Torture can be defined as “the intentional infliction of physical and mental suffering intended to compel a defenseless person to break his or her will” (Rodley, 2000). It is important to note that if a person has been tortured, even if their mental will has not been broken, the process and purpose of torture is to break the will of the victim. It is therefore not necessary for the goal to be achieved for the process to be considered torture. That being said, under international law, torture is illegal in any form or situation. Although it continues around the world, issues such as the "war on terror" with the possibility of weapons of mass destruction have led to an influx of questions regarding torture and its moral justifications in some extreme emergency situations. . The “ticking bomb terrorist” dilemma is a perfect example. (See Case Study 1 below) In this article, I will argue that torture can be morally justified in certain situations of extreme emergency. However, I will also analyze the reasons and arguments for banning torture and the implications thereof. However, despite my argument about the validity of the use of torture in certain circumstances, torture should in no way be institutionalized or legalized. I will substantiate my argument through two case studies as well as the "time bomb" scenario, discussing the mitigating factors it involves and why torture is crucial in obtaining information that alters the life. I have suggested that the defining goal of the torture process is to break a person's will, that being said, different types of torture have different goals; terrorizing a political group, gratification by the desire of a part of the...... middle of paper ......aw on this occasion. However, the consequences and repercussions of what happens to military officers and police officers after a torture scenario could be controversial to say the least. Naturally, the person in question would be tried, found guilty and if found guilty, sentenced for the crime of torture. However, due to the circumstances and the justification for the act, I am of the opinion that the sentence should be significantly reduced and the person concerned should be removed from duty; Public institutions cannot be allowed to deteriorate within them because of those who commit the crimes they defend the public against. However, knowing that thousands of innocent lives must be saved, resulting in job loss and minor penalties, would many people justify their actions with greater moral justification? I believe they would.