Ahh torture...

Like Nik, I am also thru with arguing about the slippery slope business. I think that there really might be instances where torture might be effective and justified [I will not claim to be the official authority on all things just, this is just a suggestion]. There needs to be a very, very high standard set in deciding who we torture, but I think that in some circumstances, especially when considering proportionality (I'm sorry I can't remember who brought that up in class, but it's a really good point), that it would almost be immoral not to torture. I strongly believe that it is just as immoral to not act to thwart preventable catastrophes/acts of immorality as it is to actually cause them.

So here are the guidelines regarding the use/debate of torture I've kind of developed from the reading, class, and thinking:

1) We have to set our standards high. It is imperative that a few conditions must be met:

(a) The person in question must be caught and held for viable reasons. Torture should be applied if and only if there is evidence beyond all reasonable doubt (as is used in trials today) that they have information that could contribute to a proportionate amount of information that could be used to save lives (etc etc).

(b) Appropriate and proportional levels of torture may be used. The smaller the crime, the lesser the sentence.

(c) All of this is working under the assumption that torture does, in fact, yield results. I don't know why torture would still be practiced if it didn't have at least a somewhat decent success rate, but if the rate of success is very low, then obviously I am completely opposed to the waste of time and resources.

2) The decision-maker who decide that torture will work must be held responsible for being wrong.  Especially if their client is proven innocent. 

3) No slippery slope business. When I set the bar high, it's for a reason. I'm not arguing that anything is easy to apply practically; I'm argue for the concept of the conditions. Of course, if the conditions cannot be met, then I don't believe that torture is justified.

I'm not sure these conditions can be met, since government suffers from so many issues with corruption, but under ideal circumstances, I think that torture is justifiable. If one guilty person has to suffer to save 1000 lives, I am all for it. On a side note, torture is somewhat optional from a  victim's standpoint as well. They do have to make the decision to not release the desired information [which we know beyond all reasonable doubt that they have based on previous investigation via point number 1a].

Sorry if this post was a little confusing and long-winded.