The USFG should allow the limited use of Torture

This debate is about whether the United States should allow torture. Con cites various laws that make torture illegal, but those laws aren't relevant to this debate. The issue here isn't what the law is but rather what it should be. No matter how many laws oppose torture, the question is still whether those laws are right or wrong.I argue that torture is justified in exceptional cases where torture is the lesser of two available evils. In other words, the US should allow torture under the necessity defense, which holds that illegal acts are sometimes justified to prevent a greater evil. The underlying idea is that we shouldn't punish someone for violating the law if their action produces a net benefit to society.The US already recognizes necessity as a defense. Under the Model Penal Code, "conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another is justifiable, provided that ... the evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged." [1] Self-defense, for example, is a special case of the necessity defense.In a ticking bomb situation, the torture of a single individual can save lives. And if the moral value of the saved lives exceeds the moral harm of the torture, the torture is justified via necessity. This scenario is no different than shooting a gangster before he or she kills five innocents. In such circumstances, killing the gangster is legally justified because it prevents a greater evil. So too with torture in emergency situations.The advantage of allowing torture through the necessity defense is that it puts the burden on the torturer. If the torturer cannot establish that he or she chose the lesser of two evils, he or she faces criminal liability (i.e. jail or execution). Thus, would-be torturers need to exercise caution before torturing to avoid potential conviction. This might disincentivize some justifiable torture but it will also prevent any potential abuse.What are the arguments against applying the necessity defense to torture? Con argues that torture is unacceptable because it violates basic human rights. This argument fails for two reasons. First, under a utilitarian calculus, torture is morally justified if it is the lesser of two evils. Second, no right is absolute. The United States limits most rights like free speech and the right to vote, so there's no reason it can't place a limit on other rights too. In fact, the government should limit rights when necessary to protect its citizens from harm (e.g. self-defense shows that you can violate someone's right to life under special circumstances). This idea is captured by John Stuart Mill's harm principle, which holds that "power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, [] to prevent harm to others.” [2]Con also argues that torture is unjustified because it's ineffective. However, this debate isn't about whether torture is effective or ineffective. That's a factual question with little bearing on the legal question of whether torture falls under the necessity defense. Even if torture is generally ineffective, there are narrow circumstances where torture will save lives. In those situations, the necessity defense still applies.The only way to negate necessity as a matter of principle is to show that torture never works. That poses a serious problem for Con, because history is replete with concrete examples where torture has worked. [3] Even John McCain says he gave up more information than he intended. [4] The reason torture works is because humans have an intense desire to avoid pain. If a terrorist believes that the torture won't end unless they give up truthful information, they're probably going to give up the truth. This is because the desire to avoid pain outweighs, at least in some circumstances, the desire to conceal information, especially if the torture causes so much pain that the terrorist prefers death to continued suffering.Finally, Con argues that torture is harmful to public perception. But the necessity defense isn't liable to this criticism because torture is still illegal under its framework. And the US won't lose any "moral high ground" because necessity pits a lesser evil (torture) against a greater evil (the loss of innocent lives). Nobody is going to have a problem with torture if it is only used to prevent a greater evil. Indeed, TV shows like 24 show that the public accepts torture when it's portrayed as a necessary evil to prevent a greater evil. The context of war itself rests on a necessity principle: killing enemy combatants is justified as a way to prevent a greater evil (i.e. the death of our soldiers). In fact, war is often justified via self-defense, which is just a special case of the necessity defense. Limiting torture to necessity thus solves any problems of perception.Sources: 1. http://law.jrank.org...2. https://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au...4. John McCain, Faith of My Fathers: A Family Memoir