Regarding liability, McMahan , p. I would add that, regardless of institutional implications, the victim would not be liable to torture because no human should be liable to the destruction of dignity, autonomy and humanity that torture inflicts, and no human is liable to a level of self-betrayal and complicity in their own destruction that torture involves.
Rejecting the moral impermissibility of torture means abandoning the most fundamental bases of democracy and decency and by employing such cruel means a state can no longer claim to be based on justice, but on tyranny. As Luban p. Further, institutionalising torture would destroy the dignity of those who carry it out, as they will be subjected to principles and practices that no individual with moral integrity should have to be exposed to Wolfendale, , p.
It degrades those who carry it out and can cause irrevocable psychological damage, debasing their humanity and sense of self Kateb, , p.
As such, even if one accepts there are imaginable scenarios in which torture could be morally permissible, it would automatically cease to be acceptable due to the irreconcilable degradation of the institutions that allow it, and by extension, the degradation of the dignity and humanity of those who allow it, carry it out and are subjected to it Waldron, , p. In conclusion, I argue that torture should be absolutely morally impermissible because of its impact on the most fundamental elements of humanity, principally, dignity and autonomy.
Allowing torture would, by extension, destroy the dignity, integrity and moral authority of our democratic and liberal institutions, thereby making it a moral necessity to conclude that the use of torture is never morally permissible.
Twining, William, Twining, P. Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing. E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks! Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.
Therefore, information obtained through torture is not reliable because victims will often say what their torturers want to hear to make the pain stop. For example, detainees who are physically abused during an interrogation might accuse someone else of their deeds, hoping they will be tortured instead.
Additionally, detainees might often tell lies simply because they do not have information that interrogators are asking them for. Legally, the absolute prohibition of torture and other-ill treatment is non-derogable. This means that torture methods cannot be used even in times of emergency. Confessions and information obtained through torture, thus, do not count as evidence under international law. However, in many countries today, torture and other forms of ill-treatment are used to obtain information usually from detainees or suspects for committed crimes.
Evidence, information or confessions obtained through torture are not legally recognized in both international and national laws for the simple fact of torture not being scientifically proven. As previously mentioned, a person will say or do anything under torture or even under a threat of torture to avoid the pain. This results in uncertainty whether information that a person provided is true or not. Thus, all states should consider other, more reliable ways, to collect information while applying principles of humanity and respecting human rights.
Torture methods used on victims can be of both physical and psychological nature, such as prolonged solitary confinement or sleep deprivation. Both psychological and physical torture complement each other causing severe pain to people who were affected by it. Infliction of physical torture is in most cases reflected in psychological consequences. Applying torture methods of these types on someone can directly damage their memory and cause an extreme psychological trauma.
For example, if affected by one of these methods, victims may become so mentally broken that they might not even remember simple things such as their home address.
Similarly, victims who are deprived of sleep may become confused and disoriented, which can cause them to convince themselves in things interrogators are suggesting them and, in this way, produce false information.
The Wider Context. We are encouraged to consider only the immediate consequences of action and inaction which serves to strengthen the case for torture. However, the context can be widened to examine the implications of undermining the international torture taboo and allowing the likely extension of the practice, the adverse effects on those asked to torture, and the undermining of the judicial system.
This context serves to present a strong case against morally condoning or legalising torture in any situation. It is argued by US officials that the scale and unpredictability of the threat, as well as the lack of human intelligence sources, make harsher interrogation methods a necessity.
Pfiffner, 12; Mayer, Alan Dershowitz has argued that there would be public outcry in any democracy that failed to use all necessary means to prevent terrorist attacks. Meyer, For the US to allow, and even encourage, such a breach of human rights is severely weakening the norms prohibiting torture.
Saul, 3. They are concerned with the gap between theory and practice; arguing that the theoretical limits imposed upon the use of torture would never work in practice. It is well documented that torture spreads from one class of prisoner to others, from one type of treatment to harsher types, and from one emergency situation to routine use. Shue, ; Saul, 3; Pfiffner, 21 The Israeli experience demonstrates these dangers. In , the Landau Commission advised that coercive interrogation of Palestinian terror suspects should be legalised in extreme cases.
Another consequence that is little considered is the impact that becoming a torturer would have on the individual responsible. Pfiffner, 20; Meyer, To torture requires us to overcome our socially conditioned abhorrence of violence and to accept the psychological repercussions.
Shue argues that torture carries a much greater moral stigma and therefore requires greater brutalisation than killing in war, for example, as it constitutes an act of violence against an entirely defenceless being. Shue, The argument for legally sanctioned torture in some situations overlooks the secondary source of suffering it requires; the harmful psychological and social consequences endured by people who must train in and practice torture. To require this of someone is morally very problematic.
A further adverse consequence of allowing torture in some cases is the impact it would have upon the judicial system. US government refusal to allow some of its prisoners to testify in criminal trials has led many to believe that the US is hiding the evidence of torture.
Meyer, They demonstrate the implications of accepting any moral or legal justification for torture; implications which could potentially affect millions of people. Moral Universalism and Human Choice.
Following from the arguments above, it is dangerous to approve the practice of torture in any circumstances because of the consequences this could have on a wide range of people. Accompanying the moral arguments against torture, there must be legal procedures to ensure that the perpetrators of torture are brought to justice. The inhumanity of the act, along with its questionable usefulness and wider implications, makes torture always morally wrong. However, the humanity of the situation; it will always be individual people who must make the decisions must be taken into account as a mitigating factor.
In this essay, I have sought to argue that torture is always morally wrong through a critique of this scenario and through exposing the moral problems that it serves to obscure. After explaining the problem as it is presented and outlining the main arguments for and against torture, I have shown the immediate flaws in the scenario.
Still, there are many countries in which if you are arrested, you are extremely likely to be hit, abused or tortured. And this is far from limited to people suspected of involvement in terrorism. People who are in police custody for a very broad range of reasons are frequently subjected to torture or other forms of ill-treatment.
This is particularly true in the first hours and days after their arrest, when — although they should benefit from the presumption of innocence — suspects may have no access to legal assistance or independent medical examination, and have not been brought before a judge.
Alarmingly, in the past, some States have resorted to using psychologists to design brutal interrogation methods such as waterboarding, forcing detainees into small containers, forcing them to hold painful positions for hours or slamming them into flexible walls. Furthermore, conditions for detainees are often so squalid and inadequate that they may amount to torture or other forms of ill-treatment under the terms of the Convention against Torture.
This is true even in numerous developed countries. To take just one example, I recently reviewed an allegation that a pre-trial detainee in one of the richest countries in the world had died after prison guards cut off his water supply for seven days, to punish him for a violent outburst — leading to his death from dehydration.
0コメント