By Sophia Angelina Baerend
October 29, 2025
11 minutes to read
Introduction
Torture has existed for millennia, used by empires, armies and governments to control, punish or extract information. Though the United Nations defines it as ‘the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental suffering to extract information, punish, or intimidate.’ The practice has continued well into the modern era under terms such as “enhanced interrogation techniques”. Despite clear prohibition in international law (most notably the United Nations Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions) countries continue to justify or even conceal its use. This article explores why torture continues despite its illegality, moral criticism and questioned effectiveness.
On a larger scale, the act of torture is condemned by (most of) the international community. The International Humanitarian Law databases quote the Geneva Conventions, stating that “like murder, torture is one of the acts listed in Article 147 as a ‘grave breach’” of the fundamental ideals on which the Convention was based. (International Committee of the Red Cross [ICRC], 1949). International laws against torture are also inforced by human rights laws and organizations, including the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT, 1984), which explicitly forbids torture under any circumstances (including times of national emergency or war). Article 2 of the UNCAT declares that “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture”. The existence of this in most societies reflects a global ideology that torture is an assault on human dignity.
The Historical Context of Torture, and Motivations Behind It
Torture has been documented across numerous historical civilizations, serving as a common denominator throughout societies. It represents one of humanity’s oldest and most extreme forms of violence, being traced as far back as ancient Egypt (c. 1900–1200 BCE). Archaeological and literary evidence from Egypt suggests that the practice of torture was embedded in legal systems. For example, the Turin Judicial Papyrus refers to [people to whom punishment was done by severing noses and ears] as a penalty for plotting against the pharaoh (Lichtheim, 1976). This indicates that torture was a tool by the Egyptian monarchy to preserve the Pharaoh’s legitimacy as a ruler. It was a way to enforce how untouchable they were, as Pharaohs were regarded as divine beings. If they, or their reputation could be hurt by “mortals” it could create doubt in their subjects and they may not hold as much power over their people.
Torture shifting from punishment to information gathering was first observed in Ancient Greece (c. 500 BCE). The Greek tradition involved the torture of enslaved people to verify the reliability of their testimonies were in legal trials. As slaves were considered untrustworthy, their testimony was only considered valid if given under torture, which reflects how violence became an instrument of the law. This demonstrates the early justification of torture as a part of the justice system. The Medieval ages in the 12th century would see an increased frequency of torture against citizens with focuses on heresy, witchcraft and treason. It developed into a tool of both punishment and a way to psychologically quash any rebellious groups to the church or country.
By the time the 20th century came about, the motivations for torture had changed very little over time. This century saw torture reemerging on a greater scale. The Gestapo in Nazi Germany and the Kempeitai in Imperial Japan used systematic torture (including beatings, electric shocks, and psychological degradation) to extract confidential information or force confessions from prisoners of war and resistance groups (Rejali, 2007). These practices were “justified” by national security and patriotism, reflecting ancient motivations as they combined violence and the law. Even the Allied powers, although less systematic, also resorted to coercion and pain against captives. These practices raise enduring questions about the reliability of information obtained under duress.
The Relevance of False Confession Rates
This concern was central to a 2015 study conducted by a psychologist and professor of psychology respectively, Houck and Conway in the Journal of Applied Security Research. Their study examined how physical pain influences a person to reveal (or withhold) information in interrogation-like conditions. In their experiment, participants were given specific information and told to conceal it from the interrogator while their hand was submerged in cold water at varying temperatures. During the task, the “interrogator” applied verbal pressure to attempt to coerce subjects to give up the information. Participants could choose to reveal the truth, lie or tell a mix of both. The results demonstrated a clear correlation between colder temperatures (which would cause more intense pain) and likelihood of the participant disclosing false information. In other words, as the level of discomfort rose, participants were more likely to lie in order to stop their suffering. These findings suggest that harsher interrogation techniques (with an increase of duress) are more likely to produce unreliable information. It provides evidence to show that torture is ineffective as a means of gathering intelligence, or confessions.
Supporting this conclusion, defense lawyer Poghosyan (n.d.) of RP Defense Law APC reported that false confession rates in standard interrogation settings range from approximately 3.7% to 14% of all convictions. In the case of interrogations involving torture, the likelihood of false or coerced confessions increases dramatically, around 15-25%. This aligns with Tanner’s (2017) analysis in The Myth of the Guilty Suspect: Confession, Narrative, and Political Assent, published in the Mitchell Hamline Law Review, which argues that victims subjected to torture are often more motivated to provide any information, be it true or false, in order to stop their suffering.
