Torture Is Cruel And Unusual Punishment

Torture is something that is known as wrong internationally. Torture is “deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting on the orders of authority, to force a person to yield information, to confess, or any other reason” (World Medical Association, 1975, pg.1). There is a general consensus that there is a right to be free from any kind of torture as it can be found in many different human rights treaties around the world. The treaties show that all of the thoughts about torture are pointing away from the right to torture someone no matter what the case

With his article “The Case for Torture” Levin has made his readers think over what the differences between the death penalty and torture. Levin provides evidences and asks questions to lead his readers into forming their own opinion on whether torture is totally unacceptable in any situation or not. But it is clear by the end of the article where Levin stands on the topic of

I have been unable to deliberate on the appropriate alternative method for this particular dilemma. When it comes to the topic of torture, the popular attitude is that it is sometimes required. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of ethics and efficiency. Whereas some are convinced that it is an effective policy, others maintain that it is not successful practice. To further support the stance that the torture policy is not necessary effective, Army Col. Stuart Herrington inserted, in his experience, “nine out of ten people can be persuaded to talk with no 'stress methods' at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones.”

In the News Week article from 1982 Michael Levin an American philosopher and university professor, presents his premises and his conclusion to why he personally believes that torture is morally permissible. In addition Levin’s expects others to understand why such thing as torture is a permissible act that everyone should incorporate as a morally acceptable act. To commence, Levin presents his topic by presenting the usual though that torture may seem barbaric; however, he then diverts to his issue, in which he personally states his believe in the quote “There are situations in which torture is not merely permissible but morally mandatory.” Then, Levin moves on to explain his reasons for why he believes in such moral claim. For

In contrast, some individuals may debate that torture and even some more minuscule forms of torture can be beneficial to obtaining the information needed. It is debated that torture has been used in a large portion of political systems in history, and that the “degree” of torture is a significant component when deciphering right vs. wrong. Moher argues that in a political system where torture is justifiable and legal, the torture used would be less extreme than what it is today (Moher, 2013). It is reasoned that different degrees of torture are more acceptable than others, in that some are less psychologically and physically harming. A

Torture has been a sensitive subject in our government and among the people of the US. The article “Torture is Wrong-But it Might Work” Bloche about how even though torture is not moral to some, it can still provide effective results because of advanced techniques and psychological studies. He goes on to say that many believe it is effective but others will say it does not provide adequate results in interrogation efforts. Senators such as John McCain (R-Ariz.) believe it does not help at all; however, other government officials, such as former attorney general Michael Mukasey and former vice president Dick Cheney, believe it does (Bloche 115).

The death penalty till this day remains to be a very controversial topic. Some people may argue that it should be considered a form of cruel and unusual punishment; others may rebuttal in saying that the death penalty is capital punishment. When visiting the idea of placing someone to death one must bear in mind the possibility of condemning an innocent person through such torture, the brutalizing effect on society it may leave, and the serious psychological trauma that a defendants family and friends may face. Is this really what the justice system is willing to place on the line in order to gain a form of so called justice. I mean reasonably speaking what will anyone gain from such an action. It definitely will not bring the harm to be undone. As stated in the encyclopedia under the theory of judicial torture “ the use of torture was confined to capital crimes, for which the death penalty or mutilation could apply” (PIHLAJAM, 2004). Looking at how the death penalty is conducted people should not be treated like animals, given a due time to be put down. No human being deserves such treatment whether or not his or her offense was so horrific and traumatic. Is that not the lesson being taught to society when the criminal is captured? Yet, the law as a jury of peers, men just like the accused, may cast the same sin upon him. Why should this action be considered in any way to be fair or believed to be capital punishment?

The War on Terror has produced several different viewpoints on the utilization of torture and its effectiveness as a means to elicit information. A main argument has been supplied that torture is ineffective in its purpose to gather information from the victim. The usefulness of torture has been questioned because prisoners might use false information to elude their torturers, which has occurred in previous cases of torture. It has also been supposed that torture is necessary in order to use the information to save many lives. Torture has been compared to civil disobedience. In addition, the argument has been raised that torture is immoral and inhumane. Lastly, Some say that the acts are not even regarded as torture.

