Torturing Terrorists Is Wrong Essay

Good Essays
In this paper, I will argue that torturing terrorists is the wrong thing to do.
First argument that I would discuss about is that torturing a terrorist is wrong because those who we torture may end up being innocent. Suppose you have captured a man who is torture to gain information and found guilty and thrown to jail for many years and later found out that he is innocent. That means that you have committed a crime. You can’t be so sure if a victim is guilty. You cannot assume that the victim has information without the proof. You can’t really take any action without the evidence otherwise the person you tortured might end up becoming innocent. You have already made this man’s life miserable. His life is taken away. His identity has been broken.
…show more content…
You can’t really torture one innocent to find out the information so that you can save the others. Suppose the bomb is planned and you have custody of the man who planned it, who may know the information, but may not know the information. If he doesn’t talk, does that mean we can torture him to find out the information out of him? How much? For weeks or for months? What if he didn’t know about the plot? Is it really ok to increase up the level of torture. You can’t really decide to torture someone by running the numbers. If he doesn’t really know anything about the plot, but you keep torturing him so that he will speak up. That won’t work no matter what because increasing the level of torture won’t change the man’s mind or say yes he knows about the information. The answer will be the same. By torturing the innocents, you have committed a crime. By torturing the innocent people, you think we will get the information, but there are so many cases where innocent people have been hurt for nothing they did. Not every victim tells the truth, therefore torturing doesn’t really work. There is possibility that the information they have given is not right. Maybe you have captured the wrong person. There is no guarantee that the victim’s information is …show more content…
Torturing is the only option to gain information. Torturing one can save others. All that matter is greater happiness. Wouldn’t we have more happiness by saving others? What if the victim is found guilty? What if it is millions of lives and we’re 99% sure the person is guilty? Do we have to just let those people die? Wouldn’t we then be responsible for their deaths if we could have stopped it? Therefore it is ok to torture one to save others for greater good and also you gain information out of them, but I say it is not ok to torture a terrorist. What if the man is innocent? We can’t really make him how he used to be before because we have already ruined his life by making him a criminal. His identity has taken away. He is not treated like he used to. He can’t face the society even though later he was found innocent. Also we cannot assume that the victim might be guilty and start torturing until the death or until the victim speaks up. We have no guarantee that he is the one. We can’t be so sure that we got the right person. Torture doesn’t really work because we don’t know if the person is telling the truth. Torturing might get the information you want, but we might get false

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    What about the people who could not show the evidence of their innocence because of inadequate resources? There might be many cases where innocent people were executed because they did not have enough resources and/or a good attorney. The government should be responsible for giving a better attorney and advisors to the criminal and provide them full resources to defend themselves. It should offer spiritual advisors to both, the convicted criminal and the victim’s families. In addition to this, execution should not be affected by the amount of money a person has, and the government should make sure that such inequities do not…

    • 1902 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Unfair Death Penalty

    • 1356 Words
    • 6 Pages

    If a criminal has done awful things, do they really deserve to live? Do we really want to waste oxygen on these human beings that clearly have no regard for other human life? Many of the people on death row have been offered second chances, but squandered those chances. If they mess up more than once, then what is the point of locking them up and hoping that they learn their lesson. Well, killing them will not solve the problem, it would just push it away for a little while.…

    • 1356 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Nobody’s life should be taken for granted especially if they are innocent, but there are many alternatives to the same problem which can be easier than trying to torture someone because torturing does not guarantee he will still tell you anything. For all we know the terrorist might actually want to die so he or she was not planning on telling how to disarm it in the first place and was just trying to buy more time so there would be no possible way to save…

    • 1053 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This is where burns theory falls apart, because I don’t think burns himself could even answer this question without making, some sort of loophole in his theory. If we kill anyone of these people we are saying that the justice system can be wrong, and if that is true then burns idea, that the justice system is always right is flawed, and that the justice system is killing innocent…

    • 1468 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Once a person is into kidnapping their mind isn’t the same anymore. The author explains that no amount of cash can buy back years chained in the dark. Psychopaths are let of the hook by some people, but others not so much. Bottom line is when psychopaths start committing crimes it is extremely hard to stop them from harming others in the future. With people having multiple thought on this topic it raises multiple ethical problems for our society.…

    • 1611 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Simulating Murder Summary

    • 837 Words
    • 4 Pages

    On this note the experimenters responded that people who do perform such actions of harm lack empathy towards the victim. Killers lack the moral compass that supposedly is integrated on everyone. Perhaps is their egotistical nature or their unwavering confused thoughts justified their actions as morally right. Is it ok to murder someone, even if that person potentially planning on creating an atrocious act. We can bring self-defense into play to justified killing someone but not for the better good of saving other people’s lives.…

    • 837 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Wrong convictions occur due to various factors. Factors such as lying by eye witness, forensic evidence errors and prosecutors withholding and manipulating evidence. Upon admission of guilt by a prisoner, those people who were involved in wrong conviction get away from law and order. Moreover, those concerned parties will continue to act against law. As a result, more innocent people will have to face severe punishment to the crimes they never committed.…

    • 842 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Michael Morton Court Case

    • 1294 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The legal process failed to protect and enforce the rights of Michael Morton, Mr. Bright and many other individuals. The simple fact that the attorney 's goal is not to seek the truth but to defend their clients within the boundaries of the adversarial system can cause a lot of harm as the truth doesn’t always come out and some people get wrongfully convicted. To avoid innocent people from going to prison judges and juries should only find the defendants guilty or convict them only after they believe for good reasons that the defendant committed the…

    • 1294 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    His authority over people will be incorrigible if they start to rebel; so he does not tell anyone that he might have wrongly accused them. Realizing it would be harder to tell the truth because he may lose his power, Danforth tries to find a way that hanging those condemned is acceptable. Danforth pleads with Parris as to justify the hangings,“You misunderstood, sir; I cannot pardon these when twelve are already hanged for the same crime. It is not just.” (119). Danforth is looking for an excuse as to why the twelve still deserve to be hanged.…

    • 1180 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    You can’t punish someone based on what they did; Subjectivism will give anyone on this planet a chance to avoid the death penalty. How you might ask, to someone murder might be the biggest sin in the world, but in this system that’s not a moral fact. It’s just how you feel and your opinion towards the objective but again there is no moral objective fact towards your statement. A view like this is what we need, other people can justify that a murderer doesn’t deserve the death penalty. People will open their minds more broadly and look at the person as a human being.…

    • 1274 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays