Why Torture Is Wrong

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.

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 topic that everyone has thought about or talked about at some point in their life. Many states have made it illegal to torture another person and have found it to be unconstitutional to treat someone this way. I do not feel that torture should be used on anybody no matter what the crime they committed. No one should be treated with such disrespect and humiliation just so the other person can get what they want. Torture is used to inflict severe pain on someone to get them to do something they don’t want to do. It is inhumane treatment of human beings and is brutal.

Terrorism is despicable from any angle it is seen through whether that be morally, ethically or logically. As stated by Aristotle, “equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally” (Velasquez, et al. 1996). Terrorists are not equal to innocent children or to innocent men and women and they should not ever be treated as our equals. Leaders cannot put civilians on the same level as terrorists because the latter has given up their right to be treated fairly as a human when they decided to kill as if they are animals. When a terrorist decides to bomb a city and kill millions of innocents they are giving up the right to a fair approach. When deciding to use torture as a counter terrorism act, the known terrorists withholding information should be the only that are tortured. A terrorist that is clearly knowledgeable about threats and future events is not being tortured by unfair terms and the information gained from this torture could protect not only the terrorist’s enemies but also the people of the terrorist’s

Torture isn't necessarily unconstitutional, but it does bar cruel and unusual punishment. The United States Constitution says nothing about torture, but does that make it right? People view torture as more an appealing way to punish the victim helping the ethos of the viewer but doesn’t appeal to reason or effectiveness. Torture is wrong and is no longer should be looked at as a way as interrogation.

In many cases, the people in authority are more justified to do the torture that will save lives. The police have a vital role to play in this. They will have to torture terrorists so that they can speak out (Levin 607). However, Levin notes a challenge with the process because in some cases it would be difficult to justify that the terrorist had evil

Imagine this: You know there has been a bomb planted somewhere in a densely populated area that has the potential to kill thousands and is set to go off in just a few hours. There is no time to launch a full investigation in order to find out any details about the threat. You do, however, have a prisoner in custody that has the life-saving information you need, but the only way to get out the information is to torture the criminal. What do you do? Do you leave the individual alone and keep his rights intact, or do you make the prisoner suffer through brutal punishment and violate the human rights our country stands for? This controversial question is one that has been debated as far back as the middle ages. Torture, or the action of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain, violates basic human rights that are the building blocks of our country, but is this torture justified when it is used to protect our nation and its inhabitants? Modern

Many social groups as well political groups have discussed the issue of torture. The elements and basic working of torture have many against it saying it is too cruel and violates America’s 8th amendment. But the question does arise what do we do if there is a suspect found hours before the crime is committed? Or what do we do to those that are known to have committed the severe crime (ie. a serial killer that has three victims hidden away) how do we find the victims and such?

Torture is not always used to protect the vulnerable; historically it has been used to extract information about the enemy, to bring terror especially during conflicts and to punish the defeated. Despite the fact that it might seem morally justifiable, it is morally unethical. Torture in this form of practice is uncontrollable; people lose their lives or became damaged for lifetime. There is not much control over that practice, it can start from occasional, non-leaving physical permanent injury, and increase to the constant, excruciating torture (the difficulty of knowing where to draw the line. There is no way of controlling, assigning and or measuring this practice, as such there is no way to tell how much is too much.)

One reason for the justification for the prohibition is that torture can have serious long-term health issue far after the ordeal has passed. Physical torture is one thing but psychological torture is something that can never be forgotten. Torture can affect the brain, affecting people’s thinking capabilities, cause PTSD, depression, and anxiety, these psychological traumas could turn into physical pain and manifest as diseases. Another major reason for the prohibition is that it is a violation of everyone’s human rights. When one is tortured they have endured one of the most heinous things one individual can do to another human being. Torture strips individuals of their dignity and humanity and because of it, individuals are unable to fully

Torture should not be legalized in any special circumstances. It is unconditionally rejected. The first reason whether there will not be a utilitarian motivation to make lawful special cases. There is no space for exemptions because of the two fundamental arguments to the issue: The Ticking Bomb Situation (TBS), and torment creep. The ticking bomb situation, which asks: If a terrorist has planted a bomb in a building full of people, and refuses to confess where the bomb is hidden, given that there is no time to search the building nor to get all the people out to safety, is it acceptable to torture the terrorist in order to obtain that information? (O’Bryne 2003, p.155). TBS advocates often lack the courtesy to grant the same

I believe torture is only morally permissible in extreme emergency situations. By extreme emergency situations I mean when there is a risk that hundreds of people will be killed if the victim does not provide certain information. In the ticking time bomb case, interrogators have tried all the acceptable methods to get the code to disarm the bomb and have failed to do so and hence it is morally permissible to torture the person to get the code otherwise we will be putting the lives of millions of people at risks. Also, some cases where torture would be morally permissible are where the torturer is hundred percent sure that the victim is the perpetrator and has significant information to bring about greater good. This victim can be a kidnapper, a bomber, a terrorist or even a secret service agent who is selling confidential information. I also believe that while torturing someone the degree of torture should not be too high and it should be in the knowledge of highest law authority. A medical practitioner should also be present while torturing a victim so that there should be no risk to the life of the perpetrator. As Henry Shue said that “An act of torture ought to remain illegal” and anyone has to justify in order defending himself/herself legally (Shue). I strongly believe that under any circumstance torture should not be legalized whether it is for

Is torture ever acceptable? Torture has been a topic that people have been struggling to decide if it is right or wrong. Torture should be allowed in certain cases such a terrorists.

Numerous people believe that if someone knows information that puts them in a situation of being tortured then, they must deserve it anyhow. Along with that idea, others simply believe that everyone has a breaking point where if one does enough to someone, they will end up telling the truth. It can furthermore be viewed that torture is for the greater good. These people feel as though the torture and pain of a few people is better than the “possible” murder of innocent civilians (Mackler). Plenty of people are under the impression that those who are tortured do not receive any serious permanent damage.