The Case for Torture written by Michael Levin aims to stress the significance of the evaluation of the question regarding torture. As the matter of fact, the ongoing debates concerning the issue seem never to be stopped. The issue is controversial as there are relevant arguments for and against tortures. The major aim of the paper is to investigate whether violence is an appropriate method of influence in the modern world. The author of the article The Case for Torture notes that violence can and should be morally justified in some cases. According to Levin’s point of view, the constitution should be forgotten if it is made for the sake of the innocent people. The author provides the reader with an impressive example that questions the fact that torture is not the appropriate way to influence criminals. The philosopher gives the example where a terrorist intends to kill millions of people with the atomic bomb. In case, there is no time and the bomb will explode in a couple of hours, is it reasonable to wait for the lawyer, keep to the procedure, and let the innocent people die. Furthermore, Levin moves on to the more realistic cases. The following examples deal with the kidnapping of newborns. According to the experiment, all mothers would be ready to apply violence in case they lost their babies. However, the author claims that torture should not be viewed as a punishment. It is more about deterring future evils. Capital punishment can also be compared to the anguish, as the pivotal objective is to deter criminals from committing severe crimes. The next example provided by the author is concerned with the Second World War. This case aims to highlight what consequences could have been eliminated if Roosevelt had killed Hitler in 1943 (Schulz 277). Sacrificing dictatorship would have saved millions of lives and families. The primary goal of the modern world is to make everything possible to prevent the military conflict, as the war would be more serious and dramatic with the innovated weapon and technologies that society has nowadays. It worth stating that the arguments of Michael Levin seem to be reasonable. The provided examples contribute to the better involvement into the issue. However, it should be stressed that the problem is multi-faceted and demands the analysis using different perspectives. First and foremost, discussion of torture requires understanding that every person has individual rights, and that is, acknowledging such method of influence will contradict the personal rights. The next weakness of the argument is that human tends to make mistakes. Misconduct or lack of evidence can be the reason for torturing the wrong person. However, it should be pointed out that authorities can almost never be sure for a hundred percent that the person is guilty. In the case of making a mistake the question arises, is there any difference between the terrorist and the authorities? I do not profess to be an expert regarding the subject, but I am strongly convinced that there are different approaches that can be used in tackling the problems of criminality and terrorism. Violence will provoke violence in response. Moreover, terrorism is not necessarily inequitable. Nelson Mandela, a famous freedom fighter, was believed to be a te