Hollywood movies usually show villains, terrorists, and criminals as totally corrupt and negative characters, whom main protagonists usually murder “in the name of justice.” Perhaps, considering the amount of damage a victim (or their relatives) might have suffered from hostile actions, simply placing an offender under custody (with further imprisonment) does not look an adequate penalty in a number of cases. In connection to this, some people raise questions about the expediency of using the death penalty or torture as a punishment for severe crimes. And while capital punishment is a norm in a number of American states (as well as in countries around the world), the propriety of tortures is a much more debated question.
Today, torture is rightly seen as a medieval and inhumane way of treating a human being, regardless of its origin, social status, or any crimes committed. A number of influential treaties prohibit the use of torture. For example, article 3:1(a) of the Geneva Conventions restrict the use of “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” (Securing Liberty). Article 5 of The United Nations Universal
…show more content…
In the United States, for example, it is guaranteed by the 8th Amendment. However, accepting torture as, for example, a method of interrogation, means that citizens can no longer feel safe if they have to deal with justice, even (and especially) if they are innocent. In this case, an investigative error and the following suspicion of an innocent person can result into the application of severe psychological and physical damage to this individual before their innocence becomes evident. Respectively, to stop the torture, the innocent victim will eagerly invent any ‘evidence’ their interrogators