Summary

In September 2002 in Germany, a child called Jakob von Metzler was kidnapped in order to force his parents to pay a large ransom. This case was covered extensively in the media. In the focus of attention was the fact that the police threatened to cause the kidnapper pain if he did not disclose the location of the child. At issue is, whether it could be justified, in certain extremely limited exceptional circumstances, to cause pain to a criminal in order to obtain information that would lead to saving the life of an innocent person.

The article provides a brief introduction to the above case, and a history of torture as an institution of justice. After examining the terminology of the concept of torture, the legal-ethical arguments for and against torture are discussed. Thereafter, the arguments are examined which have recently been presented to support police torture. This is followed with a discussion of human dignity as the primary argument against condoning torture. Pursuant to the Constitution, the state must not only honour human dignity but also defend it. The Constitution, however, does not specify how to react if honouring the human dignity of one person is only possible through the violation of the human dignity of another. The article discusses the three possible solutions to this dilemma, and presents seven statements on torture.