Write Your Own Argument. In a Write Your Own Argument prompt, you should clearly state your position on the topic (pro, against, qualified) and develop 3 points that you will examine. Here, each body paragraph must reflect a specific issue rather than a specific author. While you may utilize the sources that you read in class, the focus should be YOUR POSITION on whether the torturing of terrorists should be allowed.
On the AP exam, you have 45 minutes to respond to the topic. Please do not spend hours on your response, but your response should have a clear thesis and plan in the introduction, strong development with a minimum of 3 supports in each of the body paragraphs, and a conclusion which reflects a final insight (call to action or call for reflection).
76 Comments
Bethany Balentine
9/10/2013 05:47:09 am
There have been situations such as the Mohammed case where the tactics of torture were considered to be used. Even though he was a criminal, is it morally right to use the tactic of torture depending on how severe the situation is? When the argument of torture comes up, people have different stances on the matter. Some believe that it is a good thing, depending on the certain situation, for example if there is many lives at stake, people think that torture could be used to save lives. Or, there may be a dire need for specific information. Torture is not morally right because it degrades human beings and their own human rights.
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
9/11/2013 06:32:58 am
Bethany--while you are using rhetorical questions to set up an audience response be selective in their use. Frame your topic sentences with a specific argument: First body paragraph: the primary issue is determining who should be allowed to be tortured. Second body paragraph: the implications when a government authorizes torture.
Reply
Angela B.
9/18/2013 04:10:39 am
I like how you question the problem and set up your own statement at the beginning of the essay.
Reply
Angelique K.
9/11/2013 01:28:29 am
When it comes to whether torture should be accepted or not it tends to make people argue with one another because every person has a different opinion. Personally, I find that torture is acceptable under certain circumstances, this does not mean that for every crime you need to be tortured but it will depend on what you have done. We are living under a democracy in the United States, but that doesn’t mean that nobody is allowed to be tortured. For example, if you steal from other people you deserve punishment but not torture, however, if you kidnap somebody and torture them, I believe you deserve the same torture in return. Therefore, I believe that under certain circumstance people deserve to be tortured because any other penalty or punishment would just give them the easy way out.
Reply
Angelique K.
9/11/2013 02:13:43 am
My last few sentences didn't post.
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
9/11/2013 06:36:13 am
Angelique--you set up a path for discussion and develop your examples in the body paragraphs. Watch out for repetition, particularly in your conclusion.
stephen
9/11/2013 04:23:06 am
"We are living under a democracy in the United States, but that doesn’t mean that nobody is allowed to be tortured."
Reply
daniel c.
9/16/2013 06:21:28 am
Just like Ms. Moriconi said Angelique, you set up for discussion, big time discussion. I also agree with Stephen on this one though because torture is outlawed by the constitution, but i think its great that you go for the opposing side and stand up for what you believe
Reply
Ryan M
9/11/2013 03:05:19 am
Torture is an act in which people use to gain information about a tricky situation like bomb locations. Torture is also used to implement power on your opponent. Most people in today’s world would disagree with the idea of using torture as a tool, but I believe otherwise. I believe if it comes down to saving many people of your nation torture is a good tool to solve the issues your people are facing.
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
9/11/2013 06:39:58 am
Ryan--you take a clear, qualified position here. You set up the limitations for its use and a rationale for its occurrence. Your conclusion has a strong argumentative tone. Avoid the use of "dude" in the academic format.
Reply
Cj W.
9/12/2013 07:07:36 pm
You made your opinion very clear straight from the beginning, and gave good examples and scenarios to support your beliefs. I would just write it in a more formal way next time. Still, very well written.
Reply
Maurie
9/15/2013 07:06:43 am
I agree with CJ, commenting that you have a very strong introduction. But you ending was a little rushed, it seemed.
Reply
Trey C.
9/11/2013 03:30:19 am
The War on Terror today defies our understanding of the ethics of war as we know it. It used to be that one army would fight another army in pitched battles of attrition, no non-combatants were to be shot, prisoners were meant to be treated humanely, and civilians in most cases would usually have some kind of warning that a fight would be coming their way. However, instead of two armies fighting one another, now it's ideological extremists fighting a symbolic enemy ,who attempt to exact demands from their "enemies" through the threat of violence on people who are unwillingly thrown into harm's way. This is unprecedented, and we are still trying to find out how to fight this new kind of war, and one question we have come across is if terrorists are entitled to the same human rights as prisoners of war, namely to be protected from torture and execution. No doubt the institution of torture is unethical, and under circumstances where due process has not been preformed it shouldn't be implemented, but again conditions might arise where it seems to be the only way to save lives, especially in a ticking bomb scenario. We must weigh these conditions rather than arbitrarily decide to go for or against the torture of a suspected terrorist. We might make a mistake and get the wrong guy, or we might be in a situation in which no lives are in danger. We must account for both. In other words, torture should be considered a viable option in counter-terrorism rather than struck-out entirely, but it should be governed in a strict set of guidelines.
