In the article ‘'The Case for Torture'' the author Michael Levin claims that torture is an impermissible act that reminds people of the brutal ages. Most regimes today are enlightened and reject the idea of torture. Those who still practice the vice risk the United States' wrath. After acknowledging all this, the author asserts that he believes that attitude of writing off torture as a form of punishment is unwise. He further adds that certain situations require the intervention of torture such as those scenarios where enforcement agencies are dealing with terrorists. In supporting his claims, the author also questions the constitutionality surrounding the torture of terrorists. In support of the matter that torturing of a terrorist is right, he asserts that the lives of people whose lives are endangered by a terrorist outweigh the constitutionality. He also acknowledges that the main reason given against the torture of terrorists is the fact that it goes against the provision of human rights. However, the author claims that the lives of people who are threatened by the terrorist should also be given considerations. The life of the terrorist and that of the victims are equally valuable.
In evaluating the author's claims, it is important to highlight the vital aspects that are brought forth. The author attempts to validate the use of torture method in punishing criminals. He emphasizes that even though he acknowledges that it is against human rights, it should be respected that endangering human beings is equally a right that must be protected. The final claim that the author makes is that banning torture as a punishment is unwise and should be used especially where important answers are needed.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In supporting his claim, the author uses a case scenario at the beginning of the article that is meant to test the belief of the reader hence making them to buy the idea. He uses a case where a terrorist is involved in hiding a bomb that exposes people to grave danger. In doing so, the author attempts to make readers believe the validity of the torture mechanism in preventing future crimes. Another hypothetical example is given in support of his claims when he asserts that someone has a planted a bomb in an airplane and it's them alone who cannot disarm it, and yet their demands cannot be met. The scenario is further used to sell his idea that torture should frequently be used a punishment to get answers out of critical situations. Supporting evidence is given in the form of an informal poll where the author asserts that mothers would overwhelmingly support the prospect of torturing child kidnappers.
In evaluating the type of claim presented by the author, it is a claim of policy. It acknowledges that a problem exists by asserting that there is a need for the introduction of the torture punishments, especially when dealing with threats to national security. The author is cognizant of the fact that it is a controversial issue that might lead to emotional reactions and therefore gives opposing views. The author uses warrants both that he rejects and those that he accepts. For example, he asks the following questions. Torturing the terrorist is unconstitutional? Is torture barbaric? The questions represent the warrants that he rejects while the answers are the warrants that he is in support of. A backing statement used is when he claims that torture is important because it balances innocent lives. Quantifies are also used in the test especially when he asserts that ‘’torture is not merely permissible but morally mandatory.’’ The word merely is used to quantify the warrant used.
