Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Torture—Is it Ever Ethical
Torture—Is it Ever Ethical
Torture—Is it Ever Ethical
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Torture—Is it Ever Ethical
Interrogational torture is one of the many tough ethical questions that people debate about in the United States. Is it right or is it wrong? Many believe that the United States does not practice intense interrogational acts such as torture. Many people have fought to abolish any form of torture while many fight to keep some forms of it to help keep the peace. Whether you believe in it or not, torture is and will always be an ethical dilemma that comes up.
According to Joycelyn M. Pollock, torture is defined as the deliberate infliction of violence and, through violence, severe mental and/or physical suffering upon individuals. Torture, according to Christopher Tindale as quoted in Torture and the Ticking bomb by Bob Brecher, describes torture as:
“any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from that person or a third person information or confession, punishing that person for an act committed or suspected to have been committed, or intimidation or dehumanizing that person or other persons” (Brecher).
Brecher explains that torture cannot be defined but only described because it is such a real thing, and real things cannot be defined because they are always changing.
Should torture be used to gain important information? First you have to ask if interrogational torture even works. As described by Brecher, torture is not a useful tool in obtaining information in regards to the ticking time bomb scenario. Brecher argues several things that discount the use of interrogational torture. First, from the perspective of the person being held captive, they know that if they do know the location of a bomb for example, that they will be...
... middle of paper ...
...own case involving extraordinary renditions is the case of a Canadian citizen named Maher Arar. Arar was apprehended by U.S. officials for supposedly having connections to al Qaeda. He was deported to Syria where he was imprisoned and tortured. In 2009, documents released by the Obama administration reveal that the Bush administration ordered the use of torture against to al Qaeda suspects an alleged 266 times (Breehner).
The debate is out about torture and interrogation. There will always be opposing views and arguments. The War on Terror has changed the way that we handle suspected terrorists, and the right way to handle hem will forever be debated. Weather torture works or doesn’t work, whether it is morally right or morally wrong can be viewed differently by everybody, and will for sure be at the forefront of ethical dilemmas in the criminal justice field.
Torture, as defined by the Oxford dictionary is the action of forcing a person to expose something through pain and suffering (“Definition of Torture in English”, 1). It has been a very effective means of extracting information. The practice of torture was originally used on slaves to increase productivity. It later proved to be an efficient approach to force individuals to disclose information. Many civilizations have used this practice throughout history, each with their own unique way. The Greeks used a technique known as the brazen bull. This approach consisted of a victim to be placed in an iron bull and steamed alive (Blinderman, 1). A very gruesome and agonizing approach but widely accepted at the time because it delivered results. Torture, though a controversial topic today, should be acceptable, because firstly, it can lead to the gathering crucial intelligence, secondly, it is a quick approach to gain said information, and finally, it is can be sanctioned in an ethical aspect.
...less outside of intimidation. Currently we are debating whether torture would be a useful tool in society, but some have solved the answer for us many years ago. Those who commit crimes are often willing to sacrifice their life to keep the secret. Torture simply lowers us to their standards and facilitates increased terrorist activity in the long run. Why put salt on the wound when you have a Band-aid? Torturing cannot be morally justified.
Some believe that even in the most dire of situations, the act of torturing a prisoner to obtain information is not the most effective or efficient way to glean accurate information about a threat or terrorist group; experts have said that it is actually a very inefficient way to go about this and even that it is only on rare occasions that this results in useful, accurate information. However, there are also those who believe the exact opposite; that the only way to get information from a terrorist, or someone believed to be involved in terrorist activity, is to mentally break them down until they have suffered enough to surrender any information they might know or to the point where they just say whatever is necessary for the “interrogation” to stop, as in 1984.
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.
What it comes down to is the debate about whether torture is morally acceptable even in times of war. Most of the publications on the subject were written ...
But if we parse the definition of torture that Gonzales offers, it is clear that it does not conform to international standards of definition. The Convention Against Torture (CAT) says that “torture” “means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person” for a variety of purposes. (DRW, p. 413) While this definition is in fact vague, on its face, Gonzales’ definition of torture requires far more severity to reach the level of “torture” than what is intended in the
Torture is the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless person. Torture in any form is used to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure.
