ABSTRACT
This chapter argues the use of a law-based regulatory arrangement that gives the impression of precision and control. The reality of interrogational torture and emergency power suggests that legalisation would lead to significant regulatory difficulties. The chapter considers the challenges of drafting a torture statute and comparison between a legal standards approach and a narrowly drafted rule-based law. It continues to build the argument in order to construct an empirically-based slippery slope arguments (SSA). It has been suggested that the use of SSAs in the context of legalisation are an argument of caution. The various types of slippery slopes that might occur if torture were legalised and the support of empirical evidence. The issue of regulation will be further examined through analysis of two regulatory regimes. The empirical evidence on which they identify potential areas of vulnerability for a regulatory regime. Finally, the chapter has identified a significant body of empirical evidence to support an empirical SSA.
