Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Torture as a moral wrong
Review the case for torture
Benefits of torture
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Torture as a moral wrong
In discussion of torture, one controversial issue has been whether torture is effective and if it violates the human rights. On the one hand, some argue that torture is effective. Others even maintain that torture does not violate human rights. I disagree with allowing torture because in my view, torture is not effective, it violates the human rights, and undermines the effectiveness of interrogation methods. A main concern that torture has, or at least should have, is its ineffectiveness. One has to look at every aspect of the torture that is being done. For example, what kind of torture, to whom, and who is inflicting the torture. If torture is being done by some one who hates a certain race or simply has hate in them, then the torture that …show more content…
Information can be extracted much faster by using interrogation methods, compared to that witch torture brings. Another great example of this has been the interrogation of Saddam Hussein. Asha Rangappa the author of the article “Torture Undermines the Effectiveness of the FBI”, is a former special agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) speaks on behalf of this interrogation. Rangappa states,” FBI agent George Piro, who was in charge of interrogating [Iraqi dictator] Saddam Hussein, was able to get the former dictator to talk, by among other things, reading his poetry, helping him planting a flower garden…” (Rangappa). Rangappa is corroborating to my statement of torture ineffectiveness. FBI agents were able to gather willing information by simply putting interest in a person. There was no need to force the information out because Hussein talked and gave out the information that was wanted without any pressure or violence, it was out of his own will. The reason this occurred was because agent Piro engaged in things that Hussein related to, which in a sense could have led him to feel comfortable around Piro and give him what he what he was looking for. Which was the information. Another similar case was terrorist detainee Abu Zubayadahs interrogation. It was said that FBI agent Ali Soufan received information from Abu Zubayadahs while he was being nursed back …show more content…
He is, in fact, ready to confess to anything. He signs a false statement saying that he went for training in Afghanistan…he knows nothing…” (Grey). Basically, Grey is corroborating that torture is not effective. Torture is a method that can force an innocent person to agreeing to something that is not true. It can force an innocent person to plead guilty to what that person is being accused of, such as it was in the case of Maher Arar. Maher Arar agreed to saying he went to traing in Afghanistan, which was not true. The reason he did this is simple, he wanted to stop the pain that was being inflicted on him by the CIA interrogator. The strategy of torture was what lead to this. The simple fact this has and could keep happening is a big concern, because not only is false information given with torture, but it is also making an innocent person confess to something they didn’t do. Not only does that mean that the person is being tortured unjustified, but also mean that that person can be facing legal charges because of the result of torture. A person in pain is most likely to be willing to say anything that the CIA wants to hear, which makes torture not only an unreliable
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
Applebaum believes that torture should not be used as a means of gaining information from suspects. Applebaum's opinion is supported through details that the practice has not been proven optimally successful. After debating the topic, I have deliberated on agreeing with Applebaum's stance towards the torture policy. I personally agree with the thought to discontinue the practice of torture as a means of acquiring intel. I find it unacceptable that under the Bush Administration, the President decided prisoners to be considered exceptions to the Geneva Convention. As far as moral and ethical consideration, I do not believe that it is anyone's right to harm anyone else, especially if the tactic is not proven successful. After concluding an interview with Academic, Darius Rejali, Applebaum inserted that he had “recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway.” There are alternative...
Rather, when torture is acceptable, and on which term should be it performed? The argument lest authorization torture his an advisor Sharde presumption that torture is currently happening and will be happening in the future hence the the. Plan of torture and. Dershowitz believes in a formal, visible, accountable, and controlled system of inflicting that would ideally leave torture as a last resort. The system would begin by granting the suspect immunity. Then suspect the be would compelled to testify; if the suspect were to refuse to exchange information, the next step would be acknowledging the possibility of torture while continuing to give the option of immunity. In a case of a suspect refusing to exchange information, even with immunity, a judicial warrant must be granted to proceed with purposely elicited
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.
