Essay on Torture in Correctional Facilities: Evidence Acquisition Through Confessions

Introduction

In correctional facilities, evidence to an offense is a very significant thing, especially where the accusation endangers the lives of other people, or places other things at risk. One of the ways of finding someone is guilty, and obtaining the evidence is through getting them to confess the accusation ( Miller, Paul & Darius, 17). Torture has become very rampant in these correction facilities to make someone confess things they are hiding. This method has, however, been criticized by many people that it is not a proper way of obtaining evidence. Torture has been defined as an act that inflicts pain and suffering on an individual or a third party, either physically or mentally to make them confess evidence, and also as a way of punishing them for an act they or a third party did or is suspected of having done (Levin). Several arguments have been placed against the issue, with a call for withdrawing it and using other interventions. This paper aims to argue against torture as a means of obtaining pertinent information from a suspected person.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Defense

Torture is internationally illegal and immoral. Under the united nations universal declaration of human rights article five, they provide prohibition for all states against torture as a means of obtaining evidence. Critically, the report states that no one should be subjected to torture or any cruel actions, which is inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment (Levin). Article two of the conversion of the united nations against torture also provides stringent rules against torture. Article two provides that no circumstance, either state or civil war or any internal political instability, should invoke torture as a legitimate way of obtaining evidence and punishing convicts (Levin). Torture is immoral as it is a violation of the individual’s dignity, both the one who is being tortured and the one torturing, and those who condone it.

Torture disdains the moral high grounds of the country. It is one of the most barbaric and outdated ways of punishing individuals. Many people would even prefer to die rather being tortured into giving evidence. It also disdains the high moral standards of the country as it shows that the country is operating in the same logic as a terrorist (Bellaby). For example, Saddam Hussein used torture against is enemies. Therefore, the state must not emulate him. If it is encouraged, it means that schools must be instituted where people would be taught how to execute the torture (Menon). If seen by the young generation, it might be justifiable for aggressive behavior that corrupts moral standards in the country.

Torture also corrupts, specifically the societal practices, and the one who is being tortured, both psychologically and physically. It is a distressing experience and may even make the client confess anything which may not be true, to get themselves out of the situation. Some may accept even mistakes that were not theirs so that they. Therefore, it renders the intervention as an unreliable and ineffective way of obtaining evidence. Individuals may be even trained before how to withstand the torture, and the police end up with no evidence. The information given may be misleading and lead to the conviction of other innocent people who may not even have been involved in the act initially.

Objection

In as much as torture is very inappropriate, some instances have to prompt the pain. The interest of the country is to protect its citizens, and if torture would take to achieve this protection, then it is permissible. The TTBS intervention can be used mainly when obtaining pertinent information concerning a potential terrorist activity whose impact would affect many people. In as much as torture may not be the best reliable intelligence and accurate way of obtaining information, it may still be an option, as it would work in other cases.

Torture would also be encouraged in situations where the overall impact is for the greater good against evil. For example, where mass murder is likely or was involved, connected with the tortures reason. In this case, torture is evil, and mass murder is at a greater evil. The choice between good and evil is not always inherent. In other situations, we may be forced to choose from one crime to another, and in this case, the lesser evil would be considered. To permit torture, some factors should be considered. These include the number of people who may be harmed, the level of destruction, and the person to be tortured. It is also important to consider who is administering the torture if the pain should be used as the last resort, and if the circumstances of using the torture are legal.

Another objection is that most advocates against torture complain in the sense that it is violating the rights of the person and lowering their dignity. They argue that it is not the best way of punishment. One thing to be understood is that the motive torturing is not to punish, but instead get the people to confess information which is believed to be endangering other people (Schropp). If the rights of the people being tortured are being violated and their dignity being lowered, then what of the other innocent people who suffer under their hands? An example if for individuals who kidnap babies; for example, they endanger the lives of the children and distress the parents and guardians. A group of mothers was asked if it was right to torture the people who have kidnaped their babies. One of the women said it was right, but she would even be willing to administer the torture herself (Levin).

Conclusion

In conclusion, torture is not a proper way of obtaining information and punishment. There are reasonable arguments both for and against torture. However, the reasons for the torture are strong since evil continues to multiply, and people are getting brighter. Some may even train to overcome the torture. Torture is also a way of preventing further catastrophe in society and not just punishing individuals. Other better interventions are better than torture—for example, standard interrogation techniques and general intelligence -gathering techniques. Ticking Time-Bomb Scenario is often used in justification of torture, a very problematic argument.

The scenarios being stated are in a dilemma and may never happen. The individuals may even be innocent, and they are being tortured for nothing. Another way is by putting oneself in the shoes of the person who is being abused if it is an experience that one would want to experience. Torture should also not only be considered in the short term but also even in the long run. Pain may make the country lose international support, or even encourage the act in other countries, making it acceptable. It may also urge the citizens of the country to be tortured in other parts of the world. It would even further encourage terrorist's torture of victims in their hands since it is within the legal system of the country.

Works Cited

Bellaby, Ross W. "The Ethics of Torture-Lite: A Justifiable Middle-Ground?." International Journal of Applied Philosophy (2016).

Houck, Shannon C., and Meredith A. Repke. "When and why we torture: A review of psychology research." Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3.3 (2017): 272.

Levin, Michael. "Torture: Is It Ever Justifiable." 2020

Menon, K. (2019). Does torture work? Donald Trump and the CIA.

Miller Peter, Paul Gronke, and Darius Rejali. "Torture and public opinion: The partisan dimension." Examining Torture. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2014. 11-41.

Schropp, Helen. Torture. Is it ever justifiable?. GRIN Verlag, 2016.