Persuasive Essay On Torture

In discussions of ticking time bombs, one controversial issue has been how to deal with the alleged guilty terrorist once he is captured. On the one hand, some people, including Michael Levin, a libertarian writer and educator, argue that it is in the US government’s right to torture the guilty terrorist because his knowledge could be used to save the lives of millions. On the other hand, others, such as Philip Heymann, who is a writer that had worked in the government field, firmly states that torture should never be used because the chance that it will produce true and useful information is nearly impossible and it is vastly more crucial to preserve the international bans on torture. Shirley Jackson elaborates on Heymann’s view when she
wrote a famous short story, “The Lottery,” in which she predicts that if torture were to become legal, then it will also become socially acceptable and people will only see its flaws when it is used against them. Whereas Heymann and Jackson consider the immoral aspect of torture, others, like professor Cindy Combs, examines whether it is practical to torture terrorists. Combs analyzes different types of terrorists, and concludes that most of them are people that value their collective higher cause over their own lives and well-being, so they are not afraid of death rendering torture hopeless.
My own view is that torture is wrong because it is a mistake to abandon the Constitution and moral laws in hopes of gaining information. Additionally, I agree with Heymann that it is nearly impossible to guarantee that a terrorist will give useful knowledge because he is just used as a pawn and may only know his own part in planting a time bomb.
First, torture should not be used because it is prohibited by the Constitution.
Levin acknowledges this when he writes, “Torturing the terrorist is unconstitutional? Probably. But millions of lives surely outweigh constitutionality” (532). Basically, Levin admits that the methods of torture may not be legal and civilized, but he still promotes its use because the lives of innocent people has more value than rules and regulations. The Constitution is only a guideline and its purpose is to serve the people, which, Levin deems, is the purpose of torture. Although I agree with Levin that millions of lives are important, I think that it is a mistake to disregard the Constitution. With this document, arise carefully written laws, a clear justice system, and order among all people. If Levin dismisses one part of the Constitution then he is essentially abandoning the American way of life, social order, community, and promoting instead chaotic anarchy, in which individual decide whether they want to follow laws or not. Following the Constitution is crucial because it aids the United States in keeping high moral standard in which other countries can follow, this means that the document sets undisputable rules that everyone must obey and regulates the government’s control. In other words, I believe that millions of lives do not outweigh constitutionality because the rules and regulations it establishes serve to protect billions of
people.