This week I’ve been looking at whether it is lawful to physically force a terrorist to reveal information in a ‘ticking bomb’ situation. Naturally, this area of law is rife with controversy. How do we balance the potential for saving innocent lives with the risk of our society descending into a modern Spanish Inquisition?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides for the use of ‘reasonable force’ when dealing with criminals. However the problems with this applied to the ‘ticking bomb’ scenario are twofold. First, it does not mean that the suspect can be physically abused in interrogation, rather that they can be restrained if they resist. Secondly, the term ‘reasonable force’ is shrouded in ambiguity, though an excessive level of force amounts to torture.
The United Nations definition provides that torture is ‘any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession.’ Further to this, it is deemed to be an absolute right (though this issue is contested in case law like Ireland v UK as some forms of non-traditional interrogation are deemed more acceptable than others).
With Britain and America’s protracted fight against terrorism, it is arguable to say that a regulated system of ‘advanced’ interrogation with the heaviest burden of proof imaginable would serve the security of the nation well. It’s a controversial view and torture will never lose the aura of taboo but the fear of our society descending a slippery slope into a situation where torture is accepted is far less frightening to me than a legal system that places no value on the lives of innocent people.
No comments:
Post a Comment