It's justified depending on the circumstances. If the U.S. is using torture to gain important information on something, then it'd be necessary. But in situations where someone's being tortured because of a crime they've committed then it's wrong. Someone shouldn't be punished for their past mistakes, but if they're holding valuable information that could save someone or that could help us protect our country, then it'd be acceptable.

September 11, an important sad day for our country as a whole. The war on terror is hard to fight clean. When our country captures a terrorist and he refuses to talk drastic measures should be amplified to a level of no return. If we want response we need actions. Yes there should be a balance of good and evil. If torture is used properly for reasons of a country's survival then it can be justified. It shall not be justified just because someone wants to have fun by watching someone else in pain, as the series of Saw. There should be a law to imply the use of torture to a in access the size of a mustard seed.

Torture of suspected terrorists is justified. Terrorist are the ones that are trying to bomb our society, but they won’t speak up. "If I were the mother or grandmother of a child who might have been saved had information been garnered concerning a bomb placed in a school, I would no doubt be very angry that harsh things weren't done," said Jean Bethke Elshtain, a University of Chicago political philosopher. In order to get information from them physical behavior should be justified in order to save human lives. However, in other cases, when older men kidnap girls and torture them for them, it is not justified. It really depends on the situation and its circumstances.

I believe the ONLY reason torture should be used is if it is absolutely necessary. Necessary, for example, say you have a person that has valuble information about a murder, or they know something about a hostage. That would be maybe one of the only circumstances where torture should be justified. You may try and argue that if someone hurts you, that you should just turn the only cheek. But when a human life is in the balance, i don't care about my "cheek." My final statement is that torture should only be justified when it is a matter of life or death.

Torturing someone is o.k up to a certain point. For example, if the person is being tortured for military and investigation purposes or if that person did something bad like slaughter alot of people, then it is alright.But, if a person is being tortured for amusement or for no reason, then that is just sick.

When top ranking government officials need to coax information out of terrorists, when the outcome outweighs the negatives, torturing should be allowed if and only if the justifications are legitimate. If a small city police officer uses torturing methods on a teenage carouser who won't tell him where his stash of marijuana is, the situation isn't sever enough to be lawful or necessary – the teenager committed a small crime compared to big time outlaws who plot out mass murders and terrorisms. The line between big crimes and small crimes is defined well in that it deals with how many people will be effected, and that should be a guideline on whether torturing would be an appropriate punishment or a method of gaining information that would otherwise never be revealed.

I think there is only one situation where torture is justified. In most cases it's wrong, but what if we need to get information from a terrorist who plans to bomb four cities? Maybe torture is the only way. It shouldn't be the first option however, and should be applied only in desperate situations. The people arguing against torture and saying it violates human rights need to understand that these individuals chose this path, and if they didn't have the choice and were dragged into it, then they should have no problem testifying. If the military has proof of the involvement of an individual, then pehaps a certain degree of torture could be justified. In the long run, he would be possibly saving lifes.

Though in most cases torture is seen as brutal and wrong, there are times when "just talking" isn't going to work. There is a limit, I would like to think, to torture methods, but roughing up the perpatrator a bit seems reasonable. If, in this case, the authority knows that the suspect is either the perpatrator or an accomplace that knows the whereabouts of the perep or the perp himself/herself and he/she is refusing to tell anything. That way, the aurhtorities know that in either scenario the suspect is guilty of a crime and therefore can't fight against the fact he/she was physically persuaded. What I don't think is justafiable is senseless violence, nothing more than the authority letting off steam because they can. Whether or not the suspect is guilty, there should be some moderation and constraint to physical methods.

Torture should be used only if it is necessary or if the person deserves it. If there's a man that rapes a little girl,not only should he go to jail but also get tortured for the crime that he committed. Also, people such as prisoners, are the kind of people that should get tortured because either way most of them eventually end up back to where they were. People who commit crimes should also get tortured that way they learn their lesson and not commit a crime again unless they want to get torured again. They should only be tortured if they commit crimes and if they don't, then they shouldn't get tortured.

