Is Torture Ever Right ?

[beecee]

53 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

... without having caught him red-handed, which does not apply in any of these scenarios where the person in custody is required to provide information regarding their crime.

Stop trying to get out from under. Your claim was, that we can never know if anyone was 100% guilty. You have just given a reason why your claim is false...caught red-handed. Thank you.

53 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Stepping outside the house and crossing the road have different consequences; stepping outside the front door and stepping outside the 15th storey window have different consequences. 

You are doing it again. You know, trying to get out from under. You have yourself agreed that the lesser wrong is one you may chose and implement. *sheesh* 

53 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Exactly why it's the police officer who has to take responsibility: the father can't think straight.

There you go for the third time. We are talking about if everything else has failed, and which you have yourself admitted you may also do.

53 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

A few years ago an old lady in Florida awoke to heard an intruder entering her room. She grabbed her gun and shot her grandson. There are dozens of these. 

People under the influence of strong emotion are not entirely rational, their actions are unpredictable, the long term consequences of those actions are unforeseeable. There has to be a steady, sober, uninvolved adult in charge. 

Sad for the old Granny. I would make sure though that the intruder face the manslaughter charges and every consequence possible, without mercy.

The old bloke I spoke of, got off scott free, as he deserved.

57 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Some humans don't deserve the rights that most others do.

As sad and as distastful as that is, it is also true.

Let's make things more interesting. Let's look at TheVat's scenario of the mad bomber who has hidden a nuclear or other large explosive device in the middle of a city, where your whole family resides, as well as thousands of others. Are we going to consider the mad bomber's rights? Are we going to treat him to the letter of the law? Obviously the probabilty will always exist that no matter what we do, within or outside the strict guidelines of the law, it all may fail. But havn't we got a duty to try eveything possible including outside those guidelines, whether emotionally contrived or otherwise?. Thousands of people are waiting on your decision!

53 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

People under the influence of strong emotion are not entirely rational, their actions are unpredictable, the long term consequences of those actions are unforeseeable. There has to be a steady, sober, uninvolved adult in charge. 

I would say that it would be rather rare to find anyone that is not emotionally involved in the above scenario. The only obvious "long term consequences"are the death of thousands.  And of course you have already admitted you may do what you see as the lesser of two evils. Although in the above case, I see one evil consequence (the killing of thousands)  and one duty morally bound decision.( doing whatever it takes to find where the bomb is hidden)

Edited February 9, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Your claim was, that we can never know if anyone was 100% guilty.

Under what? Where did I say can never know about anyone? The scenario in the example is contrived and very unlikely to occur in real life, where we actually make ethical decisions. The situation you cited where the perpetrator of a crime was caught in the act obviously doesn't apply here. The turnaround for forensic DNA test in Canada is one two three days; in the US, two weeks to six months. Unless the perpetrator had been caught on video actually committing the crime, you'll have to wait for proof.  

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

You have yourslef agreed that the lesser wrong is one you may chose and implement.

Yes, might choose a lesser wrong. Not this greater one you advocate.  

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

We are talking about if everything else has failed,

You were. I've got competent cops out searching with dogs, questioning witnesses, checking street cam footage, canvassing the neighbourhood, flashing suspect photos at people.  

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

and which you have yourselg admitted you may also do.

Not once. Not ever. Under no circumstances.

If I'm running the investigation, the parents are kept in their home, under close scrutiny by sympathetic officers, gently prompted for possibly relevant background information, are given warm beverages and updates whenever some progress is made. They have nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with the police work. The father is too volatile, unpredictable, has no training in interrogation; he would screw it up; we'd lose the kid, the case and the whole shebang.

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Sad for the old Granny. I would make sure though that the intruder face the manslaughter charges and every consequence possible, without mercy.

Oh, fer sure! Just as soon as he's out of hospital. It's her 7-year-old grandchild.

Better throw away that key!

1 hour ago, beecee said:

the mad bomber who has hidden a nuclear or other large explosive device in the middle of a city,...... But havn't we got a duty to try eveything possible including outside those guidelines, whether emotionally contrived or otherwise?. Thousands of people are waiting on your decision!

I don't know the details of that one.(At least I don't have to deal with distraught parents with iron bars!) I would do whatever I believed in the circumstances that I needed to do, within my capabilities. But I wouldn't ask, or allow, someone else to carry out any illegal or immoral action that I might decide is necessary.  

Edited February 9, 2022 by Peterkin

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Putting someone in prison is not equivalent to torture. Let's not confuse different forms of punishment.

