Torture is prohibited in any circumstances under international law. Despite this, torture undeniably continues around the world and is often said to be justified in extreme situations such as the ‘ticking time bomb situation’. This case involves a circumstance where in order to prevent a future catastrophe from occurring, torture of a suspect is necessary in order to obtain information. Those who agree with this ideology argue that torture is still wrong however resorting to torture is the lesser of two evils and therefore justifiable. In this essay I argue that torture is always morally and ethically wrong. However, I recognize that there is a moral difficulty in the ‘ticking time bomb’ situation and accept that this provides a justifiable factor for those who take on the consequentialist ideology and would choose to torture in these extreme circumstances.
There is no situation in which torture is permissible. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and other Declarations by the United Nations General Assembly express the shared moral values of numerous countries of the world. It is concluded that “torture admits no necessity by which it can be justified”. Article 5 of the UDHR states that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Additionally, Article 2.2 of the Torture Convention supports the impermissibility of the ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario, stating that there can be no exceptions to the ban on torture. Therefore, it is more than clear that any use of torture in the ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario is a violation under international law. My view of how to handle the circumstance supports this notion that neither the ‘ticking time bomb’ situation nor any oth...
... middle of paper ...
...ms of the existence of the bomb, the information held by the suspect, the ineffectiveness of other methods compared with the effectiveness of torture to extract information, and the ability to prevent mass destruction. Additionally, there are many implications of legitimizing torture in the wider context that must be considered, as these implications of permitting torture can have a larger negative effect than not saving the innocent. The long-term results of torture heavily outweigh the immediate results. However, I understand the intentions of torture if the five conditions previously stated are present. Torture is unjustifiable, however it is important to recognize the justifiable circumstances when it appears. Therefore, after having analyzed the situation, any suspect involved in an act of mass violence has a right and therefore deserves not to be tortured.
The ticking bomb example is frequently used to justify the use for torture while its terms can be taken either as setting the bar too high to justify any actual torture or alternatively as opening the door to torture in other cases.
Who wouldn’t have agreed? Yes, torture is cruel but it is less cruel than the substitute in many positions. Killing Hitler wouldn’t have revived his millions of victims nor would it have ended war. But torture in this predicament is planned to bring no one back but to keep faultless people from being sent off. Of course mass murdering is far more barbaric than torture. The most influential argument against using torture as a penalty or to get an acknowledgment is that such practices ignore the rights of the particulars. Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture” discusses both sides of being with and being against torture. This essay gets readers thinking a lot about the scenarios Levin mentioned that torture is justified. Though using pathos, he doesn’t achieve the argument as well as he should because of the absence of good judgment and reasoning. In addition to emotional appeal, the author tries to make you think twice about your take on
Alan Dershowitz challenges the legitimization of non-lethal torture in his essay, “Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist be tortured?” He claims that torture should indeed be legitimized for specific scenarios that require such action. The ticking bomb terrorist gives the example of a terrorist withholding time-sensitive information that could result in the death of innocent citizens, if not shared. Not only does Dershowitz challenge the idea of torture, but he also gives a probable solution that favors the legitimization the torture. He mentions three values that would have to be complied with by all three branches of government if it were to be legitimated, which Dershowitz does endorse. The arguments of the two perspectives discussed in the
In his essay “The Case for Torture,” printed in The Norton Reader 13th Edition, Michael Levin argues that torture is justified and necessary under extreme circumstance. He believes that if a person accepts torture to be justified under extreme cases, then the person automatically accepts torture. Levin presents weak argument and he mostly relies on hypothetical scenarios. There is not concrete evidence that torture solves problems and stop crime but rather the contrary. Under international law, torture is illegal and all the United Nation members have to abide by those rules. The use of torture does not keep people safe, but rather the opposite. Torture has a profound effect on democracy. As the use of torture becomes normal in society, the right of the citizen will suffer greatly.
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 2 Cruel and Unusual Punishment in the United States: Continuity and Change within the Last Two Centuries A significant aspect of the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution is that the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments is prohibited. However, interpretations of the definition of what a cruel and unusual punishment consists of have become extremely ambiguous. For example, many argue that the death penalty is unconstitutional because it is cruel to take another person’s life willingly; however, others argue that it is acceptable if it is done in a controlled and humane manner. Over the course of the United States history, punishments have ranged from public whippings and hangings, to the electric chair and life in prison. Physical punishments have decreased as society has progressed, yet they continue to be a major source of controversy.
The death penalty, as administered by states based on their individual laws, is considered capital punishment, the purpose of which is to penalize criminals convicted of murder or other heinous crimes (Fabian). The death penalty issue has been the focus of much controversy in recent years, even though capital punishment has been a part of our country's history since the beginning. Crimes in colonial times, such as murder and theft of livestock were dealt with swiftly and decisively ("The Death Penalty..."). Criminals were hanged shortly after their trial, in public executions. This practice was then considered just punishment for those crimes. Recently though, the focus of the death penalty debate has been on moral and legal issues. The murderers of today's society can be assured of a much longer life even after conviction, with the constraints of the appeals process slowing the implementation of their death sentence. In most cases, the appeal process lasts several years, during which time criminals enjoy comfortable lives. They have television, gym facilities, and the leisure time to attend free college-level classes that most American citizens must struggle to afford. Foremost, these murderers have the luxury of time, something their victims ran out of the moment their paths crossed. It is time this country realized the only true justice for these criminals is in the form of the death penalty. The death penalty should be administered for particularly heinous crimes.
