Even for the crime of murder (without torture), the infliction of many tortures are worse than the crime. The moral justification for executing a murderer is much more obvious than the infliction of any punishment that is even worse from the perspective of the murder. Torture may be appropriate with regard to specific crimes of torture, but that requires civil society to stoop to the level of barbarity of criminals.
Investigative: On its face, torture would seem to have a valid tactical use in criminal investigations. In the U.S. It is strictly prohibited under constitutional principals, but purely practical issues also suggest that even aside from any moral basis of objection, torture may not be as useful in practice. Specifically, innocent individuals under torture (or even the threat of torture) often provide false information to spare themselves. Recent experiences with individuals questioned under questionable conditions approaching torture in connection with the Global War on Terror corroborate this particular concern and valuable resources have been allocated (and wasted) acting on such false information elicited under torture by proxy in Saudi Arabia, for just one contemporary example (Scheuer 2004). Ironically, torture is least likely to be effective when the suspect is motivated by fanatical religious beliefs (Scheuer 2004), such as that which characterizes those
2007). The only conceivable objectively moral use of torture might be in the case of the so-called "ticking time bomb" scenario involving a massive attack, such as a biological or nuclear weapons attack on civilians described by Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz (2002). In principle, the basis of the justification would be that (1) a "torture warrant" would be required based on probable cause to believe the suspect is in possession of the information sought; (2) the comparative harm of failing to prevent the attack dramatically outweigh the objections to using torture to prevent it; and (3) that the suspect could terminate (or prevent) the use of torture by complying by providing the information.
In principle, this may sound plausible, but the history of abuses of governmental authority in general and the many instances of wrongfully executed search and arrest warrants and wrongful convictions and executions in the U.S. suggest that the same risk exists, even with respect to the ticking time bomb situation. Ultimately, torture is therefore likely to remain fundamentally incompatible with Western moral values.
References
Dershowitz, a. (2002) Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge. New Haven: Yale University Press
Dyer, C., McCoy, R., Rodriguez, J., Van Duyn, D. (2007) Countering Violent Islamic Extremism. The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin; Vol. 76 No. 12. Retrieved August 8, 2008, at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_12_76/ai_n27479545
Gerrig, R., Zimbardo, P. (2005)
Psychology and Life 18th Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Scheuer, M. (2004) Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror.
Washington: Brassey's
Torture has been a tool of coercion for nearly all of human history, whether to instill fear in a population or force people to convert, but almost all contemporary attempts to justify the use of torture revolve around torture as a means of extracting information from a victim. Used in this context, torture has a number of prominent advocates, despite the fact that ample historical and experimental evidence suggests that
Torture Debate Torture Is Unacceptable Under No Circumstances Argument: torture is unacceptable because it is counterproductive Argument: torture is unacceptable because it is illegal Argument: torture is unacceptable because it is immoral Is Torture Ever Acceptable in Any Way? Although torture has existed as long as human history, liberal democracies in the last two centuries began to argue against the use of torture in all occasions because they began to see torture as a barbaric practice
Torture The use of non-lethal torture in interrogating possible criminals has always been an area of debate. It wasn't hot topic when the terrorist activities were kept at a down low in the nineties. However, following nine eleven and the surge of terrorists, it became necessary to be aware of the activities they were up to. The major debate lies in the fact that whether a known terrorist should be subjected
The dilemma lies herein: neither of the two approaches is entirely wrong. The former, seemingly more humane, also seems impractical considering the fact that the overall dangers that hover the world today in the form of weaponry available and tactics designed are far advanced and devastating than anything else that has been witnessed in history. Its impracticality lies in its overlooking the gravity of an attack and in how torture at
These logistical problems are only one source of error in Levin's argument, however. The idea of establishing guilt with certainty before using torture fits the utilitarian ethic; it ensures that any reduction in happiness or good to the terrorist is more than compensated for by the increased happiness in the terrorist's would-be victims. The other part of Levin's argument, that torture should only be used as a preventative and not
First, torture is likely to elicit false confessions. This is true; torture is likely to illicit false confessions and false information. Apply enough physical pain to a person and one is likely to get false information. The Inquisition established that people will admit to things that are impossible (being werewolves or witches) in order to put a stop to physical pain. Therefore, while torture should be used to gain
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now