According to the UN convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or degrading treatment (CAT), “Torture is defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, be it physical or mental, intentionally inflicted on a person for purposes as obtaining information or a confession from a third person.”(pg. 314) Psychologists Mark Costanzo, Ellen Gerrity, and M. Brinton Lykes argue that the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by psychologists to obtain information from people should be banned. Costanzo et al presented a series of statements: that since torture is a violation of the domestic laws, international law and the violation of human rights; psychologists should not only abstain from the use of torture but also abide by these laws. They went further to say that not only does it violate human rights and international laws but it is also against the professional and ethical code of conduct for psychologist, so for these reasons torture or any other means of interrogation that causes harm to a person should not be considered. Another point made by these authors is that the use of torture has an interrogation technique might not be an “effective means of gathering reliable information (pg.
Was the torture of the Abu Ghraib prisoners morally justifiable? How torture is defined is always a talking point as we do not know if torturing an individual for vital information is considered moral. Is it necessary to gain this information from another human being whilst also becoming a monster in the process? When do we know when to stop? These are questions I encountered along my journey in the EPQ as I not only had to delve into the justifications of torture, but also the psychological trauma the victim goes through and also the individual carrying out the torture.
Michael Walzer argues that there is an important moral difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism in his just war theory. The war convention prohibits combatants from intentionally killing civilians and imposing foreseeable harm on noncombatants that are disproportionate to a military end, thus the jus in bello criteria of proportionality and discrimination are crucial for assessing whether or not a military action is just and morally acceptable. Walzer argues that it is most preferable that civilians have a right that “due care” is taken by combatants to avoid imposing unnecessary and inappropriate risks of harm and death upon them.  This claim about civilian rights and noncombatant immunity works to impose restrictions and prohibitions on certain military tactics and strategies in an effort to prevent military and political leaders from weighing victory over concern for human rights to life and liberty. Walzer distinguishes between guerilla warfare and terrorism, arguing that the latter’s conduct is not justified according to the established rules of war.
This helps to define why some individuals with similar strains commit crimes and why others chose legal manners in which they deal with their strains and emotions. General Strain Theory can help to explain any act that is considered deviant by society, and carries with it some sort of punishment, either formally or informally (Agnew, 2006). Failure to achieve
These differences can often be confusing when talking about basic principles. For example, the American and British principles of "innocent until proven guilty," the right not to incriminate oneself, and the right to be tried by a jury of one's peers are so deeply ingrained in the fabric of the law and society that they might be considered absolute principles. Yet the rest of Europe, most of which follows a Roman law tradition, does not operate by any of these tenets. Principles of the French system, such as the assumption of guilt or the legality of indefinite periods of incarceration, violate the American and British standards of justice. Furthermore, the many violations by modern democracies of their own rule of law principles justify the questioning of its absolute validity.
Torture is unacceptable in every most of the countries in United Stated or everywhere and most will be agree, but is acceptable is the people can see it the ways or situations in which it could possibly be a necessary. With all this crimes of passion and crimes for any type, and in today’s world, could some of the information had do extracted in the time? If there are a situation where a person has admitted to plotting a crime that would be not, torture is a way to look or attain the information needed in order to save a important life to carry out the “specialized interrogation technique”? As this is a sensitive thing, not just for any people should be able to hook up a person to the electrodes and hope that it works for everything. In type to carry out this kinds of interrogation, and also there are a specialized groups of people, that including psychologist and doctors, who are very trained in acquiring the information with the least amount of damage.
When talking about terrorism, it’s first important to define just exactly what terrorism is. Terrorism can be defined as violence carried out by individuals, non-governmental organizations, or covert government agents or units that specifically target civilians. Terrorists are known for using stealthy attack methods, such as car bombs and hijacked airliners to influence politics. The objective of terrorism isn’t to kill and wound innocent people; it’s to target the emotions of those who see or ready about the act of violence and become afraid or dejected. The book defines two forms of terrorism, domestic and international.
Can a single person be held responsible for crimes against humanity? Crimes against humanity can be defined extreme and sustained degradation or humiliation of one or more individuals, as a part of a wider and systematic practice condoned by a higher authority, and i think, taking this definition into account that Ultimately, while an individual may be the controlling force and ignite the wave of extreme violence and discrimination, he has to be supported by others in order to build a culture of such extreme hatred; implicating his allies and as such an individual cannot be held wholly responsible for crimes against humanity, although he can be allocated a great portion of the blame. An individual cannot be wholly responsible for such a widespread and sustained practise of atrocities as actions of many are due to being subjected to oppression or under orders of someone of higher authority. In such a case, when the order comes form a higher authority, most often people do not have an option to rebel against their orders. It is usually a "kill or be killed order".
In this case, the practice is able to end one’s life in a peaceful manner, while a financial and emotional burden can also be lifted off of the family members. In the eyes of others, euthanasia is an act that goes against God’s will and the idea that death is spiritually important and shouldn’t be altered (BBC, 2009). Aside from the fact that euthanasia is also referred to as “mercy killing”, it is still the act of murder—an unlawful premeditated killing of another human being (Answers, n.d.). I personally am against the practice of euthanasia because it is immoral and wrongful. Recurrently, there are cases where patients aren’t given a choice when it comes to euthanasia.
The Use of Torture Can Never Be Justified As a preliminary working definition sufficient for my purposes here, I agree with Michael Davis who describes torture as “the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless, other person for the purpose of breaking their will, (Michael, Davis, 2005). Thus, a person might have been tortured, even if in fact their will has not been broken; the purpose of the practice of torture is to break the victim’s will, but this purpose does not have to be realized for a process to be an instance of torture. Is The Use of Torture Ever Justified? The question tends to provoke a "yes" or "no" answer. The use of torture is always based on the “TICKING bomb theory.” This theory describes a fictional scenario in which a massive weapon is set to go off, a prisoner in custody is known to have information on the attack that he refuses to give, and U.S. forces are faced with the question of whether to torture the prisoner or to allow untold millions to die.