Is The Use Of Torture Ever Justified?

Introduction

The argument is: it is eminently moral to save the innocent when the consideration is hurting monsters. The leaders of some countries, rushing into the breach, and with the help of theologians and moralists of circumstance, do not hesitate to tip his hand on the heart, the balance in favor of the innocent, of course.

But the possibility of torture is not only a moral question: acceptance, more or less tacit, of this practice undermines the very essence of the rule of law, and therefore everyone can agree (www.economist.com).

Discussion

Analyze the assumption that won the support of two thirds of respondents. This assumption is: the person that is proposed is guilty of torture. But what guarantee do people have? Do people have any evidence? The person she was convicted after a procedure, which could justify the fact that the abuses, even if it is morally questionable? No! The State has simply stopped and the claims guilty of the enormity of the crimes he is charged in lieu of trial. Paradoxically, the public gives more weight to allegations that their reality (Simonsen, pp. 78-92).

Now comes the extreme perversity of the system: no matter whether the person is guilty or not because it necessarily becomes: in effect, a tortured person confesses. She confesses everything and anything. She admits that suits his torturers. Worse still, the horror he felt the possibility of being tortured again persevere in his confession. Thus, the State is justified in its practices (www.economist.com). By the confessions of the alleged offense, he justifies the effectiveness of his practice. Since the witch hunt, to the defunct coup trial republics of the East, through the Latin American dictatorships, the proven examples of these cruelties, perfectly unjust, are endless.

Even leaving aside the moral issue in the first degree, ...