When Torture Should Be Okay

There has been much debate recently over whether the U.S. should be engaging in the torture of enemy combatants and suspected terrorists. I come down on the side with Sen. John McCain, who maintains that the U.S. should not do this, as it would endanger U.S citizens around the world.

But what about torture for those convicted of certain crimes? Many people feel that torturing people as punishment for a crime would violate the Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. However, doesn't something have to both cruel and unusual to meet this criterion? Yes, torture is cruel and it always will be, but if we used it often enough, it wouldn't be all that unusual.

I believe the following crimes merit certain amounts of torture:

1) Murder.

2) Actual rape (statutory rape and other types of imaginary and contrived forms of rape wouldn't qualify).

3) Theft of physical property or currency, including the crimes of armed robbery, grand or petty larceny, looting, burglary, identity theft, collection of donations under false pretenses, receiving government aid under false pretenses, and embezzlement.

4) Kidnapping.

5) Scamming, fraud, and bunko.

6) Counterfeiting currency.

7) Assault and battery for any other reason than to protect oneself or others from imminent physical harm, or to prevent imminent property theft.

8) Falsely accusing anyone of any of the above.