Should torture ever be permissible? Torture is the act of using brutal force and inflicting physical, mental or emotional pain on somebody in a bid to persuade them to give up useful information. For centuries torture has been considered one of the most efficient techniques to interrogate suspects or enemies so as to obtain crucial information. Even though use of torture can sometimes lead to injury and loss of life for innocent victims of mistaken identity, torture should be used in interrogations if it results in positive outcomes because it can help make the world a better place by putting criminals behind bars, it may lead to the aversion of disasters such as terrorist attacks, and information obtained through the application of torture can result in numerous lives saved. For the use of torture to be considered valid, it is first important to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person or persons being interrogated have the information that is being required of them. Inaccurate information and the targeting of wrong suspects or cases of mistaken identity is usually counterproductive and defeats the purpose of torture by leading to physical harm and sometimes the loss of innocent lives. There are few cases whereby torture is acceptable or morally permissible as an information collection tactic. If the torture of an individual result in the apprehension of a dangerous criminal that is otherwise intent on bringing harm to the innocent in the society, then it is entirely justifiable. The application of torture in this case besides leading to the apprehension of a dangerous criminal has also been used as an effective tool for the intimidation of possible future offenders. Although the means used to achieve this end goal may be viewed as barbaric to certain extents, the ultimate purpose of making the societies safer and removing dangerous criminals from the streets has been realized hence justifying the application of torture. Torture can also be used to combat the ever-growing threat of terrorism as a means to obtain information and also dissuade terrorist cells from committing mass atrocities against innocent people. Terrorism does not follow a particular set of rules and is often sporadic, thoughtless and a powerful means of causing fear, despondency and pushing the selfish agendas of those who undertake it. For example, a terrorist cell has obtained a nuclear device and intends to set it off in a major city. If this device goes off, it will result in the loss of a lot of innocent lives and cause a lot of damage to the city that will take years to reconstruct. One of the terrorists has been captured by authorities but is refusing to give up the location of the bomb. In this scenario, torture can be used to persuade the terrorist to give up this location and prevent the impending disaster (Miller, S. 2005). 1Torture can be permissible to such people because their belief is that, the only way to get justice is through unconventional ways (Zamir& Medina, 2010). In the above example, the police are forced to choose between two evils; inflicting physical pain to a suspect which is morally unacceptable or letting the bomb explodes leading to loss of a lot of innocent lives. Their choice to choose the lesser of the two evils and torturing the terror suspect until he gives up the location is entirely justifiable if and only if they are sure beyond any reasonable doubt that it is this suspect who is indeed responsible for the bomb. 3Torture is almost universally deplored. It is prohibited by international law and is not officially sanctioned by the domestic laws of any state (Bagaric, M., &Clarke, J. (2004). While a civilized society does not condone, torture research has shown that in certain extreme circumstances torture is the most effective if not the only applicable interrogative tactic. In fact, studies conducted showed that in the face of terror and the prevention of wars such as the invasion of Iraq after the terror threats of 9/11 torture may have just been the only way of obtaining conclusive information that would have helped prevent the attacks and the subsequent war that followed. After the 2001 terror attacks the Bush administration successfully used torture tactics in a bid to combat the snare of terrorism and keep the American people safe in what the government referred to as “alternative interrogation tactics” (Homant et al., 2008). This goes a long way in showing the varying commitment of the American government on the prevalence of torture before and after the attacks. It also shows the general acceptance of the public after seeing the devastation that had been caused by the terror attacks. According to Sarat& Hussain (2010), 1the moral obligation to save a significant number of people through torturing one person is completely justified; hence, permissible under exceptional circumstances that are monitored by various agencies (p. 42). Despite the apparent effectiveness of torture in various circumstances, its use as a coercive tool often attracts strong criticism from humanitarian organizations and human right movements. It can be argued that the wrongful application of torture tactics is immoral and no compromises should have to be made no matter the circumstances. For example, German has strict laws that prohibit the use of torture in any circumstance whatsoever to coerce information from offenders (Brugger, W. 2000). The American constitution 4states that “everybody has the right to life and physical integrity” but as opposed to the German laws has loopholes that have been exploited by authorities especially in recent years at the wake of terror, arguably for the greater good (Brugger, W. 2000). Although the use of torture is banned or outlawed in virtually all the countries in the world, it is still practiced in most regions. 2The main benefit of torture is that it is an excellent means of gathering information. Humans have an intense desire to avoid pain, no matter how short term, and most will comply with the demands of a torturer to avoid the pain (Bagaric, M., &Clarke, J. 2004). This makes it a powerful tool in the fight against terror, crime and strong motivation for maintaining social order. The argument that torture is immoral although entirely accurate is no longer relevant in the world we live today for the only way to defeat the evils facing humanity is accepting this lesser evil as a means to an end. Based on the above analysis and examples, it is, therefore, clear that torture should be permissible in extreme circumstances where human lives are at risk as a means to obtain essential information. Although the use of torture goes against the very fabric that defines our morality, it is a necessary evil required to deal with a volatile world and maintain peace and the natural order.