Is Torture Ever Acceptable - Research Paper Example

Outline Is torture ever acceptable? Introduction Is torture ever acceptable? This is a question that provokes a straight and simple answer either in “yes” or “no”. In a poll that was conducted by ABC News/Washington Post in May 2004, 63 per cent of the voters denied that torture can ever be acceptable whereas the rest voted in favor of its occasional acceptability (Head, 2013). US entertainment, at the same time, from 24 right to adventure flick that is the latest action considers torture as acceptable when the conditions are extreme, and do not consider general inspiration of the noticeable protest by these portrayals. Torture has conventionally played a very important role in the state, local, or federal policies. Before the penitentiary system was innovated in the beginning of the 19th century, several forms of physical punishment that are now termed as torture – flogging were rampant. Several occasions where the US forces used torture in the wartime are heard of. The Bush administration, after the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers, began using the techniques of torture-lite against the suspected terrorists. Those techniques included but were not limited to forced standing, sleep deprivation of the terrorist detainees, waterboarding, forced nudity, long-term exposure to loud noises. The US military personnel as well as the interrogators of CIA also implemented such extreme forms of torture as sexual humiliation, physical torture, and electrification. In addition to that, there is considerable evidence of the persistent use of torture against the communities of color belonging to the low-income categories, for instance, routinely use of torture till 1993 (Head, 2013). Torture is not only acceptable but also inevitable in the extreme circumstances. Literature review Whether or not torture is ever acceptable can only be argued when the definition of torture is clear and concise. Torture can be defined as “the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenceless, other person for the purpose of breaking their will” (Miller, 2005, p. 179). A very comprehensive and accurate definition of “torture” was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly that defines torture as: [A]ny act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining 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 of having committed, 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 or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. (Davis, 2005, p. 163). Although torture is defined both in physical and non-physical terms, yet for the purpose of this paper, the definition of torture is limited to “physical” torture. Torture is frequently compared to killing. Torture is often considered to be worse than killing (Davis, 2005). Torturing an innocent individual to the point of death is definitely worse as compared to murder since this approach exposes the individual to torture in addition to and before murder. Torture itself does not necessarily mean killing an individual. “[T]ortures do not necessarily have the power of life and death over their victims” (Miller, 2005, p. 180). However, the answer to whether torture can ever be justifiable in the international law is categorical. International law condemns the use of torture in any circumstances. There is absolute ban on any inhuman, cruel, or degrading treatment as well as any kind of torture even during the times of war in such treaties as the UN Convention against Torture, the Geneva Conventions, and the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” (The Economist, 2007). Torture along with genocide is the only crime that is absolutely punishable by every state irrespective of where or by whom is it committed. Two main moral theories address the subject of absolute ban on torture, namely the consequentialist theory and the deontological theory (McLaughlan, n.d., p. 134). The consequentialist theory focuses upon just the net happiness whereas the deontological theorists like John Rawls have placed emphasis on the moral significance of an action with the intention to safeguard the rights of individuals. According to Ronald Dworkin who is a modern legal philosopher, the general good never provides a reasonable basis for the limiting of rights, though he suggests that the state needs to play its role by interfering with rights when the threats to the society are grave (McLaughlan, n.d., p. 134). The deontological moral theories that are rights-based are often criticized because of their consideration of being fanciful and unfounded in nature and also for being incapable of addressing such matters as the content and existence of the proposed rights. The only way with which the common good can be sustained is close examination of every action’s moral value along with simultaneous consideration of every individual’s rights. Another approach to the evaluation of acceptability of torture is the utilitarian approach. Various scholars like Jeremy Bentham have advocated the advantages of the utilitarian approach as a decision between the evil forces. These scholars tend to challenge the view that principles are worth taking stand for, particularly those who have certain moral values that are not necessarily grounded in rational arguments. Utilitarian thinkers encourage such individuals to define their values’ scope with precision and to delineate the circumstances in detail, under which the deviations from their principles can be declared. According to Bentham, “to say nothing of wisdom, could any pretence be made so much as to the praise of blind and vulgar humanity, by the man who to save one criminal, should determine to abandon one hundred innocent persons to the same fate?” (Bentham