Is the Torture Ever Acceptable?

Answer

Is the Torture Ever Acceptable?

Debates concerning the justifiability of torture continue to dominate media, Congress, and public domain. Torture involves conscious infliction of serious psychological or physical pain on a person with the aim of acquiring information, intimidating the victim, or punishing the tortured (Equality and Human Rights Commission par. 2.). While some factions argue in favor of torture other groups argue against the adoption of torture as a mechanism for obtaining confessions from suspects. This paper champions the thesis that torture remains unjustified and unacceptable at all times including during political instability, war, or states of emergency, as it is immoral, leads to false confessions, and is inhumane.

Torture is unjustifiable owing to its immoral nature. Torture entails acts that are inherently wrong or morally inappropriate due to their abusiveness and cruelty. Torture amounts to extreme abuse of authority and control of an individual over the other. Whether physical or psychological, torture is a systematic as well as calculated assault on a person, which dismantles an individual’s dignity, identity, and humanity (The Center for Victims of Torture par. 28). In the execution of torture, the torturer employs the victim’s physical body as a tool to accomplish his or her aim, and not a component part of an individual of value. Individuals have a moral obligation to treat each other like human beings. As such, the dehumanizing nature of torture makes it immoral and unacceptable.

Torture is unacceptable, as it often result in unreliable or false confessions. Even though torture may be employed as a tool for interrogation, it is extremely unreliable. Studies have proven the inaccuracy of information acquired from torture victims (NewScientist par. 6; Stone par 3). In many instances, prisoners say anything they think the torturer desires to hear so that they can terminate their agony. In many instances, victims often act under duress and impaired memory (Stone par 3; par. 7). Therefore, information obtained from such circumstances is unreliable, and this makes torture undesirable.

Torture remains objectionable owing to its illegal nature. Torture violates human rights and international conventions. The act of torture contravenes human rights as provided in Article 5 of the United Nations. This Article prohibits the subjection of individuals to torture or to degrading, inhumane, or cruel punishment under any circumstance (Freedom from Torture par. 2; Bernstein par. 4). Therefore, by breaching Article 5 of the UN, torture amounts to an illegality, and should not be embraced.

Individuals in favor of torture claim that this vice is moral, as it leads to the acquisition of information that can be employed in achieving justice or eliminating immoral acts such as terrorism from the society. Nonetheless, an immoral act cannot be considered moral due to its application in the attainment of morality. The fact that torture dehumanizes individuals makes it immoral, whether it is employed in gathering information for addressing immorality or not . Other proponents argue that torture serves as an effective mechanism of gathering intelligence, and thus should be embraced. However, a process that focuses on the acquisition of information from individuals by impairing or disorienting the victim’s memory cannot be considered effective. Information acquired from a disoriented memory is undoubtedly unreliable.

In conclusion, torture is unacceptable, whether executed in times of war, political instability, or states of emergency, as it is inhumane, immoral, and always result in unreliable information. Therefore, adequate measures should be embraced to ensure that this vice is eradicated from the criminal justice system for the attainment of human dignity and safety.