Is the use of torture ever justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists?

Criminals and terrorists are punished in various forms under the court of Law. They could be given death penalty, put in rehabilitation centres, or asked to do corrective work orders depending on the extent of their crimes and charges. Why would they be punished likewise? Other than the death penalty, the other kinds of punishments are deterrent techniques to stop crimes. All these are legal but something - torture- which acts as the fundamental key in proving it successful is being debated over today. Whatever the kind of punishment it is, it certainly involves torture to a certain extent. How can it be called a punishment when it is being enjoyed by the accused? Torture could be in forms like emotional torture, physical torture and mental torture. Usually when the accused are jailed up, they start to undergo emotional and mental torture which is imposed on them by the new adverse conditions they are open to in the prisons. Example would be in Singapore prisons where the accused undergoes strict disciplinary trainings which requires great deal of mental strength. Eg . marching under the hot sun. Furthermore, the prisons are not luxurious places. The prisoners usually have to adjust drastically to suit themselves in there. However this is only applicable to people who have been convicted by the court. In this case, it is not justified to torment more as they have been given a fixed period of jail term which itself is punitive.

However when we consider criminals and terrorists held captive for interrogative purposes it is justified to use torture on them to a certain extent. If the captive is suspected with evidence to be a national threat, then torture can be employed because there is proof that a great deal of pain is going to be imposed on the public by the criminal and the only way of preventing the death of hundred others is to make him confess. Although torture cannot be gaurenteed to make a criminal talk, it’s a fair try to use it on them in order to achieve a benefiting result. Example is when Zubaydah gave interrogators information that identified Binalshibh and "helped lead" to the capture of both Binalshibh and the prized K.S.M. Especially torture is justified for hardened criminals because they repeat their crimes often without caring for others.

Just a bomb blast somewhere in the world stirs emotions of fury and sadness in people all over the world. It is possible that a death of a single person affects a whole community.
Example is the deaths of political leaders.

Imagine the effect of killing thousands with a single plan employed by the criminals and terrorists. It would be devastating! People, especially the Human Rights would debate that it is outrageous to torment the criminals as they are human too. Aren’t Humans supposed to be rational, sensitive and sensible people who do not dig their own graves by their actions? How can criminals who kill so many people can ever be considered as human in the first place for the Human Rights to fight for them? Does having the same organs and features qualify a living thing as a human instead of a mammal?

Thus I argue that torture is justified to be used on criminals and terrorists during interrogations with evidence that they are of great threat to world peace. Torture is also justified to be used on hardened criminals. However, it should not be employed for every single interrogation as torture is not successful all the time. Moreover, the interrogators should use other more successful ways such talking to the criminals or trying to brainwash them into confessing rather then torturing.

References :

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1533436,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Torture-acceptable-says-former-NCA-chief/2005/05/22/1116700585264.html#