Should torture be acceptable in our society seems to be the day old question. First, one must know what torture actually is; torture is the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain. Torture is wrong and should not be acceptable in our society because it is ineffective, morally wrong, and it violates the rights of human dignity of the victim. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.” Article 17 of the Third Geneva
Convention of 1949 says, “No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of threat, may be inflicted on a person.
…show more content…
It may well produce inaccurate information, because while under torture the victim’s main goal is to stop the pain, he or she will say anything to stop the pain regardless of if it’s the truth or not. Because of the knowledge of this, interrogators can never be quite sure if what the victim is saying is the actual truth. He will continue torturing the victim and nothing will ever be solved. History offers no modern examples of the effectiveness of harsh interrogation techniques. There are many other ways of interrogation that are available and more effective. Studies have also shown that torture is a “slippery slope” in that each act of torture makes it easier to accept the use of torture in the future.
Torture violates the rights of human dignity of the victim. We all as humans have rights and we should all be respected. Torture treats the victim as a “thing” and not as a person with values. It uses the victim’s body as a tool to get information out of them or to
IS TORTURE ACCEPTABLE
3
make others feel better. Torture dehumanizes people by treating them as pawns to be manipulated through their pain. It violates the human’s legal right to remain silent when questioned. There are better ways to solve problems than to express anger through hate and
In the article “The Case for Torture”, Michael Levin argues that the use of torture as a way to save lives is justifiable and necessary. Levin draws a series of cases where torture might be acceptable so as to set certain precedent for the justification of torture in more realistic cases. HoweverLevin illustrates three cases where torture might be justifiable.he describes a terrorist keeping city of millions hostage to an atomic bomb, the second, a terrorist who has implanted remote bombs on a plane and the third, a terrorist who has kidnapped a baby. torture and its consequences have been recorded in countries around of world over a vast span of time, and for a variety of reasons. Levin makes no such attempt to expand his article beyond
After finding some torture tactics, it helped me research about the negative effects of torture. In his article, “Torture is a Crime”, Curt Goering listed the negative effects of torture. He argues that torture is illegal, ineffective, immoral and makes those around us unsafe. Curt uses ethos in his piece to back up his main argument. For example, he mentions that in 1984, the UN adopted the Convention against torture and it was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1990.
Many have said that they would want nonlethal torture to be used in such cases but “did not want torture to be officially recognized by our legal system.” Similar statements have posited that while “torture might be necessary in a given situation it could never be right.” This approach, that of keeping torture off-the-books, is in direct conflict with the necessity for accountability and transparency in a democracy. A democracy cannot work if the public is kept in the dark. The public must know what is going on in order to approve or disapprove.
Mahatma Gandhi, the preeminent leader of the Indian independence movement states “You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind.” This is important because torture is brutal on the body and mind. The article “Torture’s Terrible Toll” by John McCain is more convincing then the article “The Case for Torture” by Michael Levin because McCain provides more logical reasoning, he adds his own personal experience of being a captured prisoner during the Vietnam War, and he creates an emotional bond with people around the world. Through more logical reasoning McCain Argument is more valid than Levin.
In the case that there is sufficient evidence of guilt as well as coconspirators, torture may be allowed but none that is inhumane. Document B: The Massachusetts Body of Liberties allows torture in the case that somebody is deemed guilty by clear evidence. In the Laws of Connecticut Colony, no torture is allowed whatsoever. Document C: Mather advises judges to continue the regular American method of obtaining confessions and to abstain from torture, for confusion is more likely to get a confession than torture. Document D: Henry warns that Congress will attempt to extort confession by practicing torture.
This is for sure going against the article number 5 in the universal declaration, “Nobody has any right to hurt us or to torture us”. As human beings if we have done nothing wrong even if we did anything wrong we have no right to be physically abused. Another example is when Elie Wiesels father states when Elie asked if he had eaten, “They didn’t give us anything… they said that we were sick, that we would die soon, and that it would be a waste of food” (Wiesel 107). This proves that the physical cruel treatment is happening to human rights because they are not being fed when they do not
The Case for Torture Wins Torture is it morally acceptable? Many have debated this argument but I would like to bring up two main conflicting view points from Michael Levin, and Marzieh Ghisai. Michael Levin is a Jewish law professor who wrote The Case for Torture where he advocates where torture is acceptable in some circumstances.