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
9/11/2013 06:43:03 am
Trey--this response has tremendous strength. You examine the constitutional rights weighed against the dangers to the public thoughtfully.
Reply
Cj W.
9/11/2013 04:28:48 am
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
9/11/2013 06:47:04 am
CJ--you set specific criteria for the use of torture here and provide a rationale for when it should be used and how it should not be misused (note spelling of word).
Reply
Georgie P
9/16/2013 03:04:16 am
Your introduction was quick and to the point, but it contained all of the information it needed. This is good because it means you would have more time in an AP exam to focus on your body paragraphs! I also liked how you used a rhetorical question to start off the main body of your essay. Well done!
Reply
Jurrien A.
9/11/2013 05:22:52 am
When we consider such violent acts of torture we must evaluate our own humanity to condemn someone to their fate and ask ourselves why it is justified. Who do we burden with the task of execution and torture? And when we grant them this power, some will abuse it. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Juvenal from his Satires (Satire VI, lines 347–8) Which translate to "Who watches the watchmen?". This is an important question to consider when giving a considerable amount of power to any individual with questionable loyalty. I cannot help but laugh when people say that torture, and murder are inhuman. The very nature of of us violently murdering one another is a "defining" quality of our human nature. We are only placated by civilization because it is no longer a necessity to kill to gain resources. ""War. War never changes. Since the dawn of human kind, when our ancestors first discovered the killing power of rock and bone, blood has been spilled in the name of everything: from God to justice to simple, psychotic rage." If anyone were desperate enough to obtain what it is to seek murder would be justified for anyone. Why do shy away from this blood soaked throne that we sit upon as westerners? We conveniently forget what is is that shaped that throne. Pacifism could be considered the side effect of the reduced need to kill for survival. But I digress. When a person decides to harm others in acts of terrorism they lay down their rights and chances for mercy. They made a choice and they must live with the consequences. No act of bloodshed should go unpunished. But one needs evidence to make the revenge justified, which is not always available during modern day torture day scenarios. The "ticking time bomb" scenario is a very real one. If this prisoner would have nothing to hide he would confess to having done nothing, otherwise he would be considered a martyr. Public media outlets always seem to be so certain of what they say is the absolute truth, but in my opinion the information that sites like Wikileaks unearth is just the tip of a monstrous ice berg.If torture is to be permitted we must regulate it with the utmost strictness.
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
9/11/2013 06:54:29 am
Jurrien--you clearly are examining the deeper philosophical issues here. In the future, you should utilize paragraphing so that you direct the reader through your points and spend a little more time developing the specific questions that you consider: policing, human nature, and its aims.
Reply
stephen
9/16/2013 08:07:30 am
very nice essay, love the reference, the point comes across very well. How can you ensure that those who torture do not go to far? Pretty deep stuff. Torture must be regulated
Reply
Tasha Snider
9/11/2013 05:54:20 am
Torture and terrorism are two words that carry a lot of emotions with them, but they also carry the question of whether or not torture should be used to get answers from someone. Many conflicting opinions are out there, but torture is something that should be used in circumstances. First is that some circumstances call for it, there are different forms of torture, and avoiding the slippery slope.
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
9/11/2013 06:58:02 am
Tasha--you set a clear path for your essay and utilize specific support to qualify your position. Watch out for repetition in the conclusion--but create a call to action or a call for reflection.
Reply
Cj W.
9/12/2013 07:10:05 pm
This one of my favorite essays that I read on this topic, you gave great viewpoints and examples to support them. I also really enjoyed your use of quotes and multiple sources in your essay.
Reply
Angelique K.
9/17/2013 02:00:05 am
Tasha, you did a really good job in giving the reader very specific viewpoints, and then you gave good examples to support them. Overall, I really enjoyed reading your essay, and I definitely agree that some forms of torture are acceptable.
