False Confessions: How effective is torture?

False Confessions: How effective is torture?

Torture has been used for centuries as a means of coercing information from people. Even American detectives and investigators use certain interrogation tactics to make one uncomfortable enough to give up information. However, the information given may not be as accurate as it seems at first glance. The information retrieved from people during interrogations may be falsified due to the stress the person is put under.

Saul Kassin writes about the different kinds of falsified confessions. He writes that there are three main types: voluntary, compliant, and internalized (Kassin). Voluntary confessions are just that, those that are given freely by innocent people without prompting from authority figures. Compliant confessions are those given to remove oneself from an uncomfortable situation, or avoid some kind of punishment. Internalized false confessions, Kassin writes, are those given by highly vulnerable individuals under severe stress from interrogation techniques (Kassin). He also states that 20-25 percent of those exonerated from crimes actually confessed to committing the crime.

Investigations put so much faith into the information they gain from interrogations; however this information is in some cases far from the truth. The stress that one is put under during interrogations can cause them to make up stories or, as stated before, confess to crimes they did not commit. Interrogations can even to so far as to cause people to create false memories for the crimes in which they did not commit. Henkel and Coffman write that in experimental trials, confessions proved to be the greatest influence on conviction rates, and are more powerful than eyewitness testimonies and character witnesses (Henkel and Coffman).

Interrogation tactics and torture are clearly effective in putting the mind and the body into uncomfortable situations and gaining information. But the effectiveness of these techniques is completely put into question when the stress of the situation gives false information. False confessions leads to innocent people being punished or even executed for crimes they did not commit.

In the broader scheme of things, torture is an ineffective tactic on prisoners or war. Not only is the act of harming an individual to try and obtain information morally questionable, it lacks the support to prove it is a reliable source of information. They may gain information, but the information is likely to be inaccurate and even fabricated within the mind of the individual due to the stress they have been put through.

Coffman, Kimberly J., and Linda A. Henkel. "Memory Distortions in Coerced False Confessions: A Source Monitoring Framework Analysis." Applied Cognitive Psychology 18.5 (2004): pp.567-588.
Kassin, Saul M. "False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform." Current Directions in Psychological Science 17.4 (2008): 249-53.

Torture in War

We began discussing in class whether torture during a war was acceptable and, if commited, who should be punished for the acts. Judging by comments in class, I am sure most of you will disagree with me on the topic of torture. However, it is necessary to hear both sides of an argument to fully understand your own opinion. I believe that torture can be an effective strategy in a time of war.

We have all heard the saying, "All is fair in love and war," and I completely agree with those words. War is not a fun experience, it is not fair, or gentle; war is brutal. When someone is captured in a time of war, I would feel safer at home knowing that our soldiers are doing everything necessary to get any information that they can out of these prisoners. If they need to torture someone to get critical information that could help the war, then by all means torture should be used. Don't get me wrong, I would hate for our soldiers to be tortured, but our soldiers are not forced into joining the war forces. They know exactly what they are getting themselves into by joining the army or the marines, etc. Our soldiers are valiant and brave, not stupid; they know what can happen to them. As an example, John McCain knew that during war time there was the possibility of capture and torture. Both of which, he endured.

"A new study suggests that abuse of prisoners of war is widely condoned by many veterans, and possibly by many in the military today. Even rape of a prisoner was judged acceptable by more than half of the 351 participants in the study," (Holmes). This study may or may not surprise you. Eighty-four percent of the veterans in the study agree that many forms of torture are acceptable during war (Holmes). These are the men and women who have experienced war first hand and know what it is like. Citizens back home do not have the same experiences and therefore, can not judge the acceptability of any act during war. Only those who are in the midst of such can begin to understand the need for such drastic measures.

What is worse, mass murder or torture? "Torture and inhumane treatment may be wrong, but mass murder is worse, so the lesser evil must be tolerated to prevent the greater one" (Twisted Logic). Let us look at the Ticking Time Bomb Scenario (Uelmen); Military personnel have captured a terrorist that has placed a bomb in a huge metropolitan area. He says there is not enough time to evacuate the city before he activates the bomb. Military personnel know from past experience that through torture they can get information out of the terrorist. Would you rather they torture the terrorist to get the information to find the bomb and deactivate it, or would you prefer them to be humane and let the entire metropolitan city be blown to pieces?

Torture can be very effective during war. We can gain information we would not have been able to without it. Torture is not the same as killing; torture can heal. War is a terrible thing, and there is no way to keep wars humane. Yet, if being tortured is an alternative, it may prevent many soldiers from being murdered needlessly. During drastic times such as war times, we often need to take drastic measures. Torture may be one of those drastic measures.

Works Cited

Holmes, William C.. "Would You Condone Torture in War?." ABC News 14 Feb 2007 1-3. 25 Nov 2008 .

"The Twisted Logic of Torture." Darfur and Abu Ghraib Jan 2005 1. 25 Nov 2008 .

Uelmen, Amy. "Torture and the Ticking Time Bomb." Living City 31 July 2006 7-9. 25 Nov 2008.

America: Home of the Free Because of... Torture?

The Bush Administration's Use of Torture is Increasing Anti-Americanism Abroad

We remember the photographs. While the politicians tried to blame six soldiers for the torture of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib, it is clear that, far from being an isolated event, the use of torture is a widespread occurrence that is not the work of rank-and-file soldiers but is a policy held by the administration. The United States use of torture is doing nothing but fostering animosity towards the United States.
According to Major General Antonio M. Taguba, "Interrogating prisoners and getting intelligence, including by intimidation and torture, was the priority" (Hersh). However, the prisoners held at Abu Ghraib are mostly innocent civilians. Most are picked up during random sweeps by the military or at checkpoints (Hersh).
After these innocent civilians are tortured they are then released, with a grudge against the United States for the undeserved punishment that they endured. According to one U.S. army sergeant, "If he's a good guy, you know, now he's a bad guy because of how we treated him" (Human Rights Watch 5). The soldiers stationed at Forward Operating Base Mercury are referred to as "the Murderous Maniacs" by Fallujah residents because of how they treat Iraqi prisoners. The soldiers were proud of this title and considered it a "badge of honor" (Human Rights Watch 1).
The mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners is not degrading the image of the United States in just Iraq: it is affecting peoples' opinion all over the globe. A poll done by the Arab American Institute (AAI) concluded that "the main reason for rising anti-Americanism was opposition to its foreign policy" (Dawoud). Six Arab nations were polled by the AAI, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, United Arab Emirates, Jordon, and Lebanon, and the overall approval ratings varied between two percent and twenty percent. One of the topmost concerns of those surveyed was "Ameria's treatment of Arabs and Muslims" (Dawoud).
The United States sanctioning the use of torture on Iraqis is fueling the very movement that we are trying to fight. This policy need to be changed before it will be too late to redeem our reputation abroad, before we have more enemies than we do friends.

Sources
Dawoud, Khaled. "Arab Opinions." YaleGlobal Online. 30 July 2004. Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. 4 Nov. 2008 .

Hersh, Seymour M. "Torture at Abu Ghraib." The New Yorker 10 May 2004. The New Yorker. 10 May 2004. 15 Oct. 2008 .

"Leadership Failure." Human Rights Watch 17 (2005): 1-28.