Conclusion

In deciding whether or not international law should admit torture in ticking-time-bomb scenarios, we must choose between maintaining humanitarian principles at all times and suspending them to deal with the real-life pressure of an imminent crisis. But is there enough reason to believe that torture is more effective in averting a crisis than interrogation is? Can't a suspect be humanely treated and still be an accurate and timely source of key information? In the same way, if interrogation is all we have legally at our disposal, how far can it go before it becomes torture? If we don't legalize torture, then do we just allow it to be practiced illegally or should we call for its regulation? If torture is legalized then how should its definition change—what should the limitations be?

If these questions, among the many others, only complicate the answer for you, then you're not the only one who is puzzled. Most of the world's governments have signed the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions while they continue to practice torture covertly, regularly, without accountability, and without regulation. On the other side, to sanction torture would be to sanction the denial of a suspect's fundamental and universal human rights.

Poll

Having considered the arguments for and against legalizing torture, would you now change your mind about whether to torture a suspect?

Yes, I would still make the same choice
No, I would change my mind

Historical Perspectives: Timeline of Torture

References