Overall, research regularly demonstrates that torture is counterproductive as an interrogation technique. Not only does it fail to give reliable information, but also violates ethical and legal norms and has immense psychological impacts on both the victim and perpetrator. Furthermore, studies (Torture and the military profession by Jessica Wolfendale) indicate that reliance on torture can decrease military morale and discipline as well as build resentment through ranks.
The Application of Ethics in the International Community
The legal and moral stance of the condemnation of torture aligns with the principles of deontological ethics; that certain actions, such as torture, are fundamentally wrong regardless of the outcome. From this perspective, torture violates the ‘categorical imperative’ by treating individuals as a means to an end. In contrast, ethical systems such as utilitarianism, would weigh the potential benefits; for example, saving a significant amount of lives, against the suffering inflicted on a few through torture. Utilitarianism therebye states that torture is worth the pain caused if lives are saved.
Francesco Belvisi, in “Torture: Moral Absolutes and Ambiguities,” argues that absolutists who insist the ban on torture must be upheld in all circumstances overlook the fact that situations involving torture are often presented as falsely extreme to heighten moral tension. This debate, however, can be contrasted with real-world conflicts, such as those of the United States of America (USA): despite being a signatory to the Geneva Conventions and the UNCAT, the country used torture on suspects following the September 11 attacks. The CIA’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” (including waterboarding and sleep deprivation), started heavy controversy, raised questions about legality, and where the ethical boundaries of national security were, if there were any. The USA would thereby fall under the umbrella of utilitarian philosophy, as the country condemns torture but uses it when they feel lives could be saved.
The ticking time bomb scenario also symbolises this moral dilemma, since it challenges the idea of absolute prohibition by raising the question: if torture can be justified by context, how do we determine the context that warrants it?
Conclusion
The international community officially prohibits torture as it violates the fundamental human rights listed in the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and has limited effectiveness. However, these arguments may be opposed by the arguments for torture; that it could potentially prevent immediate threats, and could be outweighed by the “greater good”. Ultimately, the question of torture isn’t only about whether torture works, but about the kind of society we choose to be when faced with questions of morality and humanity.
References
Agli, J., & Oestreich, J. (2024). “How ethical theories justify or condemn torture in international relations.” University of Pennsylvania. https://www.med.upenn.edu/orl/personnel/assets/user-content/documents/torture-in-international-relations.pdf
Bohannon, J. (2009, September 21). Torture can’t provide good information, argues neuroscientist. Science.
https://www.science.org/content/article/torture-cant-provide-good-information-argues-neuroscientist
Clucas, B., Johnstone, G., & Ward, T. (2009). Torture: Moral absolutes and ambiguities. OAPEN Library.
https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/46154/external_content.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Department of Veterans’ Affairs. (2020, January 16). Treatment of prisoners. Anzac Portal.
https://anzacportal.dva.gov.au/wars-and-missions/burma-thailand-railway-and-hellfire-pass-1942-1943/enemy/treatment-prisoners
Does torture work? The research says “no.” (2017, January 26). The Journalist’s Resource.
https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/does-torture-work-research-says-no/
Exploring America’s persistent use of torture over the last century. (n.d.). Bowdoin News.
https://www.bowdoin.edu/news/2022/09/exploring-americas-persistent-use-of-torture-over-the-last-century.html
Herath, J. C., & Pollanen, M. S. (2017). Clinical examination and reporting of a victim of torture. Academic Forensic Pathology, 7(3), 330–339.
https://doi.org/10.23907/2017.030
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). (2014). Torture | How does law protect in war? – Online casebook.
https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/torture
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). (2025). Commentary on Article 32 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949).
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-32/commentary/1958
Loktionov, A. (2015). Convicting “great criminals”: A new look at punishment in the Turin Judicial Papyrus. University of Cambridge Repository.
https://doi.org/10.17863/cam.47029
McCall-Smith, K. (2022). How torture and national security have corrupted the right to fair trial in the 9/11 military commissions. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 27(1), 83–116.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krac002
Physicians for Human Rights. (2021, September 10). The aftermath of 9/11: The U.S. torture program in the “War on Terror.”
https://phr.org/our-work/resources/twenty-years-of-the-u-s-torture-regime/
Poghosyan, R. (2017, September 18). How common are wrongful convictions? RP Defense Law, APC.
https://rpcriminaldefense.com/how-common-are-wrongful-convictions/
Rejali, D. M. (2007). Torture and democracy. Princeton University Press.
Tanner, S. L. (2024). The myth of the guilty suspect: Confession, narrative, and political assent. Mitchell Hamline Law Review, 51(1), Article 2.
https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1353&context=mhlr
United Nations. (1984). Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-against-torture-and-other-cruel-inhuman-or-degrading
Wolfendale, J. (2007). Torture and the military profession. Palgrave Macmillan.
Home | Centuria Study Association 
Leave a comment