Reply
Hope
9/22/2013 12:06:55 am
Although I don't agree with your opinion on the subject, I have to admit you present a very convincing argument. You put together a very strong essay, good job:)
Reply
beau T
9/11/2013 06:09:53 am
Is the death of one person really worth some information to another? Torture has been a method for thousands of years to get convicts and terrorists to give out information which could be important in saving other people’s lives. It is used in some cases today as well, but is it really necessary to put one person through excruciating pain, to get information from that person. It is a very touchy subject since where does torturing stop and where does killing start, isn’t it a contradiction towards the 8th amendment. Maybe it is, but torturing one person who threatens another, maybe even thousands of others is sometimes the last result.
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
9/11/2013 07:02:17 am
Beau--you present good questions for the audience to consider. Watch out for the use of "So" and "Yet." You have a few fragments here (dependent clauses that are not attached independent clauses), which would be marked down by the AP reader.
Reply
Maurie
9/11/2013 06:34:17 am
After any crime, the act of torture shouldn't even be considered. Torture is an act of harming someone intentionally, in an unusual way. In our country, the United States, it is illegal to torture another citizen. It would be unconstitutional to torture a person, and if the terrorists are torturing people, if we tortured people wouldn't we be an example of the terrorists? Torture is unacceptable because it is unconstitutional and we should not repeat what our enemies practice.
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
9/12/2013 05:37:50 am
You set up your position and highlight two key areas for consideration. You should work on developing the third point for the next score level.
Reply
Angela B.
9/18/2013 04:36:15 am
Your have a strong opinion and you explain your point of view well. Although something I noticed was that you were repetitive with some of the words.
Reply
Sarah P.
9/20/2013 10:39:22 pm
Because I share a different opinion and I support the idea of torture, I assumed I would not have any interest in your piece, but my reaction was just the opposite. From your writing, I could really see how you felt on the subject and it was almost persuasive. Your ideas were well portrayed, and it got me thinking again about how I truly felt about the topic. Well done.
Reply
Stephen
9/11/2013 06:39:20 am
The majority of today’s civilized society looks down upon the usage of torture, and has condemned it as unjustifiable. For one of the democratic countries today to condone the use of torture would be the height of hypocrisy; promoting the freedom and liberties of people on one hand, while inflicting physical and mental pain on prisoners on the other, would lose that country its credibility and status as a progressive nation. And yet, without employing hypothetical situations, do the good of the many not outweigh the good of the few? A somewhat uncivilized and harsh reality, but a reality all the same: regardless of the circumstance, are not twenty lives more important than one? So to connect this with torture, in that dire, hypothetical situation, the one that we will probably never find ourselves in, don’t the lives of the many outweigh one’s moral conscience, guilt, or lawful standing? The truth is that torture should never be condoned under any circumstance, except whenever the circumstance is calamitous, the suspect’s involvement is obvious, and all other methods are exhausted or ineffective.
Reply
stephen
9/11/2013 08:43:26 am
Torture can be condoned, torture can be necessary, in the direst of times, but never can torture be publically accepted by society.
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
9/12/2013 05:40:32 am
Stephen--this is a strong response with solid examples that you examine and weigh in terms of the issue. Nice extension of your analysis throughout.
Raegan C.
9/11/2013 06:39:39 am
The question of whether or not torture is ever a viable option is always weighted and often frustrating. It attempts to couple gray-area circumstances with the black and white principles of human rights. Is it right to torture an operative, a murderer, a terrorist, to protect the lives of innocents? Or does it violate the most basic of human rights to even consider such an option, no matter the consequences? I believe that in a social climate where more “black and white” principles are being blended into grey areas, the topic of torture is too complex to make a generalized ruling. I propose instead a “case by case” basis of approach.
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
9/12/2013 05:43:24 am
Raegan--you tackle the complexities of the issue and provide a solid "case-by-case" analysis of not only when and why torture should be allowed but also provide a thoughtful analysis of its ramifications.
Reply
Tasha
9/12/2013 08:31:57 pm
Very nicely crafted essay and I guess I can agree that it is case by case for the judgement on torture. Overall, congrats on getting a 9 :P You did well!
Reply
Gabrielle L
9/14/2013 12:35:09 am
You have evidence with proficient analysis (: I also like the structure, and appreciate the extra quotes, which give your argument more power. Keep up the good work (:
Reply
daniel c.
9/11/2013 06:56:38 am
Torture, are you truly for it or are you against it? You can’t really answer this question unless you were on the hot seat and had to make a decision on the spot to save the lives of many. It really is a difficult decision, especially if presented with counter arguments, but is torture the moral ting to do? No matter the case, although it might seem like the right thing to do, torture is immoral and is done by the brutal and heartless.
