Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The case of torture
Torture: Why It Should Stop
Torture, the most extreme form of human violence, resulting in both physical and psychological consequences. A technique of interrogation that has been proven time and time again to not only be ineffective but also a waste of time. Studies have shown that not only does torture psychologically damage the mind of the victim, but also can hurt the inflictor. If there is proof that torture is useless, why do we still use it? Torture should not be used to get information out of prisoners because of the risk of false information, enemy resistance and utter uselessness.
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.
Another reason why torture is not effective is because futur...
... middle of paper ...
...rrorist organization. You are innocent, and you know that you have nothing to do with this. After being brutally tortured and questioned over and over again, you might start doubting yourself. After a while you will start to “remember” doing things for this organization. Your brain will treat these false memories and actual memories, and before you know it, you’re telling your captor that you are a hardened terrorist, who hates liberty and justice! As one doctor puts it “Cortisol-induced damage to the prefrontal cortex can cause confabulation, or false memories. Because a person being tortured loses the ability to distinguish between true and false memories, as a 2008 study showed, further pain and stress does not cause him to tell the truth, but to retreat further into a fog where he cannot tell true from false” (“Neuroscience: Torture Doesn’t work and Here’s Why”)
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.
Keller (2008) wrote, documented and describes in great detail two cases on the use of torture concerning Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib prison and the physical and psychological consequences resulting from months of daily abuse at the hands of U.S military soldiers. Keller’s article suggests the importance of supervisory forensic psychological evaluations and by implementing such tools on prisoners can ensure physical and mental stability. Keller also documented the tool used in the examinations of said detainees as the Istanbul protocol. The goal is to provide empirical analysis of Abu Ghraib detainee’s long term effects due to mistreatment and abuse. The message and tone of the article is both politically and scientifically motivated.
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:
...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.
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 of 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
Consider the following situation: You are an army officer who has just captured an enemy soldier who knows where a secret time bomb has been planted. Unless defused, the bomb will explode, killing thousands of people. Would it be morally permissible to torture them to get him to reveal the bomb’s location? Discuss this problem in light of both Utilitarian and Kantian moral theories and present arguments from both moral perspectives for why torture is morally wrong.
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.
Torture is something that can cause severe emotional and physical damage along with being a method to compel someone to reveal “valuable” information (“Definition of torture,” n.d.). When a person is being tortured they could also be compel to participate in an activity they don’t want to do (“Definition of torture,” n.d.). Since ancient times torture has been a method used to obtain valuable intelligence. Presently, the use of torture to acquire beneficial facts is a highly controversial topic. Torture is a highly controversial topic because no one knows how effective it is at retrieving information plus it violates human rights and dignity (“Why is Torture Wrong?” 2014).
The use of torture has always been a hot topic of moral and ethical discussion. Typically, the discussion is not about whether or not torture is good, but rather if there is ever a morally acceptable situation in which torture should be allowed to occur. Does a criminal’s deeds strip him of basic human rights and make it morally okay for him to be physically and mentally abused? Do certain situations such as war make torture acceptable? It is generally agreed upon that torture is a terrible violation of a person and their rights; the common thread among moral questions such as these is if there are any times when torture could be considered morally acceptable. In order to analyze this moral dilemma, an ethical system is commonly used as a
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?
...en and women. The “victims” sitting in Guantanamo are being tortured for crimes not committed by them and are being rewarded with no families or loved ones and psychological trauma. Through many studies it has been proven that these victims will commit to false information just to stop the pain. Enhanced interrogation is one of the more popular techniques used to induce information from possible suspects; however, this technique is immoral in ways such as, but not limited to, impacting the victims life, family, and friends, the side effects of enhanced interrogation are disgusting, and in most cases victims admit to the false accusations which is in no way beneficial to the main problem. It has been proven that these methods are ineffective and are often misleading, in fact there are other much more humane methods which have been proven beneficial in many cases.
The ongoing debate between torture and enhanced interrogation techniques is, has been and always will be a hot controversial topic. Whether between different political views, cultures, world leaders or the citizens and society in general, the issue will always be of great importance. Some believe the two are the same, while others feel they differ. Either way, the methods and effectiveness are the major points for concern.
Opposers of torture also say that there are many other better ways to obtain information like relating and being friendly with them as well as using a lie detector test (Fessenden). If someone is a terrorist willing to take their own life along with many others, they are not just going to give in with simple small talk. They will not give in because they do not have a moral code and are loyal to their own group, not America. As for the lie detector polygraph test, it has been used for many years by the government. But through many tests of the equipment, it has now been proven multiple times that polygraph tests can be wrong because one can train themselves to completely trick the test showing that they are telling the truth even if they aren’t
“A Case For Torture” is an essay written by Michael Levin in which he tries to make a compelling case for the use of torture as a punishment during specific situations in the United States. One of the ways Levin tries to logically prove his argument is by citing different real life circumstances; most are hypothetical situations. His use of theoretical instances is meant to help direct the reader to understand the applications of Levin’s policy on torture. But unfortunately, the examples Levin cites are too weak for his argument. These examples include a potential terrorist attack on Manhattan and a hospital robbery. Levin’s position also lacks strength due to its inapplicability to the current world.
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.