Torture can be defined as “the intentional infliction of physical and mental suffering intended to coerce someone defenseless for the purpose of breaking 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 victim's will. Therefore, the purpose does not need to be fulfilled for the trial to be considered a case of torture. That 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 resulted in an influx of questions regarding torture and its moral justifications in some extreme emergencies. The “time bomb terrorist” dilemma is a perfect example of this. (See Case Study 1 below) Within this article I will argue that torture can be morally justified in some extreme emergencies. However, I will also analyze the reasons and arguments supporting the ban on torture and its implications. However, despite my argument about the validity of using torture in certain circumstances, torture should not be institutionalized or legalized in any way. I will justify my argument through two case studies and the “ticking bomb” scenario, discussing the mitigating factors it possesses and why torture is crucial in the possibility of obtaining life-altering information. I have suggested that the defining purpose of the torture process is to break a person's will, that being said, different types of torture have different purposes; terrorize a political group, gratification through desire on the part of... middle of the card... ah 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, convicted and, if found guilty, sentenced for the crime of torture. However, given the circumstances and the justification for the act, it is of my opinion that the sentence should be substantially reduced and he or she removed from office; Public institutions cannot be allowed to deteriorate internally by those who commit the crimes they protect the public from. However, with the knowledge that thousands of innocent lives need to be saved, with the repercussions being job loss and lesser punishments, would many people justify their actions through greater moral justification? I believe they would.