The art of torture has a long and evil precedence in our society, and it continues to be used today in various professions. Torture tactics are designed to illicit a specific reaction or response from the victim who might or might not be involved with the pertinent issue at hand. I have always wondered if torture is acceptable to use on some people more than others. For example, do terrorists deserve to be tortured for committing some of the most heinous crimes in the world more than a regular criminal? The inability to justify torture is what proposes the question is torture really necessary? Dr. Chessman’s talk about the use of torture in southern Thailand and Myanmar raised some important questions like why people use torture and what kinds of issues does it raise?

Dr. Chessman and his colleague Pornpern, a human rights activist, described the the intention behind torture and its catastrophic effects on the victims. Pornpern, who interviewed several victims of torture in southeast Asia, raised a very important question about the intention behind torture. He asked if it was worth dehumanizing another person to obtain a piece of information? Is information superior to one’s morality? More importantly is fake information worth torturing people over because many times torture victims are completely unaware of the information being asked of them and are coerced into lying. I think it is unacceptable to torture human beings regardless of whether or not they are innocent and it is even more unacceptable to justify torture as an efficient means of retrieving important information. Torturers create their own scapegoats and put them through physical and emotional pain to satisfy their own demands and needs. In the end the torturers become the so called criminals that they are interviewing and sacrifice their own morality for what might be a small piece of information.