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
9/12/2013 05:46:49 am
Daniel--you take a strong persuasive tone in this piece. A third category for development would move this essay to the next level. Watch out for typos or words supplied as corrections to your first draft (lives--rather than loves; things rather than things.
Reply
rachelp
9/15/2013 12:51:34 am
You are very straightforward in your opening paragraph, making it quite clear that torture is wrong/immoral in all cases. I am surprised that you feel that there is not a single circumstance where it may be necessary or for the greater good. hah i like how you say " I dont want to sound patriotic or anything" ... why not? Theres nothing wrong with that ? You say "I dont see how anyone could live with such an act" and I understand that. I definitely could never torture someone else. I think people kind of blow this off because they know they will not be the one physically torturing people. They are just agreeing with the practice of torture. But this is just as bad. You make a good argument.
Maurie
9/15/2013 07:12:11 am
There were a couple of simple mistakes like love should be live, and what not. I liked your comparisons, and thought you showed good emotion and voice.
Reply
Molly R
9/11/2013 07:02:32 am
One of the most debated and polemical questions in this day and age is whether or not terrorists should be tortured. I believe that torture should be allowed, under some conditions. It shouldn’t be used as regular punishment, but under certain conditions torture helps protect innocent people by allowing the government to acquire information to prevent a crime.
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
9/12/2013 05:52:50 am
Molly--you set up a clear qualified position. I would like the idea about intelligence gathering to be expanded a bit more to move this to the highest level. You also do well to address the "ticking bomb" scenario.
Reply
Tasha
9/12/2013 08:33:36 pm
Yay! You agree that there /are/ situations were Torture should be allowed. Good job molly on the essay, you had the same basic opinion as me so I was just smiling and agreeing for the most part since you didn't have to sway me, but you did a good job with persuading :D
Reply
Angelique K.
9/17/2013 02:04:21 am
Molly, I definitely agree that under certain circumstances torture is to be accepted. You did a very good job in showing the reader what your point of view is, I could clearly identify your position. Overall, I find this essay to be well written.
Reply
Alyssa D
9/11/2013 07:47:35 am
Upon initial mention, torture in any context is dismissed. We have developed a natural repulsion towards violence, condemning its use as means of aiding our own agenda. Ingrained in our minds, the lesson we have been taught for so long, is a simple message: violence is wrong. Though, perhaps not in cases where it can be justified. Though who specifies when physical brutality and mental agony are appropriate? What characteristics must a situation contain for such torment to be warranted? Torture, I believe, is not justifiable in any case. Despite anyone’s actions, or any “ticking bomb” scenarios for which they may be responsible, the willing abuse and torture of another individual undermines the ideals of a country so representative of individual rights and justice, and challenges ethical standing to an extent that it becomes a causeway for a nations moral degradation.
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
9/12/2013 05:54:59 am
Alyssa--your excellent choice of vocabulary brings this essay to an excellent level. You define clearly your position and amplify it with your analysis.
Reply
Georgie P
9/16/2013 03:07:02 am
Your argument remained strong throughout, and I like the fact that your conclusion wrapped up the essay well by accentuating the fact that there are several types of torture and you do not approve of any of them. Good job!
Reply
Molly R.
9/19/2013 02:35:39 am
I agree with Georgie, but I don't agree with your viewpoint. I think that these "blurred lines" aren't as blurred as you perceive them to be. It is possible to set guidelines to torture and if these guidelines are met than there isn't any problem with torture. Additionally, when I think of torture I don't do so in a manner that it will replace punishment. It should prevent crime and help the people.
Reply
rachelp
9/11/2013 08:33:01 am
The discussion of torture is usually classified as a controversial topic just like abortion and the death penalty. The lines tend to get blurred when discussing these topics because citizens want to do what society deems “morally” right. What makes this particular discussion so tricky is that both sides of the argument have very good examples and reasons to back their opinion. There are literally so many scenarios that can be twisted and turned in order to persuade listeners. With this taken into consideration I support the idea of torture under certain conditions. As long as it is not used as punishment, torture is justified because it can be used to find out key information to prevent the loss of innocent lives, thus acting as a method of preventive protection.
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
9/12/2013 05:59:41 am
Rachel--you use the sources specifically and do not let them dominate your own position. Adding an additional space between paragraphs would allow the organization of your essay to be more transparent. Pushing the complexity of your verbs would move this essay to the next level.
