Torture Is Cruel And Inhumane 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 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.

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.

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution says, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The fundamental idea of torture is to inflict mental or physical pain onto a suspect to coerce them into revealing information we desire. This tactic is illegal because it violates the Constitution, and in addition, it violates international agreements that our nation has committed itself to. The general provisions of the Geneva Conference of 1949 prevent the use of torture in warfare; the document specifically outlaws “Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating or degrading treatment…” By violating these laws, particularly the Constitution, our nation

Is torture justified? Does it make us feel safer? Most Americans would say that it is immoral to torture any human being for any reason. There are a few people left who would disagree with that and say that some deserve to be tortured in order to obtain information that could potentially save the lives of hundreds or thousands.

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

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

Torture is not a new ethical dilemma, because torture has been practiced throughout human history and in different cultures. Now, however, the Geneva Convention and other modern norms suggest that human beings should not resort to using torture. Torture is becoming taboo as a method of intelligence gathering, which is why the methods used during the Iraq war were decried. However, the ethical case can be made for torture. If torturing one human being leads to information that could save the lives of a thousand, torture suddenly seems like a sensible method. This is a utilitarian perspective on torture, which many people find palatable. However, there are problems with this method of thinking about torture. The state-sanctioned use of torture creates a normative framework in which torture becomes acceptable. Torture sends the wrong message about what a free, open, and enlightened society should be. Even if torture is only acceptable in extreme circumstances, as with a suspect who might know something about an impending terrorist attack, who decides when and what type of torture should be used? There is too much potential for abuse of the moral loophole with regards to torture. If the United States hopes to be a role model, then torture cannot fit into its intelligence methods.

Automatically you will have the majority of the population against this idea. However when you add the intent behind the torture, which, in this case is to prevent acts of terrorism. The term “terrorism” is added to the equation, this term has an equally horrific image associated with it. This will have some people re-thinking their assumptions of torture under these specific circumstances.

Torture of a person is defined as the action of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do something. Tormenting a person who is a severe threat to our country’s freedom is acceptable as long as they are not tortured to death. The torture given should depend on the harshness of the threat they are inflicting on the country and the people that inhabit it. Examples of severe threats could include terrorism, spying, fake news, fraudulence, and many more. These are the types of threats the government should be focusing on.

Others may take a more utilitarian view, that torture is wrong because it results in suffering for the tortured and fear for the general populace, who have to live every day with the possibility that they might be arrested mistakenly as a terrorist and subjected to torture to extract information they don't know. After all, from a legal perspective, a 'suspected terrorist' is by definition an innocent man - if he's suspected, he hasn't been convicted - and if you have a regime which tortures suspects, that means you have a regime which can torture anyone, for any reason. Utilitarians might, however, support torture if it the considerable evils of torture were truly lesser than the evils that

Torture has been around for a long time. However, most countries in the world have supposedly stopped using it as an interrogation technique. In fact, it is outlawed by: the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United National Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and many other international conventions. Also, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court says that “torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” are war crimes and crimes against humanity (What does the law). In his essay “A Case for Torture,” though, Michael Levin argues that a case for using

When is torture justified? According to The Washington Post, almost a margin of 2-1, fifty-nine percent to thirty-one percent of the interviewed, support any brutal methods of torture. We are going to discuss about how torture really keeps our homeland secure. Those people who believe that torture is justified by the United State of America if we hold a detainee and we think it is necessary to do so. Now when we talk about torture to keep our motherland protected, we are talking about the United States Military, United States Government Organizations and Agencies to capture and detain individuals who pose a threat to this nation.

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.

Ten years ago on September 11th, terrorists successfully carried out a plan to kill thousands of innocent American civilians. On that day millions of Americans watched in horror and disbelief. How could something like this happen on American soil? In quick retaliation, President George W. Bush forcefully declared a war against terrorism and specifically against those responsible for the slaughter of his people, Al Qaida. At the head of this organization and architect of “9-11” was a man by the name of Osama Bin Laden. He openly boasted of the devastation he had caused, which in turn enraged the American people. This man eluded us for the past ten years until a little over a week ago President Barack Obama announced to the world that