[Voltorb]

I don't think it would be morally wrong in this situation to use torture. You have a confession that was obtained without using any nefarious methods, so you know the guy is guilty. You know that he knows where the last child is buried. The child in this instance has more right to life and mercy than the serial child kidnapper. Since the kidnapper is showing the child no mercy, show him none. I guess this is sort of a sick perversion of the golden rule, but I think you are morally justified in this situation.

I liked the idea brought up by party girl about torture permits. For some reason society has decided that we should take a closer look at torture, specifically with regards to when torture is morally justified and should therefore be legal. Since every situation is different, I believe a judge is the natural choice for being an arbiter of such situations, although I also believe he should work within strict guidelines. For instance, if the kidnapper had not confessed yet, I don't see how the torture could be justified even if every detective in the nation was 100% sure of his guilt. Presumed innocence and the right to trial by jury guarantees the kidnapper his right to fair treatment, even if it means the child would surely die.

That being said, why not just pump the kidnapper full of MDMA and sodium barbitol. He'll be dying to tell you where the child is buried afterwards.