Reply
daniel c.
9/16/2013 06:27:50 am
well done essay rachel, i like in the beginning when you say "citizens want to do what society deems morally right" and i think thats 100% true. pretty good counter argument and well done with Dershowitzs' words
Reply
Gabrielle L
9/11/2013 08:45:19 am
Today is September 11, 2013. Americans everywhere are reminded of the day twelve years ago when four terrorist attacks by the al-Qaeda dreadfully occurred. We question, “What would have been done if we caught the perpetrators?” Some would yell, “TORTURE! THEY MASS MURDERED PEOPLE! IT CAN PREVENT MORE DEATHS.” However, even with circumstances like these, the authorization of torture on criminals or others should not ever happen. I understand that this is a difficult subject to take sides, but I remain adamant. The use of torture is a direct violation to the United States of America’s constitution and purpose, and the argument that torture is justified is merely a fallacy.
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
9/12/2013 06:03:52 am
Gabrielle--strong opening here. You clearly set your focus on dismissing the counterarguments to your position and posit your rationale for the position you hold. Some places could benefit from keeping a more academic tone.
Reply
Hope
9/21/2013 11:57:19 pm
I really enjoyed reading your essay, I especially liked your first paragraph, it really caught my attention and made me want to continue reading.
Reply
Angela B.
9/11/2013 09:48:57 am
There are different positions and arguments whether torture should be allowed or not. The question is complicated, both views have their supportive arguments as well as bad sides. My standpoint on this question would be one and the other: at one side, there should be other ways to punish or get information, while in some cases, torture might be the only solution.
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
9/12/2013 06:05:35 am
Angela--you have the structure here for what could develop as a strongly, argued position. You need to spend a little more time in each of your body paragraphs to flesh out your ideas more thoroughly.
Reply
Sarah P.
9/20/2013 10:35:25 pm
Angela- well done portraying your three points. They were very clearly indicated. I would suggest that in the future you elaborate more on each topic. It would give the reader a much better understanding of where you stand on the subject and your position. Other than that, great job.
Reply
Georgie P
9/13/2013 06:07:01 am
TORTURE SYNTHESIS ESSAY
Reply
rachelp
9/14/2013 10:20:47 pm
In your opening paragraph I like the way you actually give a definition of torture. It clarifies what you consider to be torture. You effectively back up your argument against the use of torture. There is only one comment I think could be made against your opinion and it is the "ticking time bomb" argument. In a situation like this America would be looking out for the lives of the innocent instead of focusing on the rights of an individual that is practically throwing away his rights by plotting to kill innocent people. Though, like you mention in your essay, this individual must be found guilty, not just falsely accused.
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
9/15/2013 12:56:54 am
Georgie--this is a strongly argued and strongly supported essay. You lead with your paragraphs with clearly articulated issues about the topic and build the evidence within them.
Reply
Georgie P
9/15/2013 04:48:37 am
valid, legal methods would have its advantages. For one, those methods wouldn’t have been put in place if they hadn’t been proven to be effective. Furthermore, it would promote the idea that the United States does not lose its head in a crisis – it instead remains calm, collected, and does what his right. Whilst in a short-term ‘ticking time-bomb’ situation it would be deemed as righteous by many to go to such extremities, the law is the law and we would be hypocritical to break it whilst punishing another criminal. Is that the sort of reputation we want for America – the world’s criminals? People may argue that torture is ‘morally mandatory’ (Michael Levin) – but what is moral about stooping to a criminal’s level? The terrorist might have ‘knowingly initiated his actions’ – but sometimes crime is not as black and white. Who is to say that the terrorist in the situation had been forced into the situation by a more advanced gang leader who threatened to kill his family if he didn’t proceed? In that situation, who is really to blame? We must not resort to the moral error of assumption.
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
9/15/2013 04:52:46 am
Georgie--thanks for the additions. Strong attack of the counterargument. Clear conclusion.
Buse D.
9/14/2013 08:40:24 am
There is always the question if torture should be allowed or if it should be prohibited. There are many arguments that speak for torture and many that speak against torture. There are questions like: Is torture justified or is it not. Does that justify different rules of engagement? Is using torture, even for the best of reasons, wrong and illegal? Torture is a tough issue to discuss about and it is indeed a hard decision to make.
