Consequently, we might even have more time to consume for analyzing what and where may the terrorists’ attacks be. However, if we wasted our time on finding the correct prisoners and torture them, we are not only having a risk of killing them, but a risk of receiving lies, for they might tell lies to stop torturers from continue torturing them, or nothing at all as well. Another case that would be extremely likely to happen is that criminals who are tortured begin to hate the world much severer. As a result, they would become determined that they would say nothing about their plans. Furthermore, they would be viewed as potential risks when they are out from the jail since the more they hate the world, the higher the potential of constructing evil attacks by them would be.
The use of torture as a deterrent is a technique commonly used in counterinsurgency. It is intended to intimidate and frighten adversaries into compliance. The persons being tortured need not have any particular information; their value is to serve as an example to others and promote fear. Political uprisings are often violent, and torture of a few rebels to prevent further outbreaks of bloodshed at first seems like a worthwhile trade. Yet a recent study on combating insurgency shows that "...torture is ineffective for reducing killings perpetrated by insurgents both because it fails to reduce insurgent capacities for violence and because it can increase the incentives for insurgents to commit future killings" (Sullivan 402).
Levin’s target audience is Americans because his use of American symbolism such as “July 4,” and “unconstitutional.” In addition, the United States is not the only victim of terrorist attacks. Many countries around the world also fall prey to terrorism. According to Levin, begins his essay with a brief description of how he believes that societies view the subject of torture as negative thing. He justifies his reasoning on torture by allowing it in order to save innocent lives. Levin’s second claim is that the judicial system is a slow process when time is a factor and the only way to speed it up is by torture.
On the other hand, Luban, would say Yoo ignores the law models and war models if they deny terrorist suspects protection as required. Yoo says, in order to convict a defendant of torture the prosecution must have establish that the torture occurred outside the United States, the defendant acted under the color of law, he victim was within the custody of the defendant, the pain or suffering should be intended. Torture is performed on victims to obtain information or confession, to punish them, for intimidation, or for discrimination. Mental pain is effected by intentional or threatened infliction of severe physical or mental pain, administration or threatened administration of mind altering substances or methods that disrupt senses or personality, threat of imminent death or threat that another person will be immediately subjected to death. Luban raised two models; first is the war model, which supports the use of lethal force on enemy troops irrespective of whether they were personally involved with the adversary.
It is possible that the truth is, that government officials have deliberately engineered the system to assure that the jury trial system established by the Constitution is seldom used, instead plea bargaining is the primary technique used by the government to bypass the institutional safeguards in trials (Timothy Lynch Cato Institute). Some argue that plea bargaining results in criminals receiving undeserved leniency, while others argue that plea bargaining subject’s defendants to unjustifiable pressure to forego their constitutional right to a jury trial. Scholars have attacked plea bargaining on the ground that prosecutors wield too much power over defendants and coerce them into accepting plea agreements which might be unfair. Some commentators add that these defendants are too often deprived of
Using material from Item C and elsewhere, assess the strengths and limitations of using covert observation as a means of investigating court proceedings. Covert observation is where a researcher observes the particular group they’re collecting research on whilst disguising their true identity as to better fit in. An advantage of covertly observing persons involved in court proceedings such as criminals, judges, juries and police is it that it is the most effective method for ensuring there is no Hawthorne effect. Participants may feel hostile towards a researcher who is acting overtly. Criminals especially those who are going through court proceedings may not feel comfortable disclosing certain information to someone they know to be a researcher.
Recent activity in the Bush administration has led to widespread criticism on how the government perceives torture. Torture is a word that carries negative connotation in nearly every part of its usage. Alan Dershowitz states in his article, “Is There a Torturous Road to Justice?” that if the government is going to practice such methods of interrogation, they should not hide it from the public, but rather make it legal in a way that allows for the protection of our nation. His stance on the subject is made clear by his introduction of various solutions to the problem and tries to convince his audience of their power. He focuses on interpretations of the constitution and assumes that torture will happen regardless of what the government says.
However, terrorists can argue that their methods are ethical and just to right wrongs due to political and social injustices. For instance; when people have been stripped of their rights or land, resorting to terrorism could be the only effective means to bring change. Many nations live in hunger or poverty—particularly the Third World countries—and see few options other than violent acts of terrorism to get the attention of the media in hopes of making their world better. After the attacks of September 11, Osama bin Laden, founder of Al-Queda, felt that the land of his people is being stripped by oppressive U.S. military forces simply by occupying the holy lands of
Capital Punishment and the Deterrence Theory Capital Punishment Deters Crime 11/9/2012 Dr. Ji Seun Sohn Brooke Lee Capital Punishment and the Deterrence Theory: Capital Punishment Deters Crime Jerry Kilgore said in an editorial written for USA Today, “As a former prosecutor, former secretary of public safety and now attorney general, I believe that some crimes are so evil, some criminals so dangerous and some victims so tortured that executing the criminal is appropriate” (Kilgore, 2002). Capital punishment, or commonly referred to as the death penalty, is the most controversial of all of the disciplinary practices. Since it involves taking another human being’s life, this is not at all surprising. Since it is the most severe of all sentences, there have been countless efforts to abolish the death penalty, and in most of the industrialized nations, with the exception of Japan and the United States of America, these efforts have proved effective. In this paper, I will discuss the effect that capital punishment has on deterring criminal activity.
Why are prisons bursting at the seams? According to Joe Romaine of the International Business Times, it is because of America’s “insane drug laws,” which are doing more harm than good (Romaine). Many people may argue that drug offenders are getting what’s coming to them— they broke the law, and therefore it is part of their consequence to suffer through the overcrowded “cruel and unusual” incarceration. Individuals who argue this point are mistaken because although criminals should indeed receive punishment for their actions, there comes a time when a line of propriety is crossed. The ‘war on drugs’ has become a harsh and unnecessary measure that frankly costs American taxpayers far too much money.