torture is morally acceptable

Two academics,* Professor Mirko Bagaric and lecturer Julie Clarke, from Deakin University  law faculty, have  caused a furore with their assertion in a paper to be published  by the  University of San Francisco Law Review, that torture is "permissible where evidence suggests it is the only means ...to save the life of an innocent person."   

On a show last night on television, Bagaric said he saw no problems with such things as needles under fingernails to extract information.  He could see no ethical reason that torture of someone suspected of being a terrorist was wrong.

I could hardly believe what I was hearing and seeing.  To use the same methods as are used by some terrorists is to descend to the same level and to allow them and their ideas to win. 

No ethical reasons not to use torture?  I wonder how they would feel if they were the ones being tortured, even if they were innocent.  Surely we should be considering  the treatment meted to others. Would we like the same?   Jesus said that to do to others as we would have done to us is the basis of the Law and the Prophets, in other words, the law or counsel of God.

What is advocated is purely a pragmatic, utilitarian viewpoint.  Not  well thought out, however, aprt from the error involved.  Surely they must realise that many would say what was wanted purely to avoid torture.  A forced confession may be no confession at all and could well contain lies.

Who decides if a person seems likely to have something to confess and who decides on the torture and how far does it go?  Needles under the fingernails may well lead to electric shocks to the genitals or the water treatment.  Of course, the investigator is the one who decides both the likelihood of success and the methods used to achieve that success.

Is the suspect guilty or innocent?  Don't know or are not sure?  Let's just try a few things to find out.  I remember reading of the trials for witches.  Thrown into the pond, an innocent woman sank and drowned.  Guilty women did not drown but were pulled from the water and punished, usually with death.

The west is often accused of terrorism by  those whom we call terrorists.  Can you imagine the outcry in the west if such justification was given for torturing a western captive?

Where would such torture place the country allowing it?  Somewhere  on the scale near those who kill innocent bystanders and civilians with car bombs etc. to make their own point.

I was glad to read the letters column of the Herald  this morning and see the outcry against these opinions. 

This is just so wrong.

<>

* Possible free registration required.