If someone isn't speaking the truth we can find out everything. Then, we wont have to worry about people lying to us. Trust me it would help a lot. So, if we were to legalize torturing suspects for info, the U.S. would be a safer place. The only worry I would have would be that people would abuse this.
At some point in time we will need to get information to find out scenarios, such as a terrorist planting a bomb that is password protected. Anyways, I would prefer to have one soul hurt by torture then 1000 hurt from a bomb going off and killing people, but that is just my opinion.
I will never ever accept physical torture as a way to handle any situation. Mental torture, however, is a great solution to appease both sides of this arguments. Make no mistake, mental torture is just as effective as physical torture if not more, and at the same time it not violating any law of any kind. Basically, it would be exercising your freedom of speech and the person you're "speaking to" just happens to be in jail. I think a mentalist could make job of it... Also, I think mental torture is much more effective than physical torture as it leaves the victim vengefully satisfied without feeling guilty in the future, as well as gets the job done.
If someone was about to kill your baby brother and had was holding him as hostage, and you got the captor, would you let the guy just go? Or, would you realistically torture him until he tells you where he is, or lets suppose someone hid a nuclear bomb in New York, millions would die, but yes, yes human rights, no, not realistic to be humane with such a person
It could be the only way we have to obtain information, and we all know that if we were in some other country, they would do it to us also. And I believe that there are some cases that are life and death, or continuing a war or ending one that, torture or no torture would dictate.
Many people believe it is cruel and i agree its violent but it is very effective. What it has done for the past thousands of years has saved MANY innocent people. Our founding father understood its importance therefore we should try to look at it from their side.
There are many valid arguments against torture, but it seems the underlying fear is the same - abuse of power. Torture is immoral but, like many things, can become moral in the right context. If it is effective in producing relevant information that saves lives, it has an argument of being a moral action. However, those responsible for doing it need to be the right people and acting for the right reasons.
It should not be legal for regular purposes, such as investigating domestic crimes, but for international security and our protection from extremists, there are times when it will be necessary to act in otherwise distasteful ways.
“Consider a situation in which a kidnapped child has been buried in a box with two hours of oxygen. The kidnapper refuses to disclose its location. Should we not consider torture in that situation?” (Dershowitz 85) There are many people who believe that torture should be apeopleied in certain cases, situations where peoples lives are in danger. Lets face it, even though torture is not legal, there’s many agencies that still apeopley torture to suspects anyways. It will be better if the United States allows torture so that restrictions apeopley.
Even though torture is cruel, I believe that there are times when it serves a purpose. Sometimes, this is the only way to get information that will save many lives. Torture is the only punishment that some people understand and if it benefits many innocent people, I believe it is worth it.
There are people convicted of crimes they did not commit all the time. Sometimes it seems clear that a suspect is guilty and torturing them to get the answers you want is an important task. However, doing so would violate a person's rights, especially if the accused party is innocent.
I do not believe that torture should exist of any form on this planet today. Torture is inhumane for all individuals and animals and should never be allowed to exist, no matter what the ulterior motive may be. Even if the Government is trying to find out important information, they should use different tactics and methods in order to find that information out. Torture is out of the question.
Torture is something that was brought in through time, through the Crusades. Get over it, people. Torture is wrong and stupid, and I believe it leads people to confess to crimes that they didn't commit. And, the people who torture, and those who give orders to torture, how do they sleep at night? How do they think that what they are doing is OK? Where is the humanity?
Torture should never be legal, under no circumstances whatsoever. It should never be seen as acceptable to harm another human being. There are other methods of questioning that could be used to effectively draw information out of a suspect. Hypnotism, jail time or other methods are much more ethical and do result in harm to a human being.
1. It's ineffective. The tortured only tell you what they think you want to hear.
2. What kind of animal even asks such a question?
When a person is tortured, he or she will say or do anything to stop it. If the suspect truly is not withholding information, he or she may conjure up responses to cease the torture, causing a more costly investigation further down the line.
Inquiring for information from suspects can be done through various means and it is not appropriate to torture him/her. Not only is this illegal but it's also unethical because the suspect may not be guilt. We should strive to treat the suspected in an appropriate manner.
Any form of torture or cruel and unusual punishment should never be legal, in any situation. For one, a suspect is just that: a suspect. A suspect is a person thought to be guilty of a crime or offense, but without certain proof. For all the authorities know, the person being subjected to torture and abuse could very well be innocent. Humans are not infallible and, somewhere down the line, innocent people will be physically and mentally abused, and possibly permanently injured or killed. Even people who have been proved to be guilty of a crime should not be tortured, as it goes against all morals and human rights. When an abuser tortures someone, the abuser becomes a criminal themselves. Even when people call it "enhanced interrogation", this is just the politically correct term for torture. Even if torture was legal, it has been proven that torture is very ineffective in producing information, and often results in suspects making false statements in order to stop their torture.
History, such as the Inquisition, has shown that many tortured suspects just made up information to get out of further torture. People enduring pain will do just about anything to avoid more pain, especially if they feel that the torturer is going to kill them anyway. They may say some truthful things, but the majority is going to be whatever they think the other person wants to hear.
Why would you want to torture a suspect? They say you are innocent until proven guilty. By torturing suspects, would that not turn around the principle and make it guilty until proven innocent?
There are international agreements on torture that make it illegal to torture individual from foreign countries/opponents for information. These agreements are designed to enforce a moral code of civilized behavior and to create a standard for all countries to live up to. Also, if it is generally understood that if one country does not torture it is hoped that that policy will be observed by another as a "rule of war."