shaking him so violently that his head bangs against the wall and hitting him in the chest hard enough to leave a bruise over his collarbone.The kidnapper talked within minutes, telling police that he had killed the boy, and directing them to his body. The mere threat of torture, combined with a beating, quickly produced accurate information. Something to keep in mind the next time someone makes a blanket statement that torture doesn't work.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Torture in Germany
In reference to a comment about my earlier post, "Nonsense About Torture," in which I made the argument that torture works, I noticed this account of German police interrogation that occurred in 2002. While interrogating a kidnapper who had abducted a child, police told him that they “will make you feel pain like you have never felt before.” They followed up this threat of torture by
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't know whether or not torture works... to be honest, I've never really researched it enough to make a decision one way or another. However, I do know that little bits of anecdotal evidence do not equate to definitive proof by any means. In addition, I don't think you can equate government sanctioned "torture" whether it be prisoners of war or police torturing American citizens suspected of crimes to that of a criminal torturing someone for a pin number. The techniques might be the same but what we are generally discussing in the news, when we say "torture" I think there is an implication that there is government backing or sanctioning or recommending.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I've never really considered whether or not as a technique torture works is because I think people will inherently abuse this power if/when it is given to them. There is probably a lot more evidence, both clinically and historically of people severely abusing their position when they are legally able take a person, essentially strip them of any basic rights and inflict whatever physical pain is necessary in order to get the answer you want. I think that the torturer, not the person being tortured, is the limiting factor in this case.
Doctor Wu,
ReplyDelete"I don't think you can equate government sanctioned "torture" whether it be prisoners of war or police torturing American citizens suspected of crimes to that of a criminal torturing someone for a pin number."
The circumstances differ but the intent is the same: to gain information. [I'm not considering torture that is used for punishment or to gain a forced confession -- everyone agrees it works for that] Torturing someone for a PIN number, a specific verifiable bit of information, is functionally no different than torturing them for the location of an arms cache, or any other specific, verifiable piece of information.
"However, I do know that little bits of anecdotal evidence do not equate to definitive proof by any means."
I disagree. When someone was threatened with torture, or tortured, and then gives correct information, that constitutes proof that torture worked in that specific case. I'm not making an argument that torture always works, or that its the best method, just that it can and does work sometimes.
"The reason I've never really considered whether or not as a technique torture works is because I think people will inherently abuse this power if/when it is given to them."
That's a different matter, and I largely agree with you. As I said in the other post, there are many strong arguments against using torture. The only thing I'm reacting to is the notion that torture can't work -- which is not only illogical, but also factually untrue.
"I disagree. When someone was threatened with torture, or tortured, and then gives correct information, that constitutes proof that torture worked in that specific case."
ReplyDeleteI would only agree if you added to that sentence, "... that torture worked in that specific case for that specific person or person-type." It might be true, I don't know I don't research this topic, but I'd want to see more than anecdotal evidence.
Then again, I going to assume that a lot of "real" research on this topic will be clouded by the researchers personal feelings on the subject.
"The only thing I'm reacting to is the notion that torture can't work -- which is not only illogical, but also factually untrue."
I agree... I hate stupid arguments even if I support a subject. Stupid arguments only serve to weaken the subject, not bolster it. However, for you to convince me that torture does work I would want to see more than just anecdotal evidence. I also feel -- and I don't think you're trying to show this -- that if torture does work that should be a justification for implementing it.
"I would only agree if you added to that sentence, "... that torture worked in that specific case for that specific person or person-type.""
ReplyDeleteFair enough. I think all interrogations depend on the specifics of the interrogator, interrogatee, and the overall situation in question.
"but I'd want to see more than anecdotal evidence."
If you look at the whole article I cited, you see that the case in Germany went to the European Court of Human Rights. I think it's more than just anecdotal evidence. And with regard to the PIN number situation cited in the other post (there are more of those incidents btw), the woman was found dead, she bore evidence of torture, her ATM card was stolen, and the murderer successfully used it to withdraw money. No study is going to produce more conclusive evidence one way or another. It's not like we can torture people to study how effective it is.
And the evidence that torture can work is also supported by logical reasoning. It's undeniable that pain & fear are powerful motivating forces. Most people would not dispute the fact that you can gain information from someone by threatening them with jail time or other punishment. Torture is just another type of threat. People respond differently to threats, but one possible response is truthful cooperation.
"I would want to see more than just anecdotal evidence"
Again, I'm not sure what type of evidence would convince you short of being tortured, or personally witnessing someone being tortured and giving up accurate information. Hopefully neither of those things will ever happen.
"I also feel -- and I don't think you're trying to show this -- that if torture does work that should be a justification for implementing it."
No, that something works isn't necessarily a justification for using it -- especially when it has all sorts of other negative aspects.
I tend to agree with your last post. I have to admit, I feel queasy with the whole notion that torture works simply because my gut tells me that it's morally wrong.
ReplyDeleteI have to say one thing though... I'd drop my PIN number pretty damn quick. You'd probably have to give me more than just a dirty look, but unless you had some other motive, you'd have those digits long before you'd have to resort to torturing me. That's if you were the criminal and I was not.
Aw gee, David C, too bad it's not legal.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, what's up with this faux-academic discussion about whether or not torture is "effective"? Why get into discussions about the feasibility of practices that are (a) morally abhorrent, (b) contrary to international legal norms and treaties and (c) for those UN haters out there, also illegal under U.S. law?
In other words, I find the whole "Ve haf veys to make you talk" discussion to be more than just a little creepy."
Redhand,
ReplyDelete"Aw gee, David C, too bad it's not legal."
I don't want it legalized.
"Seriously, what's up with this faux-academic discussion about whether or not torture is "effective"?"
It's something that seems to come up a lot. I brought it up in an earlier post reacting to statements in a new book that just came out.
"Why get into discussions about the feasibility of practices"...
Why not? I have an interest in the topic from a historical perspective as well as with regard to current affairs.
"In other words, I find the whole "Ve haf veys to make you talk" discussion to be more than just a little creepy"
Torture is a pretty creepy subject by its very nature. But it's also fascinating in a macabre sort of way.
It's a bit off topic, but here are two interesting posts on "Nazi Science"
ReplyDeletehttp://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/12/was_nazi_science_good_science.php
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/12/was_nazi_science_good_science_part_ii.php
Dr. Wu,
ReplyDeleteThose are interesting, and I've seen arguments about the scientific validity of Nazi (and Imperial Japanese) experiments on prisoners before.
Unfortunately, people like Ben Stein use those kinds of examples to demonize science, as if science itself was responsible, rather than the regimes creating such conditions and the individual scientists who operated that way.