Report for Group Discussion #2: Moral Dilemma

This week, we had a discussion about a moral dilemma.
A mad bomber was arrested by police, but the mad man had already planted bombs before the capture. The terrible bomb can kill hundreds of people, and there are little time left. He wants to talk a lawyer and he invokes his constitutional right to remain silent. Then, officials propose putting him to the torture. The officials even suggest torturing his innocent wife in front of him. What do we think about it?
I do not agree to torture the mad bomber. Because the officials would start to torture suspected people. If they put him to the torture in this situation, the torture would become one of the ways to investigate a suspect for granted. Of course, it is important to save hundreds of people who have nothing to do with the mad man from the bombs. However, I think what is more significant is to continue not to violate the right which we achieved through a long history than to solve this immediate-future problem by torture. But we must not abandon hundreds of people without taking any plan. In my group, there are a few ideas about this problem. First, one of group members suggests that the officials practice psychotherapy to the mad bomber. Though it might be effective, a psychological treatment needs a long term. It is not a realistic way in this immediate danger of the bombs. Then, the next idea comes; that is hypnotism. I have heard that some police introduce hypnotism in investing a suspect. By putting the mad bomber under hypnosis, we can get an answer to the question.
I do not agree to torture the mad bomber, because the officials would begin to torture suspects for granted in the near future. We must avoid torturing to keep our rights. Since we can not abandon hundreds of people, I think the officials should introduce hypnotism. So, we can save hundreds of people without torture.