Torture is justified in certain cases, but not in others. I don't believe in physical torture but I think that sometimes psychological torture is needed. When someone does something wrong, torture is justified. But I don't believe that physical torture helps at all. Like if someone does something really wrong and they are physically hurt because of it, they are not going to learn from their mistake. But if they do something wrong and they have to for example confess someone their crime then of course the criminal is not going to want to confess their crime and that's when the person investigating has to use psychological torture towards the criminal so they confess.

I think it is justifiable because it may need to be used at time to obtain valuable information. When dealing with a terrorist who isn't cooperating I think it is okay to do because the security of a country is being threatened and thousands of lives could be at stake. It is necessary for the leader of that country to whatever it takes to protect its people and the country's well-being. There should be no negotiation when it comes to terrorists if they are not giving up information then torture is an easy way to do get it.. Although they are human beings, thy risk the lives of thousands and kill people just because they don't agree with something. If they are willing to do that then they should be put through immense pain and suffering for everything they have done.

Some forms of tortue are cruel and unhuman but at some point torture is necessary. Not all situations are well-suited for torture,for example when kidnappers cut off the fingers of the innocent kids when their families decide not to pay for their release. In other cases torture in essential for the government to find out information on terrorist or conspiracies. The right level of torture is also a point of discussion, while some torture may be more intense than some other types like mental or physical torture both have immense magnitudes that should be considered.

Torture is a word that people flinch at or think of bad events of pain and torment. There are many of times of when torturing and inflicting pain on others for information or whatever the case may be that is absolutley not justified and imorrally wrong. Although there are other times when "torturing" can be justified. The way that the "torture" is justified is thata some people use a mental, or psychological torture to "mess with your mind" and have entertainment out of that person. Things such as hypnotizing or brain teasing games that "torment" people's minds to work really hard or to mess with them. Usually these thing sare used in pranks and jokes on people, for example: Telling someone that an essay is due for English class next period, when there really wasn't anything for homework, and not telling them until they got to class that they got so stressed out about it. This is a practical prank or joke, sometimes it may be wrong if taken too far, but is an entertaining way of "tormenting" soembody that can be justified, small things such as that is "torture" and is justified.

Torture is a cruel, and horrible act, but just because it's evil doesn't mean it's wrong. Torturing people may not be the good thing to do, but in some cases it may be the right thing to do. In order to protect the world from Al-Qaeda, we need to know as much information about them as we can. Receiving that information is hard because the captured terrorist won't give us that information, so we need to force it out of them, no matter how inhumane the torture is. The information that the terrorist gives us might be useful to stop Al-Qaeda and save countless of lives. From that necessary torture, the terrorist may have been emotionally and physically scarred, but the things we received would help save many innocent lives.

Karma comes around. I feel like if you do something wrong to somebody else, then you should see how it feels. What goes around comes around. For example, in "A Time to Kill" 2 guys rape Tonya Hailey, and they don't see any wrong in it. I think they should to tortured to the same extent that little girl was so they know how it feels to be treated like that. Maybe if they know how bad it feels, they won't do it again. I think torturing for the fun of it is wrong. If you kipnap someone and you just torture them because your bored, that's wrong. There are certain situations were torturing is justified. There aren't many, but there are a couple where torturing is like the only thing you can do that can make the people realize that they need to stop whatever they are doing.

Torture is something that should be a result as to a wrong doing or action from ones consequences. One should only torture if they have the right to do so, like a police officer. If you're going to torcher someone than make sure you know your limits and that you don't go too far with it, or that you don't go far enough. Yes you may think that torchering is wrong and inhuman. But if the actions and consequences of the criminal who is being torchered aren't equivalent to the crime he or she has committed, then that is inhuman. For example if my friend was murdered by someone, then I'd want the murderer to receive the same punishment, legally. Because these kind of people have probably hurt others in the past and will continue to do it in their future. I believe if people were not torchered for their wrongdoing then more people wouldn't be afraid to committ crimes and the world would become a disaster. Torchering is something that should highly be considered, but its limitations are what we should really question.