Torture Vs Medieval Torture

The medieval times lasted from the fifth to the fifth-teenth century. It began with the fall of the western Roman Empire, as you might know. During these times the people were wanting information, or justice. Now there was more than just one device used to extract information. Some might kill the victim and some may just scar them. There were different levels of torture they would use. Such as the Judas cradle, the scavenger's daughter, the Heretic's fork, forms of neck torture, and the Brazen Bull. These are not all of the devices, but some of the popular ones used. Matter of fact some are still used to this day around the word.

Imagine living life in fear of being hanged or burned to death on accusation of witchcraft. This was the reality for countless men and women alike, during the Witch Trials of the mid-1600s. One such person was a homeless woman named Sarah Good. Good was considered a burden to society, therefore accused of witchcraft and sentenced to be hanged. Although she was pardoned until the birth of her child, that same child perished in prison before her execution (Jobe). This case is one of the hundreds to occur during the time of the Witch Trials. Numerous accounts of torture and death are recorded in American history, with these heinous crimes being committed on the exact soil we walk on every day. Based on the evidence used against the supposed witches,

Executions in Medieval Ages consisted of varying types of appalling methods of putting down a criminal, ended the lives of many legends, and had a peculiar system of determining whether one was guilty or not. The renowned guillotine and public hangings weren’t the only techniques used for capital punishment, there were tons of creative, yet horrifying ideas for execution. Some executions, such as the beheading, were reserved for nobles, kings, and knights since they were a honorable and quick death. There were even executions specialized for purging witches by burning them on a stake. Public executions like impalement and crucifixion were used to scare the public, portraying the consequences of breaking the law. Additionally, there were a multitude

The goals of torture were to intimidate, deter, revenge or punish. Torture was also used as a tool or a method for the extraction of information or confessions. Torture was even used to satisfy personal hatred. Until the second century AD, torture was used only on slaves. A slave’s testimony was only valid if extracted by torture. Torture was used almost exclusively for the crime of treason. In civil society this meant in practice that torture was mainly confined to monarchs and the highest nobles. The penalty for treason by men was to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. The penalty for woman traitors was to be burned at the stake. Torture was used for numerous reasons.

2016). Using this ethical framework to argue against torture, one needs to consider the violation of the terrorist’s rights. Utilitarians argue that under a scenario where thousands of people are in danger, the well-being of the larger community is more important than neglecting the rights of a single individual (Krauthammer 2005). The simple idea of taking away a person’s autonomy for the sake of others violates rights ethics. To comprehend the violation upon the victim’s rights, it is important to understand how torture feels, “Brian describes his body as having become an object… pain is the central reality; it dominates experience and expression (Wisnewski 2010, 81).” Some may argue the terrorist is responsible for putting himself in a situation where torture would be the only answer (Mayerfeld 2008). This argument undermines the terrorist’s perspective. Ultimately, the terrorists believe what they are doing is right and have concrete reasoning for their actions (Mayerfeld

Common torture methods were beating, burning, drowning, poisoning, and stretching a criminal 's body. Cutting off limbs, such as fingers, toes, and ears were also a typical form of torture. These punishments were considered normal and not excessive at all. The following unusual punishments and people seem exceedingly cruel, but it was an everyday sight of the 16th century (Lestikow).

However, the severity of punishments and the methods used by the law were beneficial and practical and they helped to reduce the amount of crime in England. The article “Crime and Punishment in the Elizabethan Era” expresses that crime was an issue in Elizabethan England, and a threat to the stability of society. To maintain order the penalties for committing minor crimes were generally punished with some form of public humiliation. For major crimes including thievery, murder, and treason those convicted were put to death. The sheer ruthlessness of the punishments discourage any sort of crime as they will scare the citizens into never breaking the law in fear of the consequences. The document “Crime and Punishment in the Elizabethan Era” also points out that the law was flexible and could be applied differently based on the situation. When a person was convicted of treason, they were not always executed immediately. Some were inhumanely tortured for more information to see if they were working with others, despite the obvious lack of morality in doing this, it worked. However, on the other hand, the Elizabethan Law did have at least some moral sense to it as people some were spared from torture, and even execution in certain circumstances. When pregnant women were sentenced to death they could be spared for their the lives of their unborn children. The severe Elizabethan Law provided England the means to help reduce crime, practical application of torture, and even some sense of

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.

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. The author believes that the thoughts of enlightened societies are unwise and ascertains that there are situations whereby torture becomes morally mandatory in dealing with terrorists.

In this essay, the author suggested that it is not quite black and white to determine if torture is right and wrong. There is space for arguments to determine to what extent torture can be accepted as the right choice of action and to what extent this is not applicable.

In Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture”, he uses many cases of emotional appeal to persuade the reader that torture is necessary in extreme cases. There are many terms/statements that stick with the reader throughout the essay so that they will have more attachment to what is being said. Levin is particularly leaning to an audience based in the United States because he uses an allusion to reference an event that happened within the states and will better relate to the people that were impacted by it. The emotional appeals used in this essay are used for the purpose of persuading the reader to agree that in extreme instances torture is necessary and the United States should begin considering it as a tactic for future cases of extremity.

The two moral reasonings are consequentialist and categorical. Consequentialist means the consequences that will result after whatever you do, whether it is the right or wrong thing to do. Categorical moral reasoning locates morality in certain duties and rights. Somethings are just morally wrong even if it brings good outcomes.

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. It is disturbing to learn how people were humiliated and maltreated, and how exquisitely brutal were the devices invented to subdue and discipline people.

Schiemann, John W. "Interrogational Torture: Or How Good Guys Get Bad Information With Ugly Methods." Political Research Quarterly 65.1 (2012): 3-19. Academic Search Complete. Web. 08 Feb. 2016. This source explains that torture is actually one of the last methods used when they are interrogating someone since many know that it has a very low success rate. If the person is not willing to cooperate, they go down a list. Many people thought to use the top methods as they are not as immoral. Getting to the end of the list thought means they have nothing else to make the person talk which is why they use

If torture can allow us to gain information that can save the lives of people can the use of it be justified? Can others allow people to be beaten, starved and locked up in order to gain information and say that it was for a good cause? According to ABC News and the Washington Post, “59 percent of Americans say the torture of suspected terrorists was justified, but 58 percent say torture is often or sometimes justified, as a general matter” (Bouie). As shown above, a great deal of people agree with the use of torture and say that it can be justified, but how is the process of abusing people ok? Likewise, in the book 1984 written by George Orwell torture is used by the government in order to acquire information. Because torture is a violation