To examine the act of torture as either a means or an end we must inquire about whether torture is a means towards justice and therefore morally permissible to practice torture on certain occasions. “Three issues dominate the debates over the morality of torture: (1) Does torture work? (2) Is torture ever morally acceptable? And (3) What should be the state’s policy regarding the use of torture?” (Vaughn, 605). Torture “is the intentional inflicting of severe pain or suffering on people to punish or intimidate them or to extract information from them” (Vaughn, 604). The thought of torture can be a means of promoting justice by using both the Utilitarian view and the Aristotelian view. Using John Stuart Mills concept of utilitarianism, he focuses on the greatest happiness principle which helps us understand his perspective on torture and whether he believes it is acceptable to do so, and Aristotle uses the method of virtue of ethics to helps us better understand if he is for torture. The term torture shall be determined by exploring both philosophers’ definition of justice, what comprises a “just” act, what is considered “unjust”, and then determined if it would be accepted by, or condemned by either of these two

According to Joycelyn M. Pollock, torture is defined as the deliberate infliction of violence and, through violence, severe mental and/or physical suffering upon individuals. Torture, according to Christopher Tindale as quoted in Torture and the Ticking bomb by Bob Brecher,

According to Michael Levin torture may seem unconstitutional or barbaric to some but to others it seems the only solution to stopping a potential threat to hundreds or even thousands of innocent lives. My question to him: how do you determine if those that the threat is against are actually innocent or do we

Torture has long been a controversial issue in the battle against terrorism. Especially, the catastrophic incident of September 11, 2001 has once again brought the issue into debate, and this time with more rage than ever before. Even until today, the debate over should we or should we not use torture interrogation to obtain information from terrorists has never died down. Many questions were brought up: Does the method go against the law of human rights? Does it help prevent more terrorist attacks? Should it be made visible by law? It is undeniable that the use of torture interrogation surely brings up a lot of problems as well as criticism. One of the biggest problems is that if torture is effective at all. There are

If someone has information pertaining about a bomb that would kill thousands of innocent people, you would want to know about it. If they were not willing to give it up then torture would be necessary I know it is grim but is one life worth as many as thousands of lives. It is a tough call, but torture can be justified in some

A man who served as the seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations named Kofi Annan believes torture should never be used. He uses an agreeable quote when he states “Let us be clear: torture can never be an instrument to fight terror, for torture is an instrument of terror” (Annan). In other words, what Annan is saying is two wrongs don’t make a right. He is saying that you can’t fight terror with terror because some want to use

Should forms of torture be acceptable in order to protect the country? Would allowing torture corrupted or improve law? Could it give information that could stop future crime? Would torture go to extreme measures in simple quarrels? With torture beginning to take storm by media and society where can the facts lie? Would the torture method just be used to hurt people without probable cause?

The author also shows how torture has been used since human civilization from The Code of Hammurabi , 1750 BC to the present day with the intention to punish or to get information, even in some parts of the world are still cases of torture as way of punishment or conviction, but this is not the case of the Americans because they do not supporter torture as a punishment, and it is established on the Eighth Amendment which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." nevertheless, the torture can be used in cases like Gachelin, where this serves as an interrogation technique to save the life of a person. Since The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, U.S. has been focused on how to prevent similar situations happen in the future. For this reason, some Americans have suggested the use of torture to obtain the desired information. The author notes that U.S. government has experimented with new techniques of interrogation without violating international human rights; those are as known