Torture Vs Torture
The History Behind Torture and Why It Should Not Be Utilized
When a young child is accused of stealing a cookie from the pantry, the initial reactions is to ask whether he or she has stolen the treat. In response, the child’s answer could vary, from hesitation to a simple yes or no to a drawn out excuse. This is a minor case of interrogation, where the suspected person is questioned for information. In a more extreme situation, the government uses this method, called torture, on people suspected of committing a crime. The only difference here is that the suspect is not interrogated about stolen cookies; instead, the person could be asked about vital information that is crucial to a current operation, concerning the lives of innocent people or soldiers fighting for a cause. Because torture usually involves physical and psychological pain, most of society believe it should not be exercised.
Since the beginning of ancient times, torture has been utilized for gaining information from persons of interest. It “refers to the use of various techniques designed to inflict extreme physical pain, psychological distress, or both” (Torture and Interrogation Techniques). Its goal is to strike fear, punish for crimes, or collect important information. In the past, torture during war spurred the Geneva Conventions, a sequence of treaties that established global laws, prohibiting the act of torture on prisoners of war. Even though these laws forbid the use of torture, some countries still “reserve the right to use torture in special circumstances” (Torture and Interrogation Techniques). During World War II, intelligence agencies in the west established advanced interrogation methods to more efficiently extract confessions and information from prisoners of war. Since the “war on terrorism” started in the early 1990s, these techniques have been increasingly utilized in the U.S., especially after the terrorist attacks on September 1, 2001. Now, the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) has been executing more enhanced interrogations in order to gather intelligence to prevent any possible future attacks. Yes, if interrogations are performed on terrorists, society deems it as reasonable, so as to prevent terroristic mass destruction or disruption. But sometimes the United States’ soldiers face these issues overseas. When people think of these soldiers, fighting for their country, their rights, and their families, facing cruel treatment from terrorists, the last thing their relatives want to think about are their sons or daughters being beaten for information. Because of this, the community thinks this form of interrogation is inhumane and unjust.
An example of torture being inhumane is the interrogation of teenagers. According to Barry C. Feld’s study on juveniles, these youths are supposedly treated just like adults, despite psychologists’ doubts that juvies actually possess the ability to “function on par with adults” (Feld 222). Unfortunately, not much is known about the interrogation of juveniles. Police departments hesitate at the thought of allowing researches into their interrogation rooms. The concerns about confidentiality of human subjects make it harder to obtain any information concerning this interrogation. Aside from this, a case was studied with fourteen and fifteen-year-olds, and it was determined that these youths were not the equivalent of adults. Now, approximately a dozen states require a parent or interest adult to be present while the police interrogate the teenagers as a prerequisite to a valid Miranda waiver. The fact that these youths need an adult present just adds to the fact that juveniles should not be interrogated with the equality of an adult. They need to able to exercise their rights, and if an adult is not there, they cannot do so.
Another reason torture should not be allowed is that the people who are brutally interrogated carry this around for the rest of their lives. Usually, after an intense torture, the subject is prone to posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. By definition, PTSD “is a term for certain severe psychological consequences of exposure to stressful, highly traumatic events” (Leave No Marks). In this event, victim experiences repetitive flashbacks and nightmares, impaired judgement, destabilized life functions, and weakened health. An examination of prisoners who had been exposed to cruel treatment revealed that even with a minimum period of imprisonment, all subjects suffered beatings and blunt force trauma, and 69-92% experienced posttraumatic stress disorder. PTSD really is terrifying disorder to live with, as it disrupts the victim’s lifestyle, possibly leading him or her to suicide. This is another reason torture should not be allowed; it constantly brings back terrifying memories, haunting the victim for an indefinite amount of time.
Because of this unjust interrogation, persons of interest may feel led to give false confessions, which is another reason torture should not be legalized.
From the psychological point of view, if the pressure is high enough, an innocent person may “remember” a crime he or she did not even commit. Even Barry C. Feld’s study states that “a confession is compelled, provoked, and manipulated from a suspect by a detective who has been trained in a genuinely deceitful art.” He admits that detectives manipulate their subjects’ minds to cooperate and give a confession. Along with this data, one way detectives obtain information is by presenting false data, misrepresenting facts, and lying (Feld 221). Detectives do this to make the suspect think that something has happened, even if it is really has not, or vice versa. When the person of interest believes this false statement, he might confess, though it may not be true. He may confess because he thinks that the detectives expect any confession and will not let him go until he gives them some sort of information. In this case, the person of interest, who is under tons of stress, will invent some story to appease the detective. Because this sort of interrogation places the suspect under a lot of stress, society believes that it should not be …show more content…
exercised.
An alternative for torture in undercover work.