Is the intentional pain that an individual experiences justified if there is the potential to save the lives of many? Torture is the most used weapon in the “war against terrorism” but does it work? The purpose of this essay is to identify what the motives for torturing are, the effectiveness of torture, and important issues with the whole process of torture.
Punishment, when speaking on serious terms, is socially valuable because it deters criminals from repeating their crimes and may keep others from repeating the same acts. If in fact the deterring effect misses its point, it is the fault of the justice system the all the red tape found behind it. At its current standing, the system is viewed as a joke because no authority is taken, no one believes, let alone fears, the system. Both the lengthy time and the high expense result from innumerable appeals, including many technicalities which have little nothing to do with the question of guilt or innocence. If these wasteless amount of appeals were eliminated or at least controlled, then the procedure would be much shorter, less expensive and more
Until there is a credible way to determine whether or not torture is in fact effective, I pass judgment that the practice should be discontinued. The question as to if the torture policy is a human rights violation or if it holds crucial necessity, is not answered in the essay. Applebaum explores the reality that torture possesses negative implications on the inflictor. After presented with the compelling stance and evidence, Applebaum raises the interesting question as to why so much of society believes that torture is successful. I agree that the torture policy is wrong, a point emphasized by Applebaum, contrary to the popular attitude surrounding the topic.
The notion that fear will make a human leak information is not a novel idea. Torture has widely been used throughout the world by many groups of people. After World War II, The Geneva Convention prohibited any nation from partaking in torture. The emergence of terrorist activity on American soil brought up the question whether torture should be advocated or prohibited from a moral standpoint. The US changed the definition of torture in order to forcibly attain potentially important information from captives. Even though the new clause suggested that many of the methods the US used were now legal, other countries still had an issue in terms of honoring the Geneva Convention and basic human rights. Advocates for torture promise that countless innocent lives can be saved from the information obtained from a single torture victim. Opponents to the advocates suggest that torture often results in misleading information. Morally, torture is not justified as it degrades humans and often leaves victims scarred for life and possibly dead.
Consider the following situation: You are an army officer who has just captured an enemy soldier who knows where a secret time bomb has been planted. Unless defused, the bomb will explode, killing thousands of people. Would it be morally permissible to torture them to get him to reveal the bomb’s location? Discuss this problem in light of both Utilitarian and Kantian moral theories and present arguments from both moral perspectives for why torture is morally wrong.
As we analyze this scenario through the eyes of Kantian Deontology, it is imperative that we recognize that, for our purposes, the lives of the civilians in question are irrelevant. This is because, as stated earlier, the consequences of one’s actions are meaningless; it is only the intent and will that truly matter in deciding an actions morality. We are only concerned with discerning the moral nature of torture itself. By removing the possibility of a terrible outcome, Kant leads us to a clear verdict on torture. In response to the first question that Kantian’s must ask themselves, it appears that torture fails. Torture is certainly not a maxim that many would want to will into the natural law. The second formulation of the categorical imperative, the basis of the second question that Kantian’s need to consider, is where torturing for information is declared absolutely impermissible. By torturing someone for information, specifically the location of several bombs, we are disregarding their rational autonomy by using them merely as a means only (Reitan). There is one scenario where the torture of the criminal could be considered morally acceptable. This is supported by Kant’s stance on capital punishment. Some may find this surprising, but Immanuel Kant was a
Around the world and around the clock, human rights violations seem to never cease. In particular, torture violations are still rampant all over the world. One regime, the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, establishes a strong elaboration of norms against torture. Despite its efforts, many countries still outright reject its policies against torture while other countries openly accept them, but surreptitiously still violate them. The US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia all have failed to end torture despite accepting the provisions of the Convention.
Torture is the process of inflicting pain upon other people in order to force them to say something against their own will. The word “torture” comes from the Latin word “torquere,” which means to twist. Torture can not only be psychologically but mentally painful. Before the Enlightenment, it was perfectly legal to torture individuals but nowadays, it is illegal to torture anyone under any circumstances. In this essay, I will demonstrate why torture should never acceptable, not matter the condition.
Capital punishment has been a controversial topic in association to any person condemned to a serious committed crime. Capital punishment has been a historical punishment for any cruel crime. Issues associated to things such as the different methods used for execution in most states, waste of taxpayers’ money by performing execution, and how it does not serve as any form of justice have been a big argument that raise many eyebrows. Capital punishment is still an active form of deterrence in the United States. The history of the death penalty explains the different statistics about capital punishment and provides credible information as to why the form of punishment should be abolished by every state. It is believed