cited in McLaughlan, n.d., p. 134). Why torture is acceptable in certain circumstances? Punishment of criminals Torture is acceptable when it is used as a means to compensate a victim or a group of victims for their sufferings. Sometimes, the crimes of a criminal are too grave to let him/her have a way out through death until he/she has undergone at least a certain amount of torture, much more than which, he/she has given to innocent people in the society. Torture offers two basic advantages over imprisonment. Firstly, imposition of torture is cheaper for the state, and secondly, torture does not prevent criminals from their involvement in such useful labors as working or parenting for extended time periods (Miller, 2007). In addition to that, use of torture is justifiable for the punishment of criminals because the fear of torture deters many people who are the “would-be criminals” from indulging in the acts of crime. Punishment of serial killers Torture is particularly acceptable when it is used to punish serial killers. On logical grounds, it is not justifiable to punish a criminal by just one death sentence who has killed more than one innocent people. The criminal needs to be given more than just the sentence of death, which is only achievable by means of torture. Interrogation of criminals Torture is also justifiable when a suspected criminal is interrogated to obtain information about his/her associations and other secrets from him/her when they are required to carry out further investigations, and also catch others who are involved in the crime. Criminals tend not to reveal this information unless they are exposed to severe punishments of physical nature like torture. Without using torture, the investigations may not yield favorable results for the investigating forces. Bentham is amongst the first advocates of the approach of utilitarianism toward torture since he proposed that it is permissible to use torture for the extraction of information from the criminals regarding the whereabouts of their victims that have been subjected to torture by the criminals (McLaughlan, n.d., p. 134). Counterarguments Subjectivity of limits One objection raised to the legalization of the use of moderate physical pressure is the subjectivity regarding the extent to which the pressure can be exerted or the point where the line can exactly be drawn. If techniques like sleep deprivation or the positions of stress do not yield favorable results, it is not clear whether it is justified to head toward branding with the red-hot irons. The danger of slippery slope provides the opponents of torture to emphasize upon a total ban on torture. Although there is no doubt that it is hard to establish the limits of torture since the reaction and/or response of the criminals to different kinds of torture is different and varies from one case to another, yet the limits can be decided with mutual consensus of the law-making agencies. Violation of human rights It is argued that torture is a way to violate the human rights in all circumstances. It is also said that torture imposes a lot of cost on the criminals. However, this perception neglects the fact that both torture and imprisonment impose such costs upon the criminals. No reasonable and logical argument has been made to declare one type of cost more or crueler as compared to the other. “If a convicted criminal is indifferent between receiving a certain type of torture or being imprisoned for a given period of time then why would it be excessively cruel to torture but not to imprison?” (Miller, 2007). Conclusion Concluding, torture is acceptable in extreme circumstances. Theories of torture mainly include the consequentialist theory, the deontological theory, and the utilitarian theory. There are various instincts when torture can be considered acceptable, particularly when torture is used as a means to compensate the victims of violence. Some of the most important circumstances in which use of torture is acceptable are the punishment of criminals who have committed very grave crimes, punishment of serial killers because death sentencing to the serial killers may be the compensation for one murder but the others are not compensated for without torturing the serial killer, and the interrogation of criminals to learn the whereabouts of their own group or the innocent people that have become their victims. Some of the potential counterarguments against the acceptability of torture in certain circumstances are the subjectivity of establishment of the limits of torture for a particular crime and violation of human rights. However, there are numerous reasons and facts that make the counterarguments unreasonable. Torture is undeniably a very effective means with which useful and favorable benefits can be drawn in circumstances and the usefulness of torture for the eradication of evils from the society cannot be overstated. References: Davis, M. (2005). The Moral Justifiability of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment. International Journal of Applied Philosophy. 19(2), 161-178. Head, T. (2013). Is Torture Justified? Retrieved from http://civilliberty.about.com/od/tortureandrendition/p/is_torture_just.htm. McLaughlan, K. (n.d.). Torture: Prohibited in theory but terrifyingly useful in practice? Retrieved from http://www.spr.tcdlife.ie/seperatearticles/xixarticles/reviewtorture.pdf. Miller, S. (2005). Is torture ever morally justifiable? International Journal of Applied Philosophy. 19(2), 179-192. Miller, J. (2007). Bias Against Torture. Retrieved from http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/bias-against-to.html. The Economist. (2007, Sep. 20). Is torture ever justified? Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/9832909. Read More