Is torture a violation of human rights that can never be justified

Secondly, I will focus on the international law about torture. Thirdly, a deontological perspective will be examined in supporting the position held. A consequentialist perspective will be presented as a counter argument followed by its weaknesses, and eventually, I will conclude the paper. Torture is defined as an intentional act that through which an individual is subjected to suffering or severe pain whether mental or physical for purposes of confession or obtaining information from the person (Law Teacher, 2018). Torture is equally attributed to as an act of coercing or intimidating a person or any form of discrimination where suffering or pain is inflicted. These are the global human rights law, which commits the country to people inside its locale, and the worldwide compassionate law, which involves commitments of a state to inhabitants possessing a particular domain.

The ban on torment from the international law is additionally required to be kept up even in situations of open crisis that undermines the life of a state. Irrespective of the fact that the international law allows for suspension of some rights in emergency situations, the use of torture is not allowed at any instance. This reveals that even under the threat of terrorism, it is wrong to use torture based on the international law. According to Ramsay (2006, p. This view is based on the infringement of human pride together with disregard of the people subjected to torture. Since every person has a fundamental right to be treated in a respectful way by others, it is impossible to justify torture from a moral perspective.

Some critics challenge the deontological perspective on torture by arguing that some forms of violence that are also degrading and cruel are legitimized and justified in certain conditions. A notable example given is killing in self-defense in combat. According to Steinhoff (2006, p. For example, stress positions, a common torture technique, demonstrates self-betrayal process as the victim is forced to spend hours or even week in distorted positions. Any effort by the victim to stay in the position leads to suffering. Another example of a torture technique, waterboarding, further serves in revealing the immoral nature of torture. When waterboarding is applied, the victim fights for a breath by trying to prevent the water from getting into the lungs and thus being complicit to degradation and violation (Sveaass, 2017, p.

As such, the element of self-betrayal serves as a clear distinction between torture and other types of violence. Furthermore, using torture is perceived as a lesser evil with an aim of preventing a greater evil. Based on this argument, the use of torture is considered justifiable if it is used to prevent a danger and the protected interests outweigh the violated interests (Steinhoff, 2006, p. Supporters of torture claim that if it is applied in such situations, it is not only justifiable but equally morally right. This emanates from the notion that if by doing fewer wrongs it will help in preventing many wrongs, then it is right as failure to prevent the many wrongs is like engaging in such wrongs (Haque, 2007, p.

However, the ticking bomb scenario fails to provide a strong foundation in support of torture as a justifiable act. In that capacity, there are questions raised with respect to the legitimacy of the data accumulated using torment. Additionally, it is important noting that even in the fight against terrorism, only early confessions are deemed essential. In a principal couple of hours following the capture of a psychological militant, it is when investigating officers manage to collect valuable information. Upon realization that one member of a terrorist group is arrested, the others will likely change their plans thus deeming the information gained from the arrested terrorist non-beneficial. It is imperative to note that it is unlikely for investigating officers to gain quick results by using torture because it is designed in a manner aimed to break the resistance of a victim through prolonged degradation and in the case of some criminals like terrorists, they undergo special resistance training.

Therefore, justifying culture in any situation challenges the fundamental aspects of democratic societies. The evidence of long-term negative effects of torture in most instances reveals that the assumed positive effects are outweighed by the associated negative effects. As such, employing a cost-benefit analysis on the issue of torture would culminate in a strict refusal of the act based on the consequentialist ground. Conclusion Conclusively, as demonstrated in this paper, the utilization of torment as a cross-examination strategy is an infringement of human rights that can never be justified. Each individual has a privilege to life and ideal to security which ought to be given by each state. (2008) ‘The Human Faces of Terror: Reflections in a Cracked Looking-Glass’ Critical Studies on Terrorism 1(1): pp.

Bufacchi, V. and Arrigo, J. M. (2006) ‘Torture, Terrorism and the State: a refutation of the Ticking- bomb Argument’ Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (3): pp. 1017/cbo9781139344326. 007 Ginbar, Y. The ‘Defence of Necessity’ as Legal Grounds for Torture.  Why Not Torture Terrorists? 304-338. doi:10. If Torture is Wrong, What About 24?: Torture and the Hollywood Effect.  SSRN Electronic Journal, 66-73. doi:10. 2139/ssrn. 2483131 Kramer, M. php Ramsay, M. Can the torture of terrorist suspects be justified? The International Journal of Human Rights, 10(2), 103-119. doi:10. 1080/13642980600608384 Rose, D. (2004) ‘Revealed: The Full Story of the Guantanamo Britons’ available at http://www. Sussman, D. (2005) ‘What’s Wrong with Torture?’ Philosophy & Public Affairs 33 (1): pp. Sveaass, N. Reproductive Freedom, Torture and International Human Rights: Challenging the Masculinization of Torture, By Ronli Sifris.