People like to say torture’s no good because the victim will tell you anything just to get you to stop—the inference being that everything he tells you will be bullshit.
But what about verifiable bullshit? I’m sure you can come up with much better questions, but here are just two to give you an idea of what I have in mind.
“Give me all the information about one of your secret bank accounts so I can clean it out.”
“What is the current address of your naughty organization in Cairo?”
If the answers are untrue, or he claims amnesia, the torture resumes until he tells the truth or remembers.
If the carrot won’t work, the stick won’t either. Remember back in the day, when we completed Phase One of George and Dicks Excellent Iraqi Adventure? We knew, for sure and for certain, that Saddam had vast storehouses of radioactive anthrax, it was simply a matter of finding them.
So we offered huge rewards. What was it, a half million dollars, green cards for the whole family and a lap dance from J-Lo? Something like that. Offered in the clear and certain knowledge that somebody would Shirley come forward and rat them out.
But, of course, they didn’t. Of course, because they couldn’t, because there weren’t none. Ooopsy.
No reliable data, but by all appearances–as I’ve noted before–this is how the Japanese policing system works. You find the person who probably did it, lean on them until they tell you where to find evidence, and then use that evidence to convict them.
Overall it seems to be effective at keeping the crime rate down. (Which isn’t to say that I’d vote for instituting it as the favored method of crime prevention, but it does seem to be what’s what.)
At least, that used to be the point. What the ever-loving fuck happened?
In BarnOwl’s examples, the assumption is that the victim does, indeed, have a secret bank account and/or an organization in Cairo, and that either can be checked out easily and with no loss.
Not so in real life. For one thing, any halfway competent organization facing an adversary that tortures will take it into account. Information is parceled, links are severed if people don’t check in, coded phrases indicate “I’ve been turned” rather than “Send the agents across”.
The Nazis’ greatest coups against resistance movements in Europe were achieved through boring police work - interrogations, informers, surveillance, phonetaps, raids - not through torture, although they certainly weren’t picky about their methods. (A famous Mosquito raid on the Copenhagen Gestapo headquarters didn’t (primarily) target the interrogators or the Gestapo personnel, who in fact turned out to be mostly absent that day - it targeted the case files.)
So, BarnOwl, what is the location of the Anthrax lab? All you have to do to get this thread to stop is give us the location. Maybe you’re a tough guy? How about we open a thread about your daughter? You wouldn’t want that, would you?
Why do no (known to me) criminal gangs kidnap people, torture them in the back of a van, get their PIN number and then release them?
OTOH is this not what “Express Kidnapping” gangs do in Latin America? Most people seem to be willing to give up information under the threat of, or very little torture.
It’s the finding the person who probably did it which is the trick. That usually requires evidence and if you have evidence, you don’t really need torture.
Not really. Most people are stupid and their reason for creating the crime obvious. Police also probably have a very good sense of when someone is lying to them and/or reacting incorrectly for an innocent person.
Nope. According to studies, they have the same chance of detecting someone lying as average people. The only two groups I’ve heard of who do better than average are the Secret Service and complete aphasics ( people who have totally lost language skills ). The latter are impossible to lie to without elaborate precautions ( like being out of the room and speaking through a voice modulator ); they can’t understand what you say but know you are lying.
It seems that apashics are better at picking up on facial cues and don’t do better when given only vocal clues.
In searching for information regarding secret service agents being better at lie detection, I found some interesting comments that would seem to indicate that secret service agents are better overall at lying without being detected.
In terms of torture, somatic cues would be out the window since people’s facial and body language would likely be distorted due extreme stress.