A Controversial Topic Of Justifying Torture
This world is full of injustice and crime, people are searching for a way to overcome this with the best way they can, a way that does not violate human lives or not make them be the one thing that they tried to resolve. This same discussion is about using torture in solving crimes or ‘injustice’ situations. It may not come to mind in first thinking, but torture could be a useful way of solving crimes. But, like everything, this has to have certain limitations, like Michael Levin (1982) has stated that ‘‘Torture is a tool used to balance innocent lives against means that needed to save them. ’’, only in extreme situations. It is important to consider and be ready to take every option to solve crimes with a life on the line, as Peter Singer affirmed ‘‘If I know that I can save someone and I don’t then I’m responsible for that person’s death. ’’ Torture should be justifiable or at least considered as an option in certain cases because it can save many lives in extreme situations, it can solve crimes faster and easier, and it can prevent possible future cases that require a solution that is extreme as torture.
There are many reasons to justify torture, but the main reason to be considered is the potential lives that can be saved by using torture. Most of the time crimes that modern society has faced are not the ones that can be easily solved, they are extreme situations. Michael Levin (1982) has given an example that could explain such an extreme case. In this example someone has placed a bomb in a jumbo jet, he is the only one who can disarm it, and he asked for demands that can not possibly be met.
Reasoning with criminals is always the first right path to take, but in cases like this if people in charge refuse to do everything they can to make that criminal undo his/her crime, or at this case disarm the bomb, it would cost many lives, and they also become guilty for those consequences. In a scenario that they considered and use torture as an option, there might be a solution that can end up with saving hundreds of people. The real point in here is not making torture a regular method but to consider using on occasions like this one. Another example of a situation where using torture might have made a difference is the case of the kidnapping of a boy named Jakob Von Metzler son of a prominent German banking family. After a couple of days the kidnapper Magnus Gaskin, and he refused to tell where the kid was, and poliçe officer threatened him with torture, and threat worked he told that he already killed Jakob and hid the body. As a result, that officer got arrested because of his threat. In this case, it is clear that even the threat of torture worked and made the criminal tell the truth.
Although the victim might be dead, the option of torture could save a life in a similar situation. If people in charge do not do what everything they can they give criminals a better position and advantage at the case, to avoid that current options have to be upgraded. That is why torture should be accepted as an option in certain situations because sometimes it can be the only option between life and death. It is important to acknowledge that the cases which ‘requires’ torture are highly involved with time, and that race against time is what makes people think of torture as a solution. Even though it is a controversial method, torture could help to solve cases, because not using torture in those ‘needed’ situations may serve in criminals favour.
Most of the time criminals try to escape with what they did, by claiming certain demands, and they strengthen their demands by not telling where the victim is or how to disarm the bomb, telling the truth in general. In the majority of these cases, there is a situation where people are against time, and the criminal is stalling that time with his demands, and people who do not consider torture as a solution are also helping the criminal unintentionally. For example In Michael Levin’s (1982) example of the bomb. If that criminal's demands were ‘reasonable’ and people tried to fulfil those demands they would have risked the innocent people’s lives by spending time on doing something that criminal wishes with no guarantee of him disarming the bomb. To solve crimes like this, a quick and effective way is essential because stalling and wasting time is the biggest trump they have. Using torture could help to solve crimes like this more easily and most importantly faster. By doing so the government can avoid more criminals getting away with their crimes. If people do not start considering torture as a solution when it is the only option, crimes on the hand may never be solved and as a result, many people could suffer from it. If torture ever becomes justifiable in some special occasions, by shortening the solution of crimes that especially involves a race against time, or not letting those criminals get away with what they did, eventually, and ironically torture itself could decrease those extreme situations where a solution extreme as torture is necessary.
Criminal activities can start to decrease. There are two reasons for this. First one is that statistically if more crimes were solved this way fewer people are going to attend to similar crimes, thus ending up with the second reason: fear. Fear is departed into two sections: innate fears and the one that is concerned with how torture could prevent similar crimes from happening, Acquaried fear. If torture ever becomes justifiable, limited to certain situations, in-law people and used on people who committed crimes that threatened many lives, some other people who even think to commit a crime could back down from this idea by knowing that he/she could end up being tortured. A similar example of this can be seen in the kidnapping of Jakob Von Metzler. When the police chief threatens the kidnappers with torture and then he confesses where the child is, or at least where his body is. Even though the child might be dead, this example proves that fear of torture could make progress in these cases. Michael Levin (1982) also supports this by stating that ‘‘Punishment is addressed to deeds irrevocably past. Rather, I am advocating torture as an acceptable measure for preventing future evils. ’’ This means that in the first place using torture is for decreasing the need for torture itself.
Even though torture could be helpful or be the only option in some cases, there is a majority of people who thinks that can not be acceptable, and never even considered as an option. Not torturing anyone is the ideal way to treat humans and their rights, but so is not kidnapping or threatening other lives is. If all people had respected and treated human life with value, there would be no need for torture, to begin with, there is causality here. People who defend that torture, not even in the extreme situations, cannot be plausible, argue that even if there is a causality using torture would make people who do not violate human rights same as those criminals, thus there will be an eternal cycle of human rights violation. Michael Levin (1982) explains this by stating that there could be a line that demarcates the use of torture, and this line can be the reason or purpose that people who use torture have, or it can be the boundaries that those people take. Torture should be for the use of avoiding massive outcomes, not for punishment and revenge, and that is what draws the line. If the usage of torture is restricted to a certain case or certain reasons then it could have a potential place in law. If people do not use torture when it is necessary, then there could be deaths as a result, but if torture is used then there could be no death at all.
Although torture is a violation against human lives, sometimes there is no choice other than choosing which violation has a better cause. If dignity and the rights of the criminals matter, so do his/her victims. In the end, torture is still a controversial topic. But there is no doubt that torture can cause positive results from time to time by making criminals confess important information about their crimes, thus it may end up saving many lives, hence slowly decreasing situations that require torture as a solution. It is certain that even thinking about torture as a solution shows that how little humanity has improved over decades, but sometimes the only thing to do is acting on choices in the hand, and that is the reason why torture should at least considered a possible solution.