False confessions are receiving more public attention now that people are speaking out about having to serve jail time for a crime they did not commit. 2015 was a year to remember for false confessions, starting in January when a man was released after serving 21 years in prison. The protocols that interrogators are trained to follow are dangerous because they allow investigators to have complete influence on innocent people to make false confessions. Most people believe that all interrogators are trained to use mental and physical abusive tactics because it appears in the media and news so often, therefore making it believable to blame them for false confessions. “Interrogation is derived from the Latin roots inter (in the presence of) and rogre (to ask).There are no nefarious connotations, elements of torture, or illegal activities associated with the action of interrogation”(Boetig).
of torture as necessary and important in order to safeguard the lives of the many innocents
...s invaluable. The efficacy of torture can be seen in the capture of Zubaydah and the prevention of the “Dirty bomber,” Jose Padilla. Effectiveness has also been proven; it has hypothetically saved many lives and has prevented many plots known to the general public. Ex-Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech in 2009 that the “enhanced interrogation” of detainees “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people” (“The Report of The Constitution Project's Task Force on Detainee Treatment”, 1). Since it has been deemed illegal by the UN it has to be done in secrecy. In result, it cannot be deduced how much has been prevented by this procedure since that information is classified. However, it is irrefutable that torture, in its essence, is beneficial and should be accepted as a means of ensuring public safety.
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.
From a moral standpoint, torture is wrong and unacceptable. Many religious people are against this act of violence because they see it as a violation of the dignity of a human being. Humans have the right to not have intentional harm upon themselves from others. The ban on torture furthermore supports this certain right. Not only does torture violate people’s rights, but they also violate the demands of justice. In the past, many of our nation’s people have been tortured and we have had a problem with it; but when it’s not you the one that is being tortured, it seems to be fine. Have you heard of the golden rule, “Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation? (7)” This applies very well to this problem.
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.
There are a lot of disturbing aspects of torture, just thinking about the dehumanizing, disfiguring process is enough to make any normal persons stomach turn. However when I say there are disturbing aspects of torture I am referring to the process (or lack of). There is no protocol for torture. There are no trial, no rules, guidelines, or script that a torturer must follow. It is free
Tortured prisoners give false information. One writer writes “Many survivors of torture report that they would have said anything to make the torture stop.” (Mayer, 2005; McCoy, 2006) Another says that “We had people who were willing to confess to anything if we would just stop” (Andersen). The NY times reports that in 2002, A Syrian born Canadian named Maher Arar was stopped in an airport and was interrogated. He was later sent to a prison where he was beaten, tortured and questioned for the next 10 months of his life. To stop the punishment, he “admitted” to getting training in Afghanistan! A country he had never even been to. It was later discovered that everything that he confessed to was false, and was just a lie to stop the torture. Not only did you destroy someone’s life, but you also wasted taxpayer’s money! Imagine the amount of money wasted on getting planes to that area of Afghanistan where that guy was “trained” at. Or the amount of money that was used to fund this prison! Confessions made during torture are unreliable and are usually just statements to stop the torture.
Torture is the act of inflicting severe physical or psychological pain, and/or injury to a person (or animal) usually to one who is physically restrained and is unable to defend against what is being done to them. It has ancient origins and still continues today. The torture debate is a controversial subject to modern society. Because it is such a complex subject, many debatable issues come from it. For example, many have debated whether torture is effective in obtaining the truth, affects the torturers, threatens the international standing of the United States, or undermines justice. Others include what qualifies as torture, or whether or not the United States should set an example by not torturing. The two opposing claims to this topic would be: (a) that torture should always be illegal because it is immoral and cruel and goes against the international treaties signed by the U.S. and torture and inhuman treatment, and (b) yes, torture is acceptable when needed. Why not do to terrorists what they are so good at doing to so many others?
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.
In conclusion, the convention against torture, has brought many people together, and has informed many people of the horrible tortures which go on everywhere from the US to Syria. It has tried to set fine lines which prohibit torture under all circumstances. However, since there is no governing body over countries, it remains difficult to enforce the human right standards sought after by the Convention against torture. The convention has therefore done a good job at identifying the torturers. This has in turn lessened the amount of those persecuted. It will remain a gradual process to eliminate torture from all countries, but nevertheless a necessity, in the quest for universal human rights. Torture will continue until all countries decide for themselves, and not from a third party convention that freedom from torture is a human right everyone deserves.