Argument on torture

More Essay Examples on Argument Rubric First, the interrogators must have the right person in order to get any information about this alleged terror strike. What would happen if interrogators tortured an innocent person to no avail?

Argument on torture

Effectiveness of torture for interrogation The basic ethical debate is often presented as a matter of deontological versus utilitarian viewpoint. A utilitarian thinker may believe, when the overall outcome of lives saved due to torture are positive, torture can be justified; the intended outcome of an action is held as the primary factor in determining its merit or morality.

The opposite view is the deontological, from Greek "deon" dutywhich proposes general rules and values that are to be respected regardless of outcome. However, if the outcome of policies allowing torture are uncertain or if the outcome can not be definitely traced back to the use of torture then there can be a utilitarian view that torture is wrong see issues related to the ends justifying the means in analysis of the ticking time bomb scenario.

No one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility. A utilitarian argument against torture is that the majority of tortures are employed not as a method of extracting information, but as a method of terrorizing and subjugating the population, enabling state forces to dispense with ordinary means of establishing innocence or guilt and with the whole legal apparatus altogether.

During the investigation of Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro 's kidnapping, General Carlo Alberto Dalla Chiesa reportedly responded to a member of the security services who suggested torture against a suspect, "Italy can survive the loss of Aldo Moro.

It would not survive the introduction of torture. Judicial torture was a common feature of the legal systems of many countries including all Civil Law countries in Europe until around the French Revolution. This was part of ancient Greek and Roman Law theory that remained valid in Europe. Roman Law assumed, for example, that slaves would not tell the truth in a legal court as they Argument on torture always vulnerable Argument on torture threats from their owners.

Their testimony could only be of value if it were extracted by a greater fear of torture. Legal scholars were well aware of the problems of false testimony produced by the threat of torture. In theory torture was not meant Argument on torture produce a confession as such, but rather details of the crime or crime scene which only the guilty party would know.

The Spanish Inquisition is probably the most infamous example in which torture was used to extract information regarding allegations of heresy. In early modern times under certain conditions, torture was used in England.

For example, the confession of Marc Smeaton at the trial of Anne Boleyn was presented in written form only, either to hide from the court that Smeaton had been tortured on the rack for four hours, or because Thomas Cromwell was worried that he would recant his confession if cross examined.

Recent Opinions

When Guy Fawkes was arrested for his role in the Gunpowder Plot of he was tortured until he revealed all he knew about the plot. This was not so much to extract a confession, which was not needed to prove his guilt, but to extract from him the names of his fellow conspirators.

Argument on torture

By this time torture was not routine in England and a special warrant from King James I was needed before he could be tortured. The wording of the warrant shows some concerns for humanitarian considerations, the severity of the methods of interrogation were to be increased gradually until the interrogators were sure that Fawkes had told all he knew.

In the end this did not help Fawkes much as he was broken on the only rack in England, which was in the Tower of London. Torture was abolished in England around except peine forte et dure which was abolished in The use of torture in Europe came under attack during the Enlightenment.

Cesare Beccaria 's On Crimes and Punishments denounced the use of torture as cruel and contrary to reason.

The French Revolution abolished the use of torture in France and the French Armies carried abolition to most of the rest of Europe. The last European jurisdictions to abolish legal torture were Portugal and the canton of Glarus in Switzerland Under codified legal systems such as France, torture was superseded with a legal system that is highly dependent on investigating magistrates and the confession remains The Queen of Proofs.

Such magistrates are often under pressure to produce results. It is alleged that in many cases police violence towards suspects has been ignored by the magistrates.

In the adversarial system of Common Law used throughout the English-speaking world, the experience is a different one.

As the two parties have to convince a jury whether the defendant in a case is guilty or innocent of a crime, if the defence can persuade a jury that reasonable doubt exists over the credibility of a confession then the jury is likely to disregard the confession.

If the defence can show that the confession was made under such duress that most people would make such a confession, then the jury is likely to question the confession's credibility.

Usually the more duress that can be shown to have been used by law enforcement by the defence, the less weight most juries will place on confessions. In Britain partly to protect the individual against police brutality and partly to make confessions credible to a jury, all interviews with a suspect are audio taped on a machine which make two simultaneous copies one for the police and one for the defendant.

In Northern Ireland, where society is more polarised than in the rest of the United Kingdom, which means that allegations of police brutality are perceived by sections of the community to carry more credence, interviews are video taped.

It has been alleged that in certain circumstances torture, even though it is illegal, may have been used by some European countries. In "anti-terrorist" campaigns where information is needed for intelligence purposes, and not to obtain a confession for use in court, there is a temptation by the security forces, whether authorised by governments or not, to extract intelligence from alleged terrorists using any means available including the use of torture.

Where there is a time component to a crime, for example in a kidnapping case, there is also a temptation for the police to try to extract information by methods which would nullify the use of such information in court.

Proponents[ edit ] Some scholars have argued that the need for information outweighs the moral and ethical arguments against torture.The final argument against torture must always be moral, then, as the by now well-worn arguments against its efficacy seem always to bend under the fear and panic of each new crisis.

Aug 03,  · Worldwide opinion Testing the 'ticking bomb' argument. A sizeable majority of people around the world is opposed to torture even if its purpose is to elicit information that could save innocent. Inquiry, evidence, and argument are the powerful tools we use to accurately determine what provide foundation, stability, and balance to our human spirit's ambitions, aspirations, optimism, hopes, imagination, and are the tools we use to test assumptions and understand cause-and-effect relationships in the world around us.

Animals and Ethics. What place should non-human animals have in an acceptable moral system? These animals exist on the borderline of our moral concepts; the result is that we sometimes find ourselves according them a strong moral status, while at other times denying them any kind of moral status at all.

Affirmative Argument for Torture. AFFIRMATIVE Torture is the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. Justify is to guide by truth, reason, justice, and fairness. In any circumstances, how could inflicting pain upon a human being be done in fairness?

The ticking time bomb scenario is a thought experiment that has been used in the ethics debate over whether torture can ever be justified.

As a thought experiment, there is no need that the scenario be plausible; it need only serve to highlight ethical considerations. The scenario can be formulated as follows.

Question for Gina Haspel: Does Torture Rig the Case for War? - Truthdig