Languish.org

Morals aside.

I only told you I'd done it so you'd take the electrodes off my balls?

Needs more nuance.

If there's verifiable intel, yes.

always

Yes, you always get someone to blame.

Yes, this four year program of it, will have all of us screaming for mercy.

It's effective at extracting confessions, and torturers often gain a good deal of enjoyment from it. It presumably also discourages people from opposing the torturing authority.

Realistically speaking, it often does.  Soviet police has been known to use torture extensively, and they solved a large percentage of the cases.  Often more than once.

You'll never get an answer out of me.

Quote from: DGuller on January 26, 2017, 09:34:06 AM
Realistically speaking, it often does.  Soviet police has been known to use torture extensively, and they solved a large percentage of the cases.  Often more than once.

:D

Does it "usually" work?

I don't have any idea how to answer that. It doesn't seem like a "usual" thing.

Can it work? Of course.

Can it also not work? Of course.

I better general question would be something like "Ignoring the moral implications, can torture be an effective means under some circumstances of extracting useful information?"

I think the answer to that question is "Yes".

Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2017, 10:19:01 AM
I better general question would be something like "Ignoring the moral implications, can torture be an effective means under some circumstances of extracting useful information?"

I think the answer to that question is "Yes".

I mean I guess that's better as it has an answer choice that makes sense (unlike current poll) but a little too akin to Der's silly poll that had only one real answer. :P

Well if you use enough torture SOMEBODY will tell you what you want to hear, that's for sure. I guess that makes it highly efficient.

Quote from: Tamas on January 26, 2017, 10:27:51 AM
Well if you use enough torture SOMEBODY will tell you what you want to hear, that's for sure. I guess that makes it highly efficient.

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

If the goal is to actually extract actionable intelligence "what you want to hear" is both not useful, and usually not even known to the person being interrogated.

Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2017, 10:19:01 AM
I better general question would be something like "Ignoring the moral implications, can torture be an effective means under some circumstances of extracting useful information?"

That's a better general question but still not a good one.  It's a very low bar.  Just about any technique can be effective under *some* circumstances, e.g. the broken clock tells the time correctly twice every day.  There are whole categories of game theoretic problems where the optimal strategy is to randomly vary responses, but that doesn't mean that a magic 8-ball or a quarter is a useful decision making tool. 

It's true that torture is likely to yield information - the question is how useful or reliable that information and what cost is to be assigned to the receipt of unreliable information.  If it turns out ex post that you can point to individual instances where the information turned out to be useful, that doesn't mean it makes sense as a technique to use a priori. 

Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2017, 10:30:43 AM
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. 

Quote from: garbon on January 26, 2017, 10:26:41 AM

Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2017, 10:19:01 AM
I better general question would be something like "Ignoring the moral implications, can torture be an effective means under some circumstances of extracting useful information?"

I think the answer to that question is "Yes".

I mean I guess that's better as it has an answer choice that makes sense (unlike current poll) but a little too akin to Der's silly poll that had only one real answer. :P

Yes.  That question only has one answer. Too obvious.
In this one we are asking does it get a accurate result in more than half of cases.

Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on January 26, 2017, 09:28:06 AM
It's effective at extracting confessions, and torturers often gain a good deal of enjoyment from it. It presumably also discourages people from opposing the torturing authority.

Indeed. My impression is the answer is yes.

Question is vague.  Work doing what?  It certainly hurts, so in that sense torturing works.

Nine out of 10 ex-girlfriends say Yes.
One was unavailable for comment.

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

I suggest anyone interested in this question dig up Mark Bowden's excellent article from a few years back in the Atlantic.

Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2017, 10:30:43 AM

Quote from: Tamas on January 26, 2017, 10:27:51 AM
Well if you use enough torture SOMEBODY will tell you what you want to hear, that's for sure. I guess that makes it highly efficient.

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

If the goal is to actually extract actionable intelligence "what you want to hear" is both not useful, and usually not even known to the person being interrogated.

Thanks for explaining my point  ;)

Quote from: grumbler on January 26, 2017, 12:26:14 PM
Of course torture works.  If you try hard enough to hurt someone, you will succeed.

I dunno.  If a lot of posters here aren't any better at torture than they are at setting up polls, attempts at torture by them might actually make their intended targets feel better.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 26, 2017, 10:32:56 AM

Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2017, 10:19:01 AM
I better general question would be something like "Ignoring the moral implications, can torture be an effective means under some circumstances of extracting useful information?"

That's a better general question but still not a good one.  It's a very low bar.  Just about any technique can be effective under *some* circumstances, e.g. the broken clock tells the time correctly twice every day.  There are whole categories of game theoretic problems where the optimal strategy is to randomly vary responses, but that doesn't mean that a magic 8-ball or a quarter is a useful decision making tool. 

It's true that torture is likely to yield information - the question is how useful or reliable that information and what cost is to be assigned to the receipt of unreliable information.  If it turns out ex post that you can point to individual instances where the information turned out to be useful, that doesn't mean it makes sense as a technique to use a priori. 

No argument from me.

I think torture is a pretty terrible idea*, but I think the attempt to pretend like it is cannot be effective is both morally suspect and intellectually dishonest.

It is a terrible thing to do. Full stop. It is not terrible because it doesn't work. It's efficacy is irrelevant to it's repugnance.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 26, 2017, 10:37:03 AM

Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2017, 10:30:43 AM
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.

Quote from: dps on January 26, 2017, 12:52:25 PM

Quote from: grumbler on January 26, 2017, 12:26:14 PM
Of course torture works.  If you try hard enough to hurt someone, you will succeed.

I dunno.  If a lot of posters here aren't any better at torture than they are at setting up polls, attempts at torture by them might actually make their intended targets feel better.

Why drag poor spicey into this?

Hey man, that ended up being a fun discussion that went on for pages.  SUCCESS

Quote from: derspiess on January 26, 2017, 01:09:03 PM
Hey man, that ended up being a fun discussion that went on for pages.  SUCCESS

That is OUR success, not yours! :P

Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2017, 12:55:24 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 26, 2017, 10:37:03 AM

Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2017, 10:30:43 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: Barrister on January 26, 2017, 02:06:15 PM

Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2017, 12:55:24 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 26, 2017, 10:37:03 AM

Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2017, 10:30:43 AM
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.

Quote

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.

Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2017, 02:23:39 PM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2017, 02:23:39 PM

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.

Quote from: dps on January 26, 2017, 03:03:51 PM

Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2017, 02:23:39 PM

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.

Quote from: Barrister on January 26, 2017, 02:30:20 PM

Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2017, 02:23:39 PM
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.

Quote

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.

Quote from: grumbler on January 26, 2017, 12:26:14 PM
Of course torture works.  If you try hard enough to hurt someone, you will succeed.

Teacher! Teacher!  Grumbler is copying my posts!