Imagine there is a bomb under downtown New York City. You have the person who put it there and you have the option to torture him and find out where the bomb is. Otherwise, all of those people will die. So, is torture right? Torture is something that is largely debated among many countries and is one of the leading debates today. It is a problem because it is considered a violation of human rights and a crime against humanity but with terrorists on the loose everywhere what are we going to do? The debate on torture really began after the signing of the Geneva conventions in 1949 after there were talks on the treatment of soldiers in other countries. The real problem now is that many terrorist organizations in the middle east that do not …show more content…
To begin on, Torture could have saved many lives in past scenarios. Many terrible terrorist attacks could have been prevented with torture. According to former Vice President Dick Cheney "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" 9/11-like attacks. He also stated the rest of the documents were classified. Some people also debate that further interrogation could have stopped the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, many think that the Paris bombings could have been prevented if advanced interrogation methods were used. According to the Boston Globe, “a scenario happened where a young girl was kidnapped and her kidnapper was apprehended. He had buried her with only a couple hours of air and she was saved by advanced interrogation methods. This shows that multiple past terror or kidnapping incidents could have been prevented with the use of advanced interrogation methods which can save lives and prevent unnecessary terror. On the other hand, Many future attacks could be prevented also with the use of advanced interrogation methods. A study from Hopkins University shows that “every time a person is waterboarded 3 lives are saved. Also, when the word gets out to terrorists it scares them to face that fate. Another study from the Pentagon also stated: “our methods deter terrorists”. This also leads to the stopping of attacks and the ending of organizations. This information hints at advanced interrogation methods stopping future terrorist attacks and stopping people from becoming terrorists. Lastly, Terrorists have been quitting because of the United State’s use of advanced interrogation on terrorists. Statistics have shown that most terrorists in the middle east join because they need money for their families. Studies have shown that many men in terrorist organizations will quit once one of their friends is subject to the advanced interrogation methods.
In the article, “The Torture Myth,” Anne Applebaum explores the controversial topic of torture practices, focused primarily in The United States. The article was published on January 12, 2005, inspired by the dramatic increase of tensions between terrorist organizations and The United States. Applebaum explores three equality titillating concepts within the article. Applebaum's questions the actual effectiveness of using torture as a means of obtaining valuable information in urgent times. Applebaum explores the ways in which she feels that the United States’ torture policy ultimately produces negative effects upon the country. Applebaum's final question is if torture is not optimally successful, why so much of society believes it works efficiently.
What do you consider to be cruel and unusual punishment? Most people when asked this question think of medieval torture devices, burning people alive, and hard slave labor. However, cruel and unusual punishment, which is a protected against right by the eighth amendment, stretches far beyond these cliches and is still occurring in modern society. The case Miller v. Alabama and a parallel case, Jackson v. Hobbs deals with such punishments and brings up the questions of what, in current times, is to be considered cruel and unusual punishment. Miller v. Alabama addresses with the debate that arose surrounding the mandatory sentence of life without parole for a juvenile when two boys, fourteen-year-old Evan Miller and sixteen-year-old Colby Smith,
First, the ticking-bomb scenarios are cases in which torturing the terrorist will save many innocent lives at the cost of non-lethal suffering to one individual. Torturing the terrorist would thus produce the most happiness/well-being. This approach has great strengths but also creates complex questions: is torture still the lesser evil if it only saves one person? Is it morally right to torture a person’s children to extract a confession? Is it morally right to torture ninety-nine people in an attempt to save one-hundred others? In theory this type of thinking can justify extreme inhumanity as long as it is calculated as the lesser evil. Secondly, one ought to do what produces the most happiness/well-being. Despite the wider case against torture, a person confronted with the immediate choices in the ‘ticking bomb’ case is unlikely to take these issues into account; ‘interrogators will still use coercion because in some cases they will deem it worth the consequence. Few people would be unable to see a moral basis for torture if it was carried out in a reasonably clear ‘ticking bomb’ case and if the intention of the torturer was to ‘do the right thing.’ The difficulties of the immediate choice between carrying out torture and allowing deaths make it difficult to morally condemn the unfortunate person charged with deciding. Therefore, one ought to torture terrorists in such scenarios. The only pragmatic concern would be that torture does not
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.
Because of the 9/11 terrorist, the U.S. have been able to limit the outcomes they produce by using physical and mental torture against their emotional torture they used on the Citizens. Its not the U.S. that started this battle over the use of torture, america had to protect itself from further hurt. “The suffering caused by the terrorists is the real torture (Jean-Marie Le Pen).” people argue that torture it is an inhumane act to deliberately beat a victim physically and mentally. The problem is that there are no other possible solutions to obtain information that are as effective as torture on such events other than force it out of them by using torture as their primary weapon (The Legal Prohibition). If the U.S. wants to pursue the safety of americans they have to take actions, As long as there are no bombs going off around the world, the U.S. will continue to use torture . Terrorism has become a much greater threat than before. regardless if the beating are too extreme, it is still the duty of the state to protect its citizens (Torture Is Just Means). Even if the interoges are suffering from severe torture, the U.S. is able t...
...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.
At first glance, Utilitarian moral theories may seem to support the idea of torturing this innocent man. If we look at this situation we see that there is a dilemma of hurting one man, or having to bear the death of many. We may say that since the basis of Utilitarianism is to do what is best for the greater good, then there is no question that we would torture this one man so that we may save thousands. Take a step back and look at this situation from another angle. What truly is the greater good here? Let us focus on the idea that “if punishing John will do no good, then John should go free” (Pojman, 2002, p.109). What is the chance that a captured soldier is going to give away the secret location of the bomb? It is highly likely he has been trained not to speak under any circumstances. If he does not speak then you have just diminished utility for every single person involved.
My topic is about cruel and unusual punishment. I picked this topic because I wanted to learn about cruel and unusual punishment and why people do it. The eighth amendment was started 1791 which is cruel and unusual punishment. The term cruel unusual punishment means people that committed a crime have the right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment while in prison. It means if a prison did something bad the constitution still acts to guarantee his or her personal safety and not to be tortured.
Capital punishment in the United States is a highly debated topic. Arguments that want to get rid of this method of punishment usually mention the many problems that capital punishment is plagued with. The death penalty has many issues that cannot be resolved, and since these issues can’t be solved, the death penalty should be abolished. “The irrevocable nature of the death penalty renders it an unsustainable and indefensible remedy in an imperfect justice system.” (Evans 3) Even though the death penalty has been around since the 18th century, capital punishment has many issues such as wrongful convictions and high costs, proving it should be eliminated.
There are over sixty offenses in the United States of America that can be punishable by receiving the death penalty (What is..., 1). However, many individuals believe that the death penalty is an inadequate source of punishment for any crime no matter how severe it is. The fact remains, however, that the death penalty is one of the most ideal forms of punishment. There are other individuals who agree with the idea that capital punishment is the best form of punishment. In fact, some of these individuals believe that this should be the only form of punishment.
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
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.
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.