Does torture work?

[Berkut]

It does if your goal is getting someone to tell you something you want to hear.

Which is a huge problem in the real world where there is always temptation to use intelligence info to support pre-existing conclusions and policies.  I.e. we have this huge national security problem with witches curses, we know this because when we torture the witches, they confess their diabolical curses. 

Indeed. One of many reasons why we should not torture people.

Or put people in interrogation rooms for 16 hours until they "confess" to a crime just to get out of the damn room.

Lengthy interviews are not torture, and really should not be equated.

What's a little "enhanced interrogation" amongst friends?

It is all a spectrum of coercion.

But yes, even confessions should generally be confirmed with some kind of hard evidence, or with the confession including details that only the guilty party would know.

I think the only confession that should carry any weight is one offered freely, or one obtained because it was totally clear that the authorities already knew the truth outside the confession entirely.

Any confession that comes from someone who didn't intend to confess before they walked into the room should be looked on with incredible skepticism.

And confession obtained without the presence of representation should be simply thrown out.

[Barrister]

I think the only confession that should carry any weight is one offered freely, or one obtained because it was totally clear that the authorities already knew the truth outside the confession entirely.

Any confession that comes from someone who didn't intend to confess before they walked into the room should be looked on with incredible skepticism.

And confession obtained without the presence of representation should be simply thrown out.

Well first of all we probably shouldn't use the word "confession".  In my line of work I rarely get full confessions.  But I regularly use statements made by an accused to police.  They rarely ever "intend to confess".  Often they're telling a story to try and deflect responsibility - but they'll give away enough details we can use it against them.  Or they deny responsibility, but admit to being present at the scene.  Or they don't realize that the version they're telling police is still actually an offence!

Suspects should not be co-erced into giving a statement - that is, that they no longer have a choice.  But they have no right to be comfortable, or for a police interrogation to be nice and polite.

And it sounds like you'd hate Canadian justice.  There's no right to have a lawyer present.  You do have a right to consult with a lawyer - before the interrogation.  But during the questioning itself, it's just you and the police.

[dps]

And confession obtained without the presence of representation should be simply thrown out.

That can't work.  Everyone would just waive their right to have council present, and then anything they said couldn't be used against them.

[Berkut]

And confession obtained without the presence of representation should be simply thrown out.

That can't work.  Everyone would just waive their right to have council present, and then anything they said couldn't be used against them.

That is exactly their right as it exists today. You don't have to talk to the cops if you don't want to, and you can certainly insist that you have a lawyer present.

I am simply saying that if the police want to use a confession, then it should be required that their be a lawyer representing the accused be present when it is obtained.

[Berkut]

I think the only confession that should carry any weight is one offered freely, or one obtained because it was totally clear that the authorities already knew the truth outside the confession entirely.

Any confession that comes from someone who didn't intend to confess before they walked into the room should be looked on with incredible skepticism.

And confession obtained without the presence of representation should be simply thrown out.

Well first of all we probably shouldn't use the word "confession".  In my line of work I rarely get full confessions.  But I regularly use statements made by an accused to police.  They rarely ever "intend to confess".  Often they're telling a story to try and deflect responsibility - but they'll give away enough details we can use it against them.  Or they deny responsibility, but admit to being present at the scene.  Or they don't realize that the version they're telling police is still actually an offence!

Suspects should not be co-erced into giving a statement - that is, that they no longer have a choice.  But they have no right to be comfortable, or for a police interrogation to be nice and polite.

You act like there is a difference between being coerced and being made to be uncomfortable. Those are weasel words used to say one thing while doing another.

And it sounds like you'd hate Canadian justice.  There's no right to have a lawyer present.  You do have a right to consult with a lawyer - before the interrogation.  But during the questioning itself, it's just you and the police.

That works or doesn't work based on how much integrity the police are willing to operate with on a regular basis.

[Razgovory]

Of course torture works.  If you try hard enough to hurt someone, you will succeed.

Teacher! Teacher!  Grumbler is copying my posts!