Torture is the act of inflicting severe pain or suffering, mental or physical, on an individual to obtain information, to intimidate or for punishment. Torture is expressed in many ways, for example, rape, hard labour, electric shock, severe beatings, etc, and for this reason it is considered as cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. Therefore, it is a violation of human rights and is strictly prohibited by international law. Michael Davis and many other individuals have stated that torture is worse than murder. He claims, “Both torture and premature death are very great evils but, if one is a greater evil than the other, it is certainly torture”. With that being said, there are three major reasons to discuss, in which, torture is not morally acceptable. However, in many cases it is considered very beneficial, but the disadvantages outweighs the benefits. Firstly, bullying is a form of torture but to a lesser extent, in which it results in an individual suffering from low self-esteem, suicidal thoughts, self-harm, etc. In addition, torture is mainly used as a means to obtain information, however, it is an ineffective interrogation tool in which, the data given could be falsified. Lastly, torture is sometimes utilized to shatter the autonomy of individual, that is, the right to their freedom and independence, forcing the victim to succumb to the torturer’s way of thinking.
The issue of torture is nothing new. It was done in the past and it’s done now in the 21st century. Without saying one side is right and the other side is wrong, let us discuss the part that we agree on and find common ground. We as Americans want to protect Americans from harms. So how do we prevent that from happening without torturing? It is impossible to get answer without some sort of questioning and intimidation techniques, since we know captured prisoners during war are not easily going to give up information. We know the enemy we face doesn’t follow the Geneva Convention or any law that pertains to war, so does that mean we shouldn’t also follow the Geneva Convention also, which prohibits torture? Of course not, because we want to be example for the world. Republicans argue that we have to do whatever is necessary to keep Americans safe, and Democrats argue it goes against our values and makes us look bad. We as Americans, as leader of the free world we
The definition of torture is the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something (Webster). There have been different hypothetical situations looking at using torture to get a positive end result and how it could be successful. There should be strict restrictions, rules and guidelines that go along with using torture as a means to justice. Pro torture is not meant to be used for just any circumstance, but when many people are in danger and questions are not being answered, a certain type of punishment like torture could solve the case/save many lives.
Torture can prevent the attacks resulting in terror or can go and prove no one, no one can infringe the right of Americans in the result of another attack, and therefore torture is justifiable. The similarities between ISIS and Al Qaeda is scary and torture needs to be in the back pocket of all officials to prevent similar disasters. The clock stopped ticking on 9-11, and anyone on the street can tell oneself where they were the minute they heard. The use of torture could save the lives of thousands, send the message that America is in charge, and can become more commonly accepted in the eyes of disaster. A ticking bomb could be going off at any time, it could destroy a spouse, a son, a daughter, a friend, a neighbor, or maybe the threat is to oneself, torture could get the information to destroy the bomb before it destroys one’s life. Torture is justifiable.
Throughout the history of war, the United States, as well as other countries, have held and questioned their prisoners of war. The U.S. has used interrogation methods not fully questioned by its citizens until the last few decades. There is a difference between enhanced interrogation and torture. Those who are in favor say that it is a commendable way to retrieve information and has saved thousands of lives. Those who are against say enhanced interrogation is torture and is “a vile and depraved invasion of the rights and dignity of an individual” (Innes 6). Enhanced interrogation is an effective means of gathering information used to protect the lives of U.S. citizens (and others) and is not torture because it uses restrictive methods unlike torture which is motivated by malice.
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 can be perceived as a practice that is barbaric or heroic. Most commonly, people think of torture as historical ethnic groups who practiced torture to instill fear in the lives of peasants. People think of the vicious Romans, maybe even Attila the Hun who would pull the limbs from his enemies. But, in reality, torture is used in present time by our government and trusted professionals. Our government practices waterboarding and claim it makes us safer, psychologists practice shock therapy on test subjects claiming it will make them better. I have read through many authors studies and research, and many of them state that torture turned to be no help in provided information on terrorists and in the end caused both psychological and physical
Torture is defined as the act of intentionally inflicting physical or psychological pain or possible injury to a human or animal. We would like to believe that torture is not common but it can be. Torture’s definition can be opinionated. When does torture become torture? Interrogation is interviewing with the intent on getting a confession or incriminating information. However, sometimes interrogation is more than just an interview. Interrogation can become physical and can be considered torture by some. Regardless of opinion on what torture is considered, it still exists today. Reddit.com is a website primarily used for entertainment and social network. There are different parts of the website called subreddits. They are forums for certain ideas or activities. They range from running to confessions. “/r/watchpeopledie” is one of those subreddits. As one could assume, it is a subreddit where death pictures and videos are commonly posted and viewed. Videos are posted almost daily of horrific deaths, some of which involve torture. Videos including torture primarily involve the drug car...