Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Is torture morally correct
Is torture morally correct
Torture advantages and disadvantages
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Is torture morally correct
Chasity Hatch
Mrs. Erskine
English 1301.N09
08 May 2017
Torture
In the article, “The Case For Torture”, Levin attempts to validate the use of torture as a reason to help save innocent lives. Throughout his article, Levin provides his readers with logical examples that help widen the perspectives of his audience. The author attempts to paint a clearer picture on why he believes that torture is a reasonable method of resolution. It is relatively challenging to conclude whether torture is acceptable or not. Should innocent lives be endangered? Torture is the practice of inflicting pain upon someone as a method to force him or her to do or say something (Levin 95). Should the life of one be sacrifices for the lives of many? Levin uses mainly pathos along with logos and ethos to successfully convince his readers that torture is not a
…show more content…
These scenarios are logical and highly effective since they also relate to similar issues, such as 9/11, that society has overcome (McCrisken 792). This stance is incredibly valid and in the long run could have resolved a lot of issues before some of these problems occurred. “Suppose a terrorist has hidden an atomic bomb on Manhattan Island which will be detonated at noon on July 4 unless… (here follow the usual demand for money and release of his friends from jail). Suppose, further, that he is caught at 10 a.m. on the fateful day, but preferring death to failure, won’t disclose where the bomb is. What do we do? If we follow due process, wait for his lawyer, arraign him, millions of people will die” (Levin 95). This quote indicates that the legal and more ethical way of handling things terroristic acts could result in the death of thousands rather than resolving the
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
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.
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
The one thing about this argument, though, if it were valid, it would not show that capital punishment is never proportionate and just, but only that it is very rarely so. The implication of this argument is not that we ought to do away with capital punishment altogether, nor that we ought to restrict it to those cases of murder where the murderer had warned the victim weeks or months in advance of what he was going to do, but we ought to reexamine the procedure of carrying out this kind of
When Hitler and the Nazi Party first entered power, they proposed strict and unimaginably radical policies. Their goal as the dominant political power was to create a “pure” German society. The idea of a “pure” German society stemmed from the idea that certain racial groups and ethnicities were undesirable and inferior. With that in mind, they sought to completely eliminate, through annihilation tactics, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, biracial children, handicapped citizens, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and any other individual(s) who opposed their radical ideologies. However, the most questionable part of these tactics was how and why the Nazis chose them. Of the many ways dictators and corrupt governments had tortured their citizens in the past, why was Hitler determined that the Einsatzgruppen, ghettos, and concentration camps were going to be the methods of choice to mass murder the Jewish people. Robert Payne notes in his book The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler that Hitler was not satisfied with a gruesome murder of the Jewish race. He preferred them to die in agony and complete humiliation. Methods of mass murder such as killing squads (the Einsatzgruppen), ghettos, and concentration camps proved themselves as the perfect final solution. These tactics would exterminate Jews at an increasing rate while removing them of their respectable status.
One of the first things we need to look at is, what is the due process model? It is a model in which there is the assumption that every effort needs to be done to ensure that an innocent person is not convicted of a crime. It adheres to the belief of strict evidence, which means to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person actually committed the crime, and the charge meets all of the requirements of the crime. The state in this model is burdened with showing evidence that the person has committed the crime, and the defense has the opportunity to show the evidence in inconclusive. Due to the strict guidelines of admissibility of evidence, and the right’s awarded to presumed innocent people, there end up being many guilty people that get off on a technicality, that should be incarcerated.
Capital punishment is not an effective punishment or deterrent for murder or any crime for various reasons. To many prisoners, being detained in a prison is much more of a punishment than death as is it a constant, conscious deprivation of liberty and rights. This idea is represented though US Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh who claimed after dropping his appeals against his death sentence that he would rather die than...
Levin wants to change the negative views that society placed on torture so that, under extreme circumstances torture would be acceptable. He begins his essay with a brief description of why society views the topic of torture as a negative thing. He disagrees with those views, and presents three different cases in which he thinks torture must be carried out with provides few reasons to support his claim. He uses hypothetical cases that are very extreme to situations that we experience in our daily lives. From the start, Levin makes it perfectly clear to the reader that he accepts torture as a punishment. He tries to distinguish the difference between terrorists, and victims in order stop the talk of terrorist “right,” (648). Levin also explains that terrorists commit their crimes for publicity, and for that reason they should be identified and be tortured. He ends his essay by saying that torture is not threat to Western democracy but rather the opposite (Levin
The Line Between Right and Wrong Draws Thin; Torture in Modern America and how it is reflected in The Crucible
For example, Ted Bundy and terrorists like Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh who have committed serious crimes. Furthermore, during the first decade of the 21st century there were 26 percent more executions in the U.S. than in the 20th century. For instance, during the same time period, the U.S. murder rate decreased by 24 percent (Marquis, 22). However, how would you know if someone was innocent or not? What if they had been framed by the actual killer? That’s why it would take a long and complex process to find out whether that person had not committed such crime. Therefore, innocent people could be put to death for doing no such crimes.
Michael Levin's article on "The Case for Torture." is an article which mainly discusess the use
“If one speaks about torture, one must take care not to exaggerate,” Jean Améry view of torture comes from a place of uneasiness (22). He discusses in his book At The Mind’s Limits, about the torture that he underwent while a prisoner in Auschwitz. In his chapter titled “Torture”, he goes into deep description of not only the torture he endured, but also how that torture never leaves a person. Améry goes to great lengths to make sure that the torture he speaks of is accurate and as he says on page 22, not exaggerated.
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.
In “The Case For Torture” an article written by Michael Levin, he attempts to justify the use of torture as a means of saving lives. Throughout the article, Levin gives the reader many hypothetical examples in which he believes torture is the only method of resolution. Though I agree with Levin, to some degree, his essay relies heavily on the fears of people and exploits them to convince people to think pain is the only way. In certain aspects, I could agree entirely with Levin, but when one reads deeper into the article, many fallacies become apparent. These fallacies detract from the article's academic standing and arguably renders the entire case futile.
Main Point 1: Imagine someone that has been accused of murder and sentenced to death row has to spend almost 17-20 years in jail and then one day get kill. Then later on the person that they killed was not the right person.