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
9/15/2013 01:00:22 am
Buse--
Reply
Hope
9/18/2013 06:20:31 am
Torture. Even just the word itself causes most people feel uneasy. When this subject is brought up in conversation people are often torn between wanting to be able to honestly condemn it and wanting to honestly be able to condone it. Those condoning the idea of torture rationalize their ideas by concluding that in some cases, for example: attempting to extract information from a terrorist, it may seem to be the most appropriate and logical response. Those against the idea of torture justify their views by addressing not only the immorality of it, but how it is constitutionally unacceptable. The idea of torture is an extremely touchy subject for most people. Some might argue that “there are always exceptions” and that in some cases torture is necessary in order to protect the rights and even lives of the majority. However, in protecting the rights of the majority in this revoltingly brutal manner, the rights of the person in question (the tortured) are not only being thrown out the window, but they are also being stomped on in an entirely degrading and dehumanizing fashion.
Reply
Molly R.
9/19/2013 02:19:29 am
Hope, you are a really good writer. I don't agree with you side but, in your essay I found myself nodding along. Nicely done :)
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
9/18/2013 05:30:53 pm
Hope--you set up a clear path. You develop the key points for your objection and provide a final call for reflection in your conclusion.
Reply
Sarah P.
9/20/2013 10:33:12 pm
The subject of Torture and Terrorism is so controversial that it is still today an ongoing debate. This method is opposed by many countries and people, for they feel that it is unjust and violates a number of laws. Many turn away from the idea because they are unsure of the conditions in which torture should imposed but also that the use of torture could become cliché and misused. As a supporter of torture, I personally believe that torture should be permitted but only under firm circumstances and in certain situations. The method of torture, if used correctly could be very effective and save a large population of people.
Reply
Sarah P.
9/21/2013 02:29:59 am
Please disregard my previous post. This one is a bit updated.
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
10/14/2013 07:35:58 pm
AP Score: 8
Reply
Yahaira S.
9/22/2013 12:24:36 am
Although torture is a touchy subject and the pros and cons can be almost equal, I personally support torture. There certainly are complexities that would make torture more complicated. However, for most cases, torture is much deserved. Now I am not saying that everyone convicted of a crime should be tortured, but there are certain types of criminals that should be tortured. Justice is the reason behind my position because nobody should get away with the most despicable crimes.
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
10/14/2013 07:37:38 pm
AP Score: 6
Reply
Darel M.
9/25/2013 11:08:50 pm
Torture is a very debatable subject now-a-days. Good and bad things can occur from using torture. I personally support torture but at the same time, I don't. There are certain cases where torture should not be used. However, for most cases, torture is much deserved. Not every criminal should be tortured, but criminals like terrorists and serial killers should be tortured. I believe in the justice system and every crime should never go unpunished, but torture will never always be the right answer. When somebody kills someone else intentionally, that gives them a reason to be tortured. Either through murder or a mass explosion that could endanger the lives of thousands. Murder is one of the top 10 felonies in the U.S. It is a very serious crime that needs to taken to justice. That is why torture should be reserved to those individuals that took a life or even threatened to take one. But we have to be very careful when using torture. Sometimes there are cases in which the accused has a history of mental health issues. And sometimes they obviuosly cannot control it. These kind of people are a danger to society and to themselves. It would be best to put in a mental hospital until they are sane enough to live in society. But what if they cannot afford it? Some people have to just live off of what they got. A con that I want to relate to this topic is that some people are in insane. When they go to court, they take the insanity defense, which means that the defendant, or the accused, claim they are not responsible for their crimes due to mental health issues. This leads me to another con, proof. People will lie and cheat their way out of an accusation knowing that they commited the crime. The only way to prove insanity, or even prove that he didn't do they crime, is by providing sufficient, hard evidence and having someone testify for you. So if you are going to use torture on a suspected criminal, make sure that you have enough evidence to prove that this person is guilty. Otherwise, you are torturing an innocent citizen who has no idea what is going on. The time that I think torture will only be used is when you encounter a widely known terrorist or a criminal on the F.B.I's Most Wanted list. Torture should be used on these type of people without hesitation. Why? Because you have a record of their criminal history, and you know what they are capable of doing when they are not caught. All they really have to do is identify them, capture them, and you can torture them, probably until they confess their crimes. So in conclusion, torture is an extreme way to punish criminals. Therefore, I think it should be used without hesitation on extreme crimes and cases. But when it comes to regular crimes and mere misdemeanors, then it sshould not be allowed. Just want people to know that if you do a crime, do not think that you will go unpunished forever.
Reply
Ms. Moriconi
10/14/2013 07:38:03 pm
AP Score: 5-
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
August 2015
Categories |
|