Torture and its small chance of success
1. Torture is justifiable but only in the most extreme cases. Michael Levin has strong argument supporting this. He sees the need to use torture as a balance between saving innocent lives and what you have to do to be able to save them. It’s a way to prevent disasters and saving valuable lives even if it means hurting the ones who endangered others.
2. Torture is one of the most controversial debates one can find. When we ask a group of people if it is a good or a bad thing there is almost in every case a close to fifty-fifty division of opinions. The biggest arguments on the pro side is that information can be more important than morals, but is it really the best method?
3. What is not so good in Levin’s argumentation is that it feels like he would resort to torture too quickly. There are many ways to break someone and to retrieve information from someone. Torture should be applied when it is to save lives, but before doing that the interrogation should start with breaking him psychologically through talking. Torture can be very ineffective; information retrieved from someone by torture is very unreliable. Torturing people from a terrorist organization can lead the organization to use that information to recruit more people. When a terrorist knows he could get tortured if he gets captured he will never surrender.
4.
…show more content…
One can break another person psychologically without torturing him. The key to achieving effective interrogation without torture is talking to the person. You start of with getting to now the terrorist and try to convince him that both the terrorist and the interrogator can work together and get over the past. Establish a basis of trust and make him believe that they both have the same goal. Intellect should be the way to break someone. This can be a very effective and human way of interrogation and people should be trained to interrogate in this