Under fairness ethics, it is not fair for the torturer to deal with these consequences. To better understand fairness turn the tables around and determine if the same treatment is justifiable. Think about the invasion in Iraq, what if an Iraqis capture an American? Should Iraqis torture the American in efforts to learn which areas in Iraq need evacuation to save lives (Mayerfeld 2008)? Individuals would not be hesitant to defend the American’s rights and oppose torturing him This biased opinion develops only the basis of who is the victim. Hence, emphasizing the lack of equality when evaluating the morality of using torture.
In medieval times, torture was used to punish criminals, deter crime, and gather information. There were many different types of tortures, most of which were brutal and painful. At the time, torture was deemed necessary to maintain order. Laws were harsh and torture was severe, but effective form of punishment. Despite its effectiveness, torture was often an unfair and extremely cruel punishment, and should have been eliminated in all forms.
As this article mentions many people do believe that torture works as nobody could resist the physical and mental torture people are put through. In reality most successful cases have been done by psychology experts using other methods. They used human knowledge and applied it to the interrogation. Moskalenko, Sophia. " Great Minds Think Alike: Psychology Of An Effective Interrogation."
While analyzing “The Torture Myth” and “The Case for Torture”, it is very clear to see the type of rhetorical appeals used to persuade the audience. Anne Applebaum, the writer of “The Torture Myth” --in context of the decision of electing a new Attorney General--would argue that torture is very seldomly effective, violates a person’s rights, and should be outlawed due to the irrational need upon which physical torture is used. On the other hand, Michael Levin strongly argues that physical torture is crucial to solving every imminent danger to civilians. Levin claims that if you don’t physically torture someone, you are being weak and want to allow innocent people to die over something that could have been simply done.
There are many interpretations of what torture is and how something can be classified as torture. In “Believe Me It’s Torture” Christopher Hitchens talks about the United States and its various uses of interrogation tactics to get Important information from suspected terrorists. In the article the author often brings up the waterboarding tactic that is often used and how there is a large controversy over whether it is in fact torture or if it is just simply harmless. The article states, “waterboarding was something that Americans did to other Americans, it was inflicted upon and endured by the Special Forces in a form of training called S.E.R.E (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) so that they could build up a resistance to it so that they
A signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, the United States “does not torture.” Yet abundant evidence indicates that it does, directly or by proxy—and in fact always has. An old American tradition of state-sponsored torture even has its own lexicon: SOA, Kubark, Phoenix, MK-Ultra, rendition, CIA’s “no-touch” paradigm, etc. It is quite popular, too. Torture enjoys more than twice the public support in the US that it does in France, Spain, and the UK.
In Michael Levin's The Case for Torture, Levin provides an argument in which he discusses the significance of inflicting torture to perpetrators as a way of punishment. In his argument, he dispenses a critical approach into what he believes justifies torture in certain situations. Torture is assumed to be banned in our culture and the thought of it takes society back to the brutal ages. He argues that societies that are enlightened reject torture and the authoritative figure that engage in its application risk the displeasure of the United States. In his perspective, he provides instances in which wrongdoers put the lives of innocent people at risk and discusses the aspect of death and idealism.
It was mainly used for capital punishment but in the somewhat established courts many confessions were deemed invalid because it was believed that the victim was being forced to confess under great agony. Only since the early modern period did torture become the inhumane entity that it is viewed as today. During this time period, horrible forms of public torture were used in hopes to deter heretics from the king or religion. Ever since the end of WWII did torture become the secretive and horrible thing that comes to mind today. Here, democracies such as France, England, and America developed the methods of torture that leave no marks and cannot be proven except in people with PTSD.