And while this is manipulation, it is usually a much safer technique than brutally beating the person of interest. This is kind of technique, called a sting operation, is used to catch a suspect committing or confessing to a crime. The most popular technique in undercover work is called the “Mr. Big Technique”. Though there are different procedures based on the agency, there are consistent themes. To begin the operation, the suspect “is befriended by an undercover police operative who may ‘meet’ the suspect while in custody or at a place of employment” (Smith, Stinson, Patry). After the meeting, the operative spends a lot of time with the suspect, slowly building a friendship and earning trust. Then the undercover policeman introduces the suspect to a gang (undercover policemen) where they all perform basic tasks: counting money or looking-out for cops. In return, the suspect earns large amounts of money (up to several thousand per week). Later, the operative updates the suspect on their gang being promoted within the organization, “but a condition of that promotion is a meeting with the Big Boss, or ‘Mr. Big’” (Smith, Stinson, Patry). The condition: the suspect must confess to a crime. Theoretically, it provides the organization with information to use as a blackmailing evidence if necessary. Occasionally, the suspect is told that whatever the crime he confessed to will be “taken care of”, or the evidence will be destroyed so the police will never discover the truth. So in order to secure the promotion, the suspect must confess to the crime, which is stealthily recorded by the police. There was one case where once the suspect confessed to his crime, another gang member confessed to his own crime. Yes, there are flaws in this technique, such as false confessions that can taint evidence, but it is the much safer route than torture. Even the Royal Mounted Canadian Police agrees that this is a method they will continue to
use in the future. Though this “Mr. Big” technique can be complex (involving up to 50 operatives) and expensive (costing up to $400,000), it has been proved affective by 75% successes.
On the other hand, some authorities believe it is necessary to torture suspects in order to gain much needed information. It is crucial for them to use as much force as necessary to gain that evidence, regardless of how much it affects the subject. Feld states that if a detective is “deprived of the ability to question and confront suspects and witnesses, [that] detective is left with [sometimes very little] physical evidence…without a chance for a detective to manipulate a suspect’s mind, a lot of bad people would simply go free.” From this perspective, if the poking and prodding of suspects’ minds were not allowed, criminals would be free to walk the streets.
Based on this information, I believe torture should not be utilized in the process of acquiring information. No, it is not right to torture juveniles; while they might have committed a crime as severe as an adult’s crime, they are only teenagers and should not be brutalized in such a way. In addition to juvenile cruelty, the people who are tortured carry the experience and memory with them in the future, constantly haunting them. Plus, if people are pressured enough, they might just be willing to give a false confession, which does not help the police at all. Fortunately, an alternative for torture is undercover work, or a sting operation, where undercover operatives attempt to catch the suspect committing or confessing to a crime. While society thinks it is an inhumane technique, authorities trust that it is the most reliable method to relinquish information from subjects. And while I do respect the detectives’ methods, I do wish they would understand that these suspects are human. Everyone makes mistakes. Overall, torture is a technique used since the beginning of ancient times, and though it is used to gain information from suspects, there are reasons that cause anomalies in the data cause by torture.
When a young child is accused of stealing a cookie from the pantry, the initial reactions is to ask whether he or she has stolen the treat. In response, the child’s answer could vary, from hesitation to a simple yes or no to a drawn out excuse. This is a minor case of interrogation, where the suspected person is questioned for information. In a more extreme situation, the government uses this method, called torture, on people suspected of committing a crime. The only difference here is that the suspect is not interrogated about stolen cookies; instead, the person could be asked about vital information that is crucial to a current operation, concerning the lives of innocent people or soldiers fighting for a cause. Because torture usually involves physical and psychological pain, most of society believe it should not be exercised.
Since the beginning of ancient times, torture has been utilized for gaining information from persons of interest. It “refers to the use of various techniques designed to inflict extreme physical pain, psychological distress, or both” (Torture and Interrogation Techniques). Its goal is to strike fear, punish for crimes, or collect important information. In the past, torture during war spurred the Geneva Conventions, a sequence of treaties that established global laws, prohibiting the act of torture on prisoners of war. Even though these laws forbid the use of torture, some countries still “reserve the right to use torture in special circumstances” (Torture and Interrogation Techniques). During World War II, intelligence agencies in the west established advanced interrogation methods to more efficiently extract confessions and information from prisoners of war. Since the “war on terrorism” started in the early 1990s, these techniques have been increasingly utilized in the U.S., especially after the terrorist attacks on September 1, 2001. Now, the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) has been executing more enhanced interrogations in order to gather intelligence to prevent any possible future attacks. Yes, if interrogations are performed on terrorists, society deems it as reasonable, so as to prevent terroristic mass destruction or disruption. But sometimes the United States’ soldiers face these issues overseas. When people think of these soldiers, fighting for their country, their rights, and their families, facing cruel treatment from terrorists, the last thing their relatives want to think about are their sons or daughters being beaten for information. Because of this, the community thinks this form of interrogation is inhumane and unjust.
An example of torture being inhumane is the interrogation of teenagers. According to Barry C. Feld’s study on juveniles, these youths are supposedly treated just like adults, despite psychologists’ doubts that juvies actually possess the ability to “function on par with adults” (Feld 222). Unfortunately, not much is known about the interrogation of juveniles. Police departments hesitate at the thought of allowing researches into their interrogation rooms. The concerns about confidentiality of human subjects make it harder to obtain any information concerning this interrogation. Aside from this, a case was studied with fourteen and fifteen-year-olds, and it was determined that these youths were not the equivalent of adults. Now, approximately a dozen states require a parent or interest adult to be present while the police interrogate the teenagers as a prerequisite to a valid Miranda waiver. The fact that these youths need an adult present just adds to the fact that juveniles should not be interrogated with the equality of an adult. They need to able to exercise their rights, and if an adult is not there, they cannot do so.
