Torture the Very Word Brings

Torture the very word brings up horrific images of human beings doing despicable things to other human beings. In fact, it is such an emotionally-laden word that even those countries that practice torture, including the United States, are reluctant to use the word. Instead, they use euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation procedures" to describe behavior that is, at the end of the day, simply torture. Of course, the countries that condemn the practice of torture at the same time that they engage in it are subject to accusations of hypocrisy, with many people suggesting that torture simply has no role in a civilized society. However, while torture may be an inherently inhumane practice that does not mean that it has no value. In fact, torture may be the most expeditious form of getting information from someone who has that information and does not want to share it. In fact, in some scenarios, torture may not be simply morally acceptable, but a moral imperative. Therefore, I must conclude that torture is acceptable under certain circumstances and with certain limitations.

When many people argue in favor of torture, they bring up worst case scenarios, such as a bomb being in a large city, the suspect in custody, and the suspect acknowledging the existence of the bomb but refusing to divulge the location. Most people agree in that scenario that torture is acceptable. In fact, in the "ticking-bomb" case, many people not only think that torture is acceptable, but that it can be the ethically superior choice. While the ticking bomb scenario may not be very likely, there are times when immediate access to information can prevent atrocities. Kidnappings where the victim location is unknown, but the perpetrator is identified may not be frequent, but they do occur. Moreover, it is very possible that the authorities will apprehend a suspect whom they have great cause to believe has information about terrorist activity, and that conventional methods of investigation will not reveal information in time to prevent another disaster. In those scenarios torture is appropriate.

Some people argue that torture is ineffective for two reasons. First, torture is likely to elicit false confessions. This is true; torture is likely to illicit false confessions and false information. Apply enough physical pain to a person and one is likely to get false information. The Inquisition established that people will admit to things that are impossible (being werewolves or witches) in order to put a stop to physical pain. Therefore, while torture should be used to gain information, information elicited by torture should not be used in prosecutions. In the United States, the Fifth Amendment protects people from involuntary self-incrimination, a protection that has been construed as a means of preventing police brutality to elicit false confessions. There is nothing incompatible with the idea of allowing the state to use torture to elicit emergency information but not allowing the state to use that information in a criminal trial. The impetus behind the use of torture is to prevent imminent harm, not promote the other interests of the criminal justice system.

The second reason that people argue against torture is that they believe that people can be trained to withstand torture. On some level, this is true. Some people can be trained to withstand some torture. However, pain avoidance is a very basic human drive. At some point, for the vast majority of subjects, torture will provide an effective incentive to tell the truth. Even if it does not, torture is not likely to decrease the chance of having someone tell the truth. Torture is largely effective.