Term 2 Week 5 Task 4

Is the use of torture ever justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists? Discuss this in the light of the arguments raised in the two articles and substantiate your ideas with examples of your own. Your response should consist of at least two content paragraphs and be at least 300 words long.

Torture, a both physical and mental form of punishing criminals and terrorists should be deterred. Punishing the offenders by torturing them is unethical. It is harsh and inhumane. By torturing them, we can neither guarantee them to turn over a new leaf non guarantee it an effective way to deter any crimes from happening. The criminals though violated the law are still human beings. They should not be tortured for they are not animals. It is morally against the human rights. This method of punishing them is not necessarily productive and effective. It is a cruel act though it is used to punish the criminals. Torturing the criminals may in turn become the root to social riots. Supporters of the terrorists would not want their heroes to suffer in great pain and may even retaliate and become anti-government. This defeats the ultimate aim of torturing the criminals. It also does not serve as a deterrent to crime rate. Thus, to effectively deter any potential offenders, torturing of criminals should not be the main solution.

In some cases, not a single terrorist has been prosecuted; they have been raped, tortured and murdered. This is totally truculent. The authorities are apparently abusing their power to commit "legal" crimes. They have reacted in a way that has violated the international law. I personally think that the criminals and terrorists should be given a second chance. They can be punished by serving community involved programmes, corrective work order or treat them as coolies. By torturing criminals is not an ideal solution as criminals or terrorists may harbour a hostile attitude towards the authority. This will eventually result in a negative impact on the country and its population. Also, it is the government's responsibility to bring all the prisoners 'under the protection of the law' so they should not be torturing the criminals. Therefore, I think that the use of torture is not justified to a huge extent.

In some places, prisoners were tortured by using microwaves to, literally, heat the water molecules in their skin, causing horrific pain. This causes injuries. The wounds may not be able to be cured. They would be hurt mentally which may even warps their character. Torturing can also ended up killing the criminals. This is not the main purpose of torturing the criminals. thus, the use of torture in dealing with terrorists is not justified.

However thinking of how devastated the loved ones of the victims are, torture becomes acceptable. For instance, the 9/11 was an awful carnage and a nation's broken heart, people were screaming. This made the torture sounded justified. Yes, imagine that if your loved ones have been murdered, what will you feel? The only answer is to take revenge by making the murders suffer? However, though it may be acceptable in the sense, the standards of acceptable torture should be handed carefully. There should not be over limit to the degree of torture. It should only include reasonable application of pain. Otherwise torturing becomes a cruel act and the authority will be taken as sick in the mind.

In conclusion, to punish the terrorists and criminals may not be necessarily need to torture them. Torturing is against the international laws and is morally prohibited. We should be given the basic human rights, including the offenders. When one does something wrong he should be given a second chance to turn over a new leaf. If he were to be tortured, he would then harbour hatred and repeat his mistakes again after he is released. Thus, to prevent any social unrest and to obey the international laws, the use of torture should not be practised in dealing with criminals and terrorists.