Another reason torture should not be allowed is that the people who are brutally interrogated carry this around for the rest of their lives. Usually, after an intense torture, the subject is prone to posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. By definition, PTSD “is a term for certain severe psychological consequences of exposure to stressful, highly traumatic events” (Leave No Marks). In this event, victim experiences repetitive flashbacks and nightmares, impaired judgement, destabilized life functions, and weakened health. An examination of prisoners who had been exposed to cruel treatment revealed that even with a minimum period of imprisonment, all subjects suffered beatings and blunt force trauma, and 69-92% experienced posttraumatic stress disorder. PTSD really is terrifying disorder to live with, as it disrupts the victim’s lifestyle, possibly leading him or her to suicide. This is another reason torture should not be allowed; it constantly brings back terrifying memories, haunting the victim for an indefinite amount of time.
Because of this unjust interrogation, persons of interest may feel led to give false confessions, which is another reason torture should not be legalized.
From the psychological point of view, if the pressure is high enough, an innocent person may “remember” a crime he or she did not even commit. Even Barry C. Feld’s study states that “a confession is compelled, provoked, and manipulated from a suspect by a detective who has been trained in a genuinely deceitful art.” He admits that detectives manipulate their subjects’ minds to cooperate and give a confession. Along with this data, one way detectives obtain information is by presenting false data, misrepresenting facts, and lying (Feld 221). Detectives do this to make the suspect think that something has happened, even if it is really has not, or vice versa. When the person of interest believes this false statement, he might confess, though it may not be true. He may confess because he thinks that the detectives expect any confession and will not let him go until he gives them some sort of information. In this case, the person of interest, who is under tons of stress, will invent some story to appease the detective. Because this sort of interrogation places the suspect under a lot of stress, society believes that it should not be …show more content…
exercised.
An alternative for torture in undercover work.
And while this is manipulation, it is usually a much safer technique than brutally beating the person of interest. This is kind of technique, called a sting operation, is used to catch a suspect committing or confessing to a crime. The most popular technique in undercover work is called the “Mr. Big Technique”. Though there are different procedures based on the agency, there are consistent themes. To begin the operation, the suspect “is befriended by an undercover police operative who may ‘meet’ the suspect while in custody or at a place of employment” (Smith, Stinson, Patry). After the meeting, the operative spends a lot of time with the suspect, slowly building a friendship and earning trust. Then the undercover policeman introduces the suspect to a gang (undercover policemen) where they all perform basic tasks: counting money or looking-out for cops. In return, the suspect earns large amounts of money (up to several thousand per week). Later, the operative updates the suspect on their gang being promoted within the organization, “but a condition of that promotion is a meeting with the Big Boss, or ‘Mr. Big’” (Smith, Stinson, Patry). The condition: the suspect must confess to a crime. Theoretically, it provides the organization with information to use as a blackmailing evidence if necessary. Occasionally, the suspect is told that whatever the crime he confessed to will be “taken care of”, or the evidence will be destroyed so the police will never discover the truth. So in order to secure the promotion, the suspect must confess to the crime, which is stealthily recorded by the police. There was one case where once the suspect confessed to his crime, another gang member confessed to his own crime. Yes, there are flaws in this technique, such as false confessions that can taint evidence, but it is the much safer route than torture. Even the Royal Mounted Canadian Police agrees that this is a method they will continue to
use in the future. Though this “Mr. Big” technique can be complex (involving up to 50 operatives) and expensive (costing up to $400,000), it has been proved affective by 75% successes.
On the other hand, some authorities believe it is necessary to torture suspects in order to gain much needed information. It is crucial for them to use as much force as necessary to gain that evidence, regardless of how much it affects the subject. Feld states that if a detective is “deprived of the ability to question and confront suspects and witnesses, [that] detective is left with [sometimes very little] physical evidence…without a chance for a detective to manipulate a suspect’s mind, a lot of bad people would simply go free.” From this perspective, if the poking and prodding of suspects’ minds were not allowed, criminals would be free to walk the streets.
Based on this information, I believe torture should not be utilized in the process of acquiring information. No, it is not right to torture juveniles; while they might have committed a crime as severe as an adult’s crime, they are only teenagers and should not be brutalized in such a way. In addition to juvenile cruelty, the people who are tortured carry the experience and memory with them in the future, constantly haunting them. Plus, if people are pressured enough, they might just be willing to give a false confession, which does not help the police at all. Fortunately, an alternative for torture is undercover work, or a sting operation, where undercover operatives attempt to catch the suspect committing or confessing to a crime. While society thinks it is an inhumane technique, authorities trust that it is the most reliable method to relinquish information from subjects. And while I do respect the detectives’ methods, I do wish they would understand that these suspects are human. Everyone makes mistakes. Overall, torture is a technique used since the beginning of ancient times, and though it is used to gain information from suspects, there are reasons that cause anomalies in the data cause by torture.