There's no confusion. I replied to the previous poster who said " law, and civilized life, would be in peril if we formally define classes of people who don't deserve the human rights that the rest do."   So my post was about the fact that we already formally classify people who don't deserve the human rights that we do. 

And we do so in their millions. You damage other people, you don't get your human rights. That's the principle, and we are forced to do it by the actions of some people. THEY are to blame for it, not the people who are  forced to react.  

[zapatos]

32 minutes ago, mistermack said:

There's no confusion. I replied to the previous poster who said " law, and civilized life, would be in peril if we formally define classes of people who don't deserve the human rights that the rest do."   So my post was about the fact that we already formally classify people who don't deserve the human rights that we do. 

And we do so in their millions. You damage other people, you don't get your human rights. That's the principle, and we are forced to do it by the actions of some people. THEY are to blame for it, not the people who are  forced to react.  

Okay. I guess I just didn't see 'incarceration for a crime' as a loss of human rights. But I guess that is another thread.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Under what? Where did I say can never know about anyone? The scenario in the example is contrived and very unlikely to occur in real life, where we actually make ethical decisions. The situation you cited where the perpetrator of a crime was caught in the act obviously doesn't apply here. The turnaround for forensic DNA test in Canada is one two three days; in the US, two weeks to six months. Unless the perpetrator had been caught on video actually committing the crime, you'll have to wait for proof.  

I answered that much earlier. What if the child's hair/DNA was found on his person? or worse still, under his finger nails? Of course we can be bloody well sure he was involved in the kidnapping.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

  Yes, might choose a lesser wrong. Not this greater one you advocate.  

No, as I agreed with you. I chose the lesser wrong, whether myself or the Father, as long as all other means had failed.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

 You were. I've got competent cops out searching with dogs, questioning witnesses, checking street cam footage, canvassing the neighbourhood, flashing suspect photos at people.  

We are talking, (1) about certain of his guilt as I have explained, and (2) all other means and processes having been undertaken.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Oh, fer sure! Just as soon as he's out of hospital. It's her 7-year-old grandchild.

Better throw away that key! 

OK, I misunderstood. I was thinking along the lines of the grandson being shot instead of the intruder. You are saying they were one and the same. Yep a tragic set of circumstances and a one off.  See, its really not that hard to admit error is it? I feel for the Granny and hope her Grandson pulls through, and she is treated with utmost compassion by the authorities, as she is also a vicitm of the high probable crime rate within her area. Off course we are talking about a society that is literally mad with the thought/s of gun ownership rights also. That doesn't exist in my country.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I don't know the details of that one.(At least I don't have to deal with distraught parents with iron bars!) I would do whatever I believed in the circumstances that I needed to do, within my capabilities. But I wouldn't ask, or allow, someone else to carry out any illegal or immoral action that I might decide is necessary.  

You don't know the details? Start reading the posts then...plus I gave the relative details, the mad bomber who has hidden a nuclear or other large explosive device in the middle of a city,...... But havn't we got a duty to try eveything possible including outside those guidelines, whether emotionally contrived or otherwise?. Thousands of people are waiting on your decision! (first raised by TheVat)

Quick Peterkin, thousands of people are waiting on your ethical decision!

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

But I wouldn't ask, or allow, someone else to carry out any illegal or immoral action that I might decide is necessary.  

On the situations being discussed, I would have no problems asking someone else ( who more then likely feels the same way as I do, and has his/her number one concern with the child that was kidnapped, or the thousands of people in danger of being blown out of existence) to try and get that relative information, rather then myself. Reason? I hate the sight of blood and am likley to faint! 🤭

(and yet I have donated 76 pints of blood at the Sydney Red Cross centre) Long as I don't see it, they can do whatever they like to me...even don't watch when I have a jab or vaccination.

 

Edited February 9, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

23 minutes ago, beecee said:

I was thinking along the lines of the grandson being shot instead of the intruder. You are saying they were one and the same.

She heard a noise, thought an intruder was coming in, shot before she looked. I was saying that people make tragic mistakes when they take drastic action without thinking.

 

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

the mad bomber who has hidden a nuclear or other large explosive device in the middle of a city,....

Isn't exactly detailed information. These "thought-experiments" are made up to have only two facets, instead of the 68 or so a real crime has. I don't make life-and-death decisions on a hunch, or a layman's diagnosis of the mental illness of an anonymous stranger, or a cardboard mock-up. Nobody does. 

People in the field - any field - deal with the complex, various, messy situations they have to confront, one situation at a time, one decision at a time, based on all the hundreds of facts available to them in that moment, in that situations.

The only part of this question anyone can answer truthfully is "What do you believe to be to right/wrong?"

