Essay about Is Torture Ever Acceptable?
694 WordsJun 30th, 20103 Pages
I do not believe in torture and consider it something barbaric and inhuman. Therefore I would say that torture is never acceptable under any circumstances, and regardless of what the consequences might be. Torture and civilization do not mix because the latter highly emphasizes the value of human beings as it is something intrinsic. Democracy also does not mix with torture because democratic societies believe in human rights and equality. My point is that the end does not justify the means when it comes to the torture of a human being.
September 11, 2001 was a turning point in not only the history of the United States but also the history of the world. It has put the commitment of the civilized world with human rights into test. After…show more content…
However, there are two basic arguments about this issue I am going to talk about. The first argument considers that we can use torture as the last resort. Consequentialists, who hold the first argument, consider that no action is bad in itself. According to them, morality of actions is determined by their consequences. Thus, in the above mentioned scenario "the good” (saving innocent people) must be weighed up against “the bad” (torturing the suspect) in order to make a decision on the correct course of action.
The second argument considers that torture is not acceptable under any circumstances and regardless what the consequences might be. Deontologists, who hold this argument, consider that torture cannot be justified because the acceptance of any form of torture as an effective means to extract information from suspects, would universalize and legalize torture. The act of torture is wrong because torturing a person for information is to use them as a means to exploit them.
Personally, I think that the “ticking bomb” scenario is very narrow and is deceptively used to legalize torture as an acceptable means of eliciting information from suspects in critical situations. There are several considerations that should be taken into account before trying to legalize the act of torture; the scenario of the “ticking bomb” can be challenged and rests only on assumptions. Exceptions will pave the way before the wide implementation
It is rather difficult to determine whether torture is ever acceptable. From different points of view, it can be said that each person has his own opinion considering the issue, and this issue is rather contradictive. It is known that are thousands of various situations of torture and consequently, in some of them torture is being used, for example to prevent terrorist attacks or to get the important information.
Thesis: Torture is unacceptable, as all human beings have their rights, and there are other modern ways of punishment and ways to get information from people. Many experts find torture unnecessary and claim that it is not effective any more.
Obviously, there are other methods of getting useful information that can save lives, but it has also been proven that not all people can be tortured and as a consequence tell the truth. Some of them lie when they are tortured and some of them just say nothing. Many experts think that torture is effective, but the other side of this issue is still unclear, as even an innocent person can get tortured by a mistake and then, probably, killed. In this case torture is unacceptable.
Torture has been known since the ancient times as a means of punishment, deterrence, and to obtain confessions. In particular, a variety of torture is widely used in ancient Egypt, Assyria, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and other ancient nations.
Torture – is the infliction of deliberate torture (both physical and mental) in order to obtain information or to punishment. In a broad sense, torture is considered as any procedure causing human suffering and pain, regardless of the circumstances and objectives, regardless of whether the sentence ends with this procedure or followed by homicide. In the narrow sense it is usually understood as “physical abuse, torture during interrogation”.
Some people think that “torture, when used for interrogative purposes is acceptable and necessary, as long as it is within legal means, specifically the Geneva Convention. This would therefore not apply to what we consider enemy combatants, primarily terrorists who do not fight under a flag or in a uniform and do not fight for any particular state.”, according to Is torture acceptable? (2010).
Among people, their personal tolerance and the lack of information do not allow them to fully imagine the situations when torture is used, the cruelty that was prevented with the help of torture methods. There is a lot that the society does not know, and, for example, for the terrorists torture can be a unique way of getting information. According to Torture acceptable, says former NCA chief (2005), “A former chairman of the National Crime Authority says torture is acceptable against terrorists and in some domestic criminal situations. “What I’m trying to establish is that this is a legitimate issue to be on the table for debate… but people start saying you’re a Nazi because you want to debate it.””
Under torture, false testimony can be given as innocent and guilty, as a betrayal of the traditions of the countries can been considered as a grave sin. At the same time, there are exceptions. If the evidence can be quickly checked repeatedly (for example, if you want to know the lock code or the location of the safe money in the apartment), it tries to be able to learn the correct information. If the authorities are able to identify even a small number of underground workers, it is more important than a large number of innocent victims, from the standpoint of the authorities of torture in this case can also be effective.
“There are a number of important issues affecting the criminal justice system being debated at present without being diverted by some ludicrous concept of introducing legalized torture by police as an investigative technique.”, as stated in Torture acceptable, says former NCA chief (2005).
After 2001, the world’s attention was drawn to the harsh interrogation methods used by the CIA in secret U.S. prisons, designed for foreigners suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. There was a special resonance to news reports on torture of Iraqi prisoners by Americans at Abu Ghraib prison. To avoid the use of such methods in 2005 in the United States has passed a special law on the treatment of detainees- The Detainee Treatment Act.
The majority of people find torture unnecessary and claim that it is not effective any more. There are many other ways to prove whether the person it telling the truth and to get information from him, as the technologies nowadays are advanced and other techniques can be also used. According to Most Americans Oppose Torture Techniques (2004), “Given pro and con arguments, 63 percent in an ABC News/Washington Post poll say torture is never acceptable, even when other methods fail and authorities believe the suspect has information that could prevent terrorist attacks. Thirty-five percent say torture is acceptable in some such cases.”
The main international instrument in the fight against torture is the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, In human or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by Resolution 39/46 of UN General Assembly on Dec. 10, 1984. There were acceded to the Convention 127 countries. Art. 1 of the Convention defines “torture” as follows: “any act by which a person is intentionally inflicted severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, to get from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected, and or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by a public official or other person acting in an official capacity, or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence . It does not include pain or suffering arising only from lawful sanctions, are inseparable from these sanctions or incidental.”
All in all, it can be said that there will never be a one unique opinion considering the issue and it will always be contradictive. In many countries it is believed that the testimony that were received during torture were truthful. It is difficult to realize that tortures exist in the modern world, and that the consequence of this fact is that there is a threat of terrorism. Torture is also generally condemned in the moral and ethical considerations, and I think that torture is unacceptable in the modern world. According to Most Americans Oppose Torture Techniques (2004) , “Perhaps surprisingly, views on torture and physical abuse are virtually identical whether the targets are suspected terrorists, or suspects in recent attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Half the public thinks international terrorists are involved in those attacks.) Just over six in 10 call torture unacceptable for either type of suspect and just over half call abuse unacceptable in either case.”
Is torture acceptable? (2010). Retrieved February 23, 2011 from http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/formal-debate/23837-torture-acceptable.html
Most Americans Oppose Torture Techniques (2004). Retrieved February 23, 2011 from http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/polls/torture_poll_040527.html
Torture acceptable, says former NCA chief (2005). Retrieved February 23, 2011 from http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/05/22/1116700585264.html?from=rss