Every single person in America today grew up with the belief that torture is morally wrong. Popular culture, religious point of views, and every other form of culture for many decades has taught that it is a wrongdoing. But is torture really a wrong act to do? To examine the act of torture as either a means or an end we must inquire about whether torture is a means towards justice and therefore morally permissible to practice torture on certain occasions. “Three issues dominate the debates over the morality of torture: (1) Does torture work? (2) Is torture ever morally acceptable? And (3) What should be the state’s policy regarding the use of torture?” (Vaughn, 605). Torture “is the intentional inflicting of severe pain or suffering on people to punish or intimidate them or to extract information from them” (Vaughn, 604). The thought of torture can be a means of promoting justice by using both the Utilitarian view and the Aristotelian view. Using John Stuart Mills concept of utilitarianism, he focuses on the greatest happiness principle which helps us understand his perspective on torture and whether he believes it is acceptable to do so, and Aristotle uses the method of virtue of ethics to helps us better understand if he is for torture. The term torture shall be determined by exploring both philosophers’ definition of justice, what comprises a “just” act, what is considered “unjust”, and then determined if it would be accepted by, or condemned by either of these two

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution says, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The fundamental idea of torture is to inflict mental or physical pain onto a suspect to coerce them into revealing information we desire. This tactic is illegal because it violates the Constitution, and in addition, it violates international agreements that our nation has committed itself to. The general provisions of the Geneva Conference of 1949 prevent the use of torture in warfare; the document specifically outlaws “Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating or degrading treatment…” By violating these laws, particularly the Constitution, our nation

Interrogational torture is one of the many tough ethical questions that people debate about in the United States. Is it right or is it wrong? Many believe that the United States does not practice intense interrogational acts such as torture. Many people have fought to abolish any form of torture while many fight to keep some forms of it to help keep the peace. Whether you believe in it or not, torture is and will always be an ethical dilemma that comes up.

The death penalty has been around for centuries. It dates back to when Hammurabi had his laws codified; it was “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Capital punishment in America started when spies were caught, put on trial and hung. In the past and still today people argue that, the death penalty is cruel, unusual punishment and should be illegal. Yet many people argue that it is in fact justifiable and it is not cruel and unusual. Capital punishment is not cruel and unusual; the death penalty is fair and there is evidence that the death penalty deters crime. 
A big part of abolitionist’s argument is that the death penalty is not humane. They pull in Amendment 8, “…nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” What the victim went though was indeed “cruel and unusual punishments’.” The murderers’ death is not cruel. The people will demand justice for what he or she has done (Bidinotto 19). Hanging and the electric chair are topics more reasonable to argue, but now because of lethal injection capital punishment has become more humane. The death penalty is not barbaric, the pain and agony that the victim went through is barbaric. Abolitionists were very upset in 1996 when rapist and murderer John Albert Taylor was executed by firing squad; they said his death was barbaric (Feder 32). Charla King, the poor 11-year-old girl he raped and strangled with a telephone cord, her death was barbaric! It makes no sense to think that John

Let us begin with Michael Levin, whose thesis states, “There are situations in which torture is not merely permissible but not morally mandatory,” in the second

Capital punishment is defined as the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. There are many arguments that are for and against the death penalty. Majority of these arguments contain broad categories ranging from morality to attorney quality. Although most would support that capital punishment is the closest penalty for murder it is still used unequally across the prison populations. Capital punishment is a practice that the judicial system should abolish for the future generations.

People’s imaginations start to go wild when they hear the word torture. However, there are enhanced interrogation techniques that are more humane than others. Waterboarding, for example, simulates the effect of drowning and is highly recommended by people such as former Vice President Dick Cheney (Defrank). It is highly unpleasant, but breaks no bones and leaves no bruises. It also exposes those performing the interrogation to lesser psychological strain than other methods that could be used would. Torture is accused of being a cancer in society, but if regulated and reserved for the “especially” bad guys, societal homeostasis would be maintained.