The only honest answer to "What would you do if...?"  is "I don't know." (Unless, of course, you have actually been in such situations and had to do something - but then you probably wouldn't discuss it in public.)

[Intoscience]

Who is doing the torturing is really irrelevant to the discussion. Having the Father doing the interrogation would be a poor choice for a number of different reasons; emotional state, lack of training, post traumatic stress... etc.

However I do understand that he may want to and why, since most who have children, especially young vulnerable children will stop at nothing to ensure their safety (myself included).  

Probably, if a possible real life scenario is to be used, the mad bomber one is a better choice.

The question remains, is there any situation when all  else fails where, regardless of law, that torture in an attempt to obtain a better overall outcome can be justified?

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

She heard a noise, thought an intruder was coming in, shot before she looked. I was saying that people make tragic mistakes when they take drastic action without thinking.

But you fail to consider the prospect of a real live intruder and the probable assault of an old Lady. Why is that? What is the crime/intruder rate where she lived? Yes tragic mistakes happen, but that probabilty is low. Again, since you also fail to offer any sympathies, all the best for the recovery of the Grandson, and a reasonable assessment by the Law, of the tragic accident by Granny. 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The only part of this question anyone can answer truthfully is "What do you believe to be to right/wrong?"

The only honest answer to "What would you do if...?"  is "I don't know." (Unless, of course, you have actually been in such situations and had to do something - but then you probably wouldn't discuss it in public.)

Ignoring your usual rant, the only "right" in the mad bomber situation is getting the info, by hook or by crook. (remember Peterkin, there are thousands of people depending on you) Seems you have failed them.

30 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

 Probably, if a possible real life scenario is to be used, the mad bomber one is a better choice.

Yes.

31 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

The question remains, is there any situation when all  else fails where, regardless of law, that torture in an attempt to obtain a better overall outcome can be justified?

Yes, Of course there is. When thousands of lives maybe at stake, most law enforcement officers would do what they can, and obviously have the support of the majority of the people in that city, and the country. Let's hope such a scenario will never happen.

 

3 hours ago, beecee said:

I answered that much earlier. What if the child's hair/DNA was found on his person? or worse still, under his finger nails? Of course we can be bloody well be sure he was involved in the kidnapping.

You failed to address that Peterkin.

[Intoscience]

31 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yes, Of course there is. When thousands of lives maybe at stake, most law enforcement officers would do what they can, and obviously have the support of the majority of the people in that city, and the country. Let's hope such a scenario will never happen.

I take the same stance and agree that there maybe extreme circumstances where torture (in my humble opinion) could be justified. There are others that disagree (their opinions).

I'm interested to hear the reasons why they disagree and what they may offer (if any) alternatives that would completely negate the use of torture no matter what the scenario.

In my simple mind, the survival of the mass far outweighs the suffering of the few. So in desperate times, where there is no other option left, and time is ticking, then extreme measures are justified. This is my reason for answering YES to the question.

I want to understand, and maybe even be convinced of the reasons, why the answer would be NO. 

 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Intoscience
spelling

[mistermack]

I find it hard to reconcile the multiple posts of "torture doesn't work" with my own situation. I know for a fact that I would give up the location of the bomb or the child very rapidly, just with a realistic threat of torture. It would have to be very extreme circumstances for me to actually let it get to the actual torture stage.

And I really believe that, I'm not just saying it. Am I unusually cowardly? If most people are like me, I would have thought that torture was highly effective in a high percentage of cases.

On the question of "how can we be sure of guilt?" you have the same problem with the death penalty. And that's why I'm against the death penalty as a law. But in certain cases, where certain criminals were executed, I can't help but think that the right thing happened, even though I don't agree with the law. 

The main problem with the death penalty is the legal system. You have some idiot judges, stupid juries, clever prosecutors, and some absolutely useless defence lawyers. Not to mention some crooked cops, capable of fabricating evidence. So I reluctantly say, don't execute anyone, in case one or two are innocent.

But the difference with this torture scenario is the consequences. In the case of the death penalty, we just have to pay to keep them in jail for years instead. In the case of the child or the bomb, we have to live with the fact of a tortured and murdered child, or millions of people blown to bits. And the fact is, if you are innocent, you can actually survive torture, and have a life. You can't survive execution.

 

 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

I find it hard to reconcile the multiple posts of "torture doesn't work" with my own situation. I know for a fact that I would give up the location of the bomb or the child very rapidly, just with a realistic threat of torture.

That's the reason torture doesn't work:

you'll say anything to avoid more pain, even if you're not guilty.

I'll do and say anything to find more pain.

How can the torturer tell the difference?

It's only in Hollywood that, the good guy's can stoicaly endure the