Argumentative paper on the use of torture

At the onset of the debate we must specify that we do not under any circumstances support the use of torture as a force to quell resentment or derive sadistic pleasure. We also condemn the use of torture by terrorist organizations as a bargaining chip. When we say torture is justified we mean it as a tool used by responsible Governments to save lives and not take any. What we are interested in proving is that torture as a tool to save lives is brutal but necessary tool.

The first thing that we must ask ourselves to specify is, What is Torture? According to, the International Statuette, Torture is any kind of use of force, mental or physical used on a human being to gain third party information or self-confession. No country prefers to use it but is forced to do in order to safeguard the lives of its citizens and smoothen justice. Most criminal suspects go through some level of torture. Torture may involve Physical methods like Food deprivation, verbal abuse, beatings, mutilation, rape, burning, sodomy, as well as Psychological methods sleep deprivation, isolation, sense blocking to, etc. It sounds terrible to hear and it is true. Why then do we say that it is necessary? Why is it carried out? Punishments were sever and done to keep a criminal from ever breaking the law again. This use of severe punishments worked unlike the legal system of today where criminals are living a better life in prison than most of the poor are living. Prisoners just go back to what they were doing after they are released from prison, and they usually end up back in prison. Not too many criminals in the Middle Ages were dumb enough to go out and break the law after being tortured, there was no prison were they could spend years in, torture was a fast and effective way of showing a criminal to never ever break the law again

Let's give a hypothetical example, Say we know that a Nuclear Bomb or even a big bomb has been placed somewhere in Geneva, or there is an imminent suicide attack due in a couple of hours. We have in our custody a person who knows where the attack is supposed to take place. What do we do in this ticking bomb scenario? Do we sit back and watch people die? No, we do everything possible to get the information. Including torture, in determining the more effective argument, we can simply analyze the opening paragraphs of the two authors. For example, take into account the following starting paragraph from Bonesana's "Torture": "A cruelty consecrated among most nations by custom is the torture of the accused during his trial, on the pretext of compelling him to confess his crime, of clearing up contradictions in his statements, of discovering his accomplices, of purging him in some metaphysical and incomprehensible way from infamy, or finally of finding out other crimes of which ...