Deontological theorists argue that coercive interrogation should be unequivocally inadmissible because it involves a total violation of human dignity (Arrigo, 2004). According to Posner and Vermeule (2005), the idea of ​​coercive interrogation is paradoxical as law enforcement maintains its legality and at the same time uses it under the guise of preventing dangerous criminal suspects from harming other people in society. Posner and Vermuele (2005) however denounce the deontological view against coercive interrogation by arguing that it is sometimes permissible and necessary, although law enforcement should not deny that coercive interrogation is intrinsically a grave moral evil. Their complaint is informed by the assertion that sometimes even serious evils are necessary and justified by the inevitability of tragic choices, despite being violations of rights. Posner and Vermuele (2005) conclude that, although coercive interrogation is a grave ethical and moral evil, it should not be entirely permissible, but rather should be subject to complex rule-based regulatory frameworks with exceptions. Such frameworks should allow the infliction of human harm only in situations strictly protected by a system of immunity that obliges law enforcement to follow rules established in good faith.