I&#x27;d feel better about the Stanford example you cited if the cops&#x27; use of torture had been disclosed - that is, if they had been held accountable for using illegal methods.<p>The law recognizes extenuating circumstances such as those in the example, and provides reasonable outcomes - the DA&#x2F;Grand Jury could have declined to charge, a jury could have declined to convict, a judge could have vacated a jury&#x27;s conviction, and&#x2F;or the governor could have pardoned them if they were sentenced. Under the circumstances, I think the cops would not have been punished. I&#x27;d endorse that outcome, given the facts.<p>But instead, the cops committed crimes and covered them up. That&#x27;s bad for us, because it reduces transparency of state conduct. Basically, it&#x27;s bad for our society if its police use illegal force without accountability.<p>If the right thing, the moral thing to do in a particular situation involves breaking a law, well ok, but we all (through the law) should know about it and we should all (through the law) hold accountable those who acted illegally. That doesn&#x27;t mean they&#x27;ll be punished - but IMO moral conduct must include accountability.<p>I think a better view of these types of situations is to affirm that torture is never legal, nor is it moral - but it might on rare occasion be an effective tactic to achieve a better outcome. But accountability has to be part of the picture.<p>I think if we had held that as our standard of conduct following 9&#x2F;11, we would not have Guantanamo as a national shame today. The law can help when morality drifts due to fear and panic.