Arguments Against Torture

Can torture ever be justified?

Opponents of torture would answer the question with a swift, no. Opponents of torture will argue that the idea of human rights was developed with the belief that "the human does not exist for the benefit of the State, but that the State exists for the benefit of the human being."(Burgers and Danelius, 1988)

The prohibition against torture "is a bedrock principle of international law." Torture, as well as "cruel, savage or demeaning treatment," is prohibited at all times, in all places, including in times of war (“Torture – Is It Ever Justified? Nov. 16th”).

Prohibitionists against the act of torture seek to address the broader assumptions that proponents used to justify torture. Advocates against torture are

concerned that if torture is allowed even in a limited form; then, there would be a wider implication to accepting any justification for torture and the "long-term suffering would likely outweigh short-term gains Supporters of torture argues that "the limits imposed upon the use of torture would never work and the boundary between theory and practice would be extended to accommodate the arguments that governments used to justify the act in extreme circumstances-if no other means of protecting its people from a ticking time bomb dilemma exists. "(Burgers and Danelius, 1988)

Prohibitionists speculate that a more adverse outcome of accommodating torture is the impact it would have on the erosion of international standards. Once torture is adapted into the legal system it would expand like a contagious virus. Advocates against torture agree that there should be no moral or legal justification for torture and "the extension of torture as an interrogation practice would undermine the universal prohibition against the act in a much larger context that the ticking time bomb dilemma." (Burgers and Danelius, 1988)