Situation: The millions of people in New York City are in danger. One man planted a bomb that will go off in 2 hours. He's the only one that knows where it is. He won't tell where it is.
"We can't torture this man. He has rights!"
"That's true. Even though he's killing millions of people, he does have rights. Oh, well. Hope we get 'em next time!"
Less than 1% of crimes will require torture, but there are exceptions.
What if disasters such as 9/11 could have been prevented? How far would you go to stop such events from happening? What if what had to be done to prevent it would be to torture someone. When weighing almost 3000 lives and the suffering of one person which tips the scales? Now in the situation of a "Maybe this person might know something?" torturing someone seems to be too high of a cost to pay for a "Maybe". But if the situation is "This person knows information that could save a large amount of lives" than to prevent the suffering of those people, perhaps one person should suffer instead. It's a horrible thought, but sometimes in the most drastic situations horrible things must be done.
If you have to torture one persons life to save lives, you should be able to use whatever to get that person to speak. For example if a terrorist knew a code to a nuclear missile that could kill thousands of people then we should be able to use anything to get the person to speak.
1. A terrorist has placed a bomb, you need him to tell where. ..
2. A POW needs to be punished
3. A criminal needs to be punished
4. You are at war, and bored = have fun with the POWs
5. You and your soldier buddies have conquered an enemy village. I believe that it is ok to rape and torture the enemy ;-)
Since the middle of the 20th Century, developed societies have recognized that torture is never an acceptable practice. The prohibition of torture, through international treaties, took place shortly after the second world war - despite the existential threat that war posed, the nations of the world were able to agree that torture is never OK. The prohibition on torture is such a strong moral value of civilized society that disregarding for some practical goal is profoundly destructive. If one is willing to torture, then one is willing to use any means to achieve the stated end - a path which leads to death, genocide and war.
Well, if you torture someone, more often than not, the pain will make them agree to anything, even if it isn't true. Some people will be tortured just to get them to admit to something, even if they didn't do it. It is also a bit inhumane. I would rather use a form of persuasion that doesn't involve the maiming and mental scarring of someone just like me.
First let us make things clear: A Human being that is being tortured will admit anything to make the pain go away, so it´s not an efficient method to get information.
Also it´s simply inhumane and not worthy of a civilized society. And it´s absurd to even make such a poll on this topic, how can normal people be in favor of torture?