Torture
Dear CHRIS FLOYD,
My name is George Davis and I am writing to you in response to the article you recently published on torture. Although I think torture is horrific, I feel at times it cannot be avoided. The act of torture involves deliberately inflicting physical or mental pain on a person or persons. This includes threats to family members and loved ones. Your loved ones being abused for the greater good, is that something you would accept authorities doing and what if you loved one was innocent? We place our trust in these authorities and that would destroy the link I have with them.
Regarding your scenario where a terrorist plots against London and the suspect refuses to talk, I do appreciate that ‘No Comments’ are utterly useless. So do you feel it is right then that the police resort to more drastic methods of torture? I feel that would be morally wrong. Since the middle of the last century torture has generally been regarded as wrong, so wrong in fact that the UN Convention Against Torture allows no exceptions, even in circumstances such as war or while fighting terrorism.
A poll in 2006 showed that 72% of Britons were opposed to torture under any circumstances – even where it is used to save lives. I feel it treats people as a means rather than an ends and I don’t feel it would be fully effective anyway. Surely someone sinister, much like the person in your scenario, is more likely to co-operate in a more comfortable environment. I know I would, wouldn’t you? The reality is that torture would be pointless. Evidence obtained through torture is not admissible in British courts. However, it is a necessity for police or security forces to act on information obtained by torture. They would have no choice to ignore a claim of a criminal offence, regardless of its origins.
Governments have used torture to keep themselves in power; to enforce their particular political philosophy; to remove opposition and to implement particular policies in the past. For example China’s one child policy. If a woman was to have more than one child, she would be indirectly tortured; benefits completely cut; cut access to healthcare. Let us marvel at how the government’s backing from it’s people grew dramatically after this policy. This was horrific in my opinion. Yes, the policy set out to do what was intended to but there were certainly better ways around it. Much like how there are different ways of discovering the truth by not inflicting torture.
Mr Floyd, you argue that torture, while wrong, could be the ‘lesser of two evils’, and that it should be allowed if it is the only way to prevent a ‘greater wrong’. For example, it might be ‘tolerable’ to torture a person to get information that would enable authorities to prevent a bombing. I argue that torture is a ‘moral absolute’ that it is always wrong, and so can never be justified by any form of ethical ‘cost-benefit analysis’. Using the British police and their struggle to correctly handle torture responsibly as an example, I feel that the responsibility to torture is overwhelming and the temptation is too difficult to contain, considering the rare occasions where it is successful.
You and I will both have differing opinions on what torture actually is and it’s for that reason that I think it is partially unavoidable. In your article you have been very selective on what you portray as torture. You have expressed the use of violence in terrorism as the only form of torture, is that truly the case? Depriving a Mother from her child, that’s torture for both them in my opinion. Yet when a woman is arrested for a crime she needs to pay for, the baby can’t go with her, baby will ultimately end up out of her arms. Is that not torture for that woman or her child? I ask you. This kind of scenario is more common than the plot for a huge terrorist attack in which the police have no leads as you showed. That is why I think ‘torture’ is unavoidable.
Regards,
George.
January 25, 2015 at 6:17 pm
George, this is a very clear and coherent response to the task. There are a few things to consider adapting:
1) You need to ensure that your writing grabs the reader’s attention immediately. Your opening is a little weak in comparison to the rest of your piece.
2) Have a play around with some more persuasive language features (e.g. triplets, rhetorical questions, anecdotes, direct address).
3) The structure of your conclusion is a little muddled. Re-do.
Current grade: 36/40 (A2)
PS – Don’t settle. Get your A*.
January 27, 2015 at 2:13 pm
Hi Sir! I have made the changes you said to, by changing the first sentence do a direct question and by adjusting my conclusion! Hope it gets we that A* you care so much about when its remarked! XD
February 2, 2015 at 8:12 pm
George, some of your sentence structures remain an issue. Check your opening paragraph, for example.
‘That runs parallel in torture’ does not make sense’.
You need to develop your response to the counter-arguments more fully.
Current grade: 35 (B – your changes affected the accuracy of your writing)
February 7, 2015 at 12:01 pm
Dear Mr Harris,
This piece is completely finished. If possible I would love some pre-marking feedback. If not i feel confident i can grab an A/A*!
George.
March 26, 2015 at 8:26 pm
George, this is a well written piece. Your grammar is close to perfect and you have structured your response well.
Targets:
1) You need to counter more points from the original article.
2) You need to engage more with the original author.
Grade:
Writing: 36/40 (A)
Reading: 8/10 (B)
March 30, 2015 at 5:11 pm
George, this is now very strong.
Target:
1) You could respond to some of the more sophisticated arguments in the original article.
2) You could use punctuation to enhance meaning.
3) You could use more sophisticated vocabulary.
Current grades:
Writing: 37/40 (A1)
Reading: 9/10 (A1)