User:Maryannelindemann/Ethics of torture

Article body
Premise

A utilitarian argument against torture is that the majority of tortures are employed not as a method of extracting information, but as a method of terrorizing and subjugating the population, enabling state forces to dispense with ordinary means of establishing innocence or guilt and with the whole legal apparatus altogether. (I added this citation because one was not given in the original article) Therefore, it is better that a few individuals be killed by bombers than a much greater number—possibly thousands of innocent people—be tortured and murdered and legal and constitutional provisions destroyed.

History

It has been alleged that in certain circumstances torture, even though it is illegal, may have been used by some European countries. In "anti-terrorist" campaigns where information is needed for intelligence purposes, and not to obtain a confession for use in court, there is a temptation by the security forces, whether authorised by governments or not, to extract intelligence from alleged terrorists using any means available including the use of torture. Where there is a time component to a crime, for example in a kidnapping case, there is also a temptation for the police to try to extract information by methods which would make the evidence inadmissible in court. (Original paragraph from the article, not changed)

At one point in Israel, it was actually legal to torture. However, there were limitations to who could be tortured. The party being tortured had to be guilty, and it had to be for good reason in order to be tolerated. After some time, it was no longer legal to torture someone, even in ways that met their criteria. Even though the law changed and no longer allowed this action to take place, many innocent Palestinians were tortured anyway. (I added this paragraph to the end of the history section)

Opponents

Toleration of torture and arbitrary detention has been likened to a "cancer of democracy" in a book of the same title by Pierre Vidal-Naquet, which begins to undermine all other aspects of a state's legitimacy. On the 20th anniversary of the coming into force of the United Nations Convention against Torture, Philip Hensher writes "Civilization is at once compromised if, in defense of other freedoms, it decides to regress, to accept the possibility of torture as it is seen in the movies." (Original paragraph from the article, not changed)

"Torture also violates the basic principles of moral choice by forcing victims to betray their own will and moral agency. Deontological contentions in favor of torture state that government officials have a moral duty to protect citizens, a duty that requires them to get “dirty hands” from time to time by undertaking actions that are personally objectionable but necessary for the public good." (Citation needed from The Ethics and Politics of Torture.)

PEER REVIEW

- Add a specific year to when it was legal in Israel to torture, and change my wording of that sentence to something more along the lines of what was suggested. ("Between the years of X and Y, it was legal for the Israeli military to torture prisoners under certain circumstances. If the tortured party was proven guilty in a court of law... etc.")

- I will have to look more into the basis of the deontological arguments for/against torture, and see whether or not it fits in with the content of the article in an unbiased way.

- Change wording in order to make the article easier to understand?

- Try to find sources that may be less outdated.