Legalizing and Institutionalizing Torture

Introduction

Torture has been used as a tool of the state throughout recorded history. Although it is almost universally condemned today, it is still an issue of grave international concern. Most governments do not attempt to defend the use of torture but choose either to officially deny the practice or to treat incidents of torture as aberrations. I am against of the use of torture and I discuss this point throughout this paper using the scholarly sources mentioned in the list of references.

Discussion

The everyday use of the term torture to describe violent physical misdeeds or the imposition of psychological duress is broader than the term's use in law. Torture in the legal context is often considered to be torment that is inflicted by a public authority for allegedly public purposes.

Cohen (pp. 78-88) mentions while torture continues to flourish, particularly in areas of conflict and large-scale political unrest, international law and domestic American civil law have been evolving to meet the challenge. Despite the fact that more than half of the world's nations still evidence an illegal pattern of conduct (Cohen, pp. 78-88), the immunity of public officials responsible for the systematic torture of their citizens is increasingly being called into question.

Most modern commentators agree that such violations of personal integrity can never be justified. However, some argue that the use of torture may be not only reasonable but morally mandatory in some situations (Duner, pp. 66-69).

Philosopher Michael Levin justifies the use of torture in utilitarian terms by proposing a scenario wherein many lives will be lost unless a suspect discloses the location of a bomb. If he or she is in custody and refuses to talk, and the time of detonation is at hand, Levin suggests that one must attempt to save innocent lives through the use of torture. ...