Argument Analysis: The Case For Torture By Michael Levin

In modern society, where human rights are highly protected, torture is considered as a hideous crime that makes us feel repugnant. In fact, in a few circumstances, as an interrogation technique, some people are of the opinion that the use of torture is justified. However, torture should still not be legalized because not only the information gathered from it is usually unreliable, but also its effects on both victims and perpetrators are unacceptable. There is no doubt that the confession extracted through torture is not always trusted. Humans, including detainees, mostly tend to avoid pain, which means they may deliver any information just to appease the tormentors instead of the accurate one.

First, I will discuss

For the purpose of this assignment, let’s say that I agree that the death penalty is immoral, and no one who has been successfully taken into custody and imprisoned should ever then be executed. I should also mention, that I think that this statement is partly true, but

In this era, people are living in a peaceful society which people are considered highly protected by laws. This peaceful atmosphere could be termed as the ‘Queen’s peace’. The origin of the queen’s peace is the general peace of the person’s and property protection in medieval times and transformed to the entire royal domain by the authority of the British monarch, when the monarch is a queen. The queen’s peace is vital to protect the personal property and the peace of the society which would makes people tend to live in a comfort and peaceful circumstance without people hurting or killing each other by the protection of the settlement of law. According to Uwede-Meshack (n.d.), Hart states that law is a union of primary and secondary rules.

So it seems that those who deny the moral permissibility of torture, in such cases, are conceding to the moral permissibility of killing. The argument is based on the following premises: 1-Torture is necessary to protect the people. 2-It is in the people’s interest to take moral precedence over others’ interests. 3-Hence, it is morally permissible to go forward with torture.

In reference to a bill introduced to Congress forbidding the use of tactics defined by torture; The United States government must consider all of the ethical options and possibilities they have. Torturing anyone is morally unethical but allowing terrorists to murder innocent civilians is against every moral we, as humans possess. As morally just people America needs to find the exceptions in which we are willing to use torture in countering terrorism. As leaders of the free world our government has the responsibility to do everything in their power to protect innocent people and gain the needed information to do so. In order to win the war on terror, officials will occasionally have no choice but to torture the terrorists withholding information to prevent these attacks on humanity.

Non offending mother and father not most effective ought to assist their youngsters get over maltreatment, but additionally need to address their personal complicity in permitting the maltreatment to arise, or in failing to apprehend the signs and symptoms of abuse of their children. The presence of toddler abuses and neglect in a network reflects attitudes about toddler rearing, punishment, and popularity of violence as a solution to issues.” (pop center.org) ultimately, because many types of child maltreatment are crimes, and due to the fact the effects of infant abuse and overlook consist of delinquency, substance abuse, and violence, efforts to lessen the prevalence of toddler abuse and neglect are important to lengthy-term public health and public protection efforts

The eighth amendment of the United States constitution states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (“Human Rights”). The clause about “cruel and unusual punishment” appears the most contentious phrase because in some ways the definition seems unclear. Not only does the subject matter appear debatable, but the definition of “torture” itself. The two main definitions of torture are: “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purpose as obtaining from him or her information of a confession" or “excruciating pain that is equivalent to losing organs and systems” (Welna). The controversy derived

These two issues can go hand in hand because if torture is abused, it will be easier to torture the wrong person; and if the wrong person gets tortured, it can cause more abuses of torture because of the practice of targeting the wrong person. As in all forms of punishment torture can become abused and as such human rights will be violated, and so a question is needed to be answered: when does an action violate a right? Because even when torture is being used for the sake of security and when it is being abused they are both exercising the same

Unless of course, this expression is inciting violent or illegal behaviour, or threatening others, in which case it is directly harmful and should therefore be prohibited. I think J.S. Mill would agree with me on these points as he states “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (Mill, J.S.,1978). Joel Feinberg, who also had very influential views on the Freedom of Speech debate, may respond to Mills view and propose that the Harm Principle is not enough: “In some instances, Feinberg suggests, we also need an offense principle that can act as a guide to public censure. The basic idea is that the harm principle sets the bar too high

If we as humans can weed out the people who aren’t trustworthy, on a small and large scale, there won’t be as much conflict, but if we fail to do this then hostility will still be at ease worldwide. Friends betraying others in junior high are major issus and resolving the issue as a whole is highly unlikely, but if we separated those we could trust with those we can’t it would save us all the headache. So, is letting go of trust the key to survival? After reading this book I believe trust is still something that is appreciated from the right people, but from the wrong people, the results can be

From the study of criminology and psychology, many researchers discovered that terrorists would choose to use different strategies to avoid giving useful information in the police interview. In 2000, Manchester Metropolitan police arrest a group of terrorists members, and in their house, police found a document named Manchester Manual that wrote about the information of behaviour in the interrogation to protect their group and enable them to use it flexibly(Clemens et al, 2013). From this experiences, the polices started to try to discover different tactics that detainee use to withhold the information in the questioning. One finding that both psychologist and police found to improve the quality of the interrogation is to understudied the

When someone who commits a crime is determined to be mentally inadequate to be held accountable for the crimes they have committed, there are things that we do to charge them, but in a lesser way because of their mental capacity. Which begs the question, why are we allowing children to be sentenced to life, when their brains aren’t fully developed? When a child commits a crime we look over that, and stop seeing them as children. We shouldn’t sentence children to a life in prison when their brains are not only underdeveloped, but also missing a good portion of gray matter.

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

What does Eric Fair think is the difference between "enhanced interrogation" and torture? Eric Fair sees no difference between enhanced interrogation and torture. He claims that people say that there is interrogation, enhanced interrogation, and torture and that they are somehow different. However, he believes that there is not a middle ground and that enhanced interrogation is inherently the same at torture. What specific technique/incident convinced him that he had been using torture?