Torturing is permissible when millions of lives are in danger. Torturing is morally correct, torturing a criminal or terrorist to get the necessary information, and is often the only way to help prevent more innocent lives from being in danger. Most people in fact realize, that torture is somewhat brutal. In some essay people try to give some examples as to when we might decide to use torture. In some examples however, prove to be unconstitutional, unreliable. Therefore, torture as a means of justification is not acceptable and is at time. I believe that torture makes a huge whole in our constitution which makes it seem wrong.

Justifying torture becomes impossible. Any way designed to justify its use is when certain assumptions are generally made. The bomber scenario described used in essays is an excellent example. Do we or do we not torture the terrorist? In this instance, it seems that the life of one person can’t outweigh the lives of millions of people. Yet even in this extreme situation, consider what is assumed. First, one assumes that the bomb actually exists. Perhaps it does not—is there any irrefutable evidence to prove that it does? Without clear proof that lives are actually in danger, torture is an unjustifiable affront to the rights of the suspected terrorist.

Secondly, it is assumed that we have the right person in custody. What if the authorities arrested the wrong person? Perhaps he’s confessed, but can one be sure the confession was genuine? Maybe he’s insane—or maybe he wants to give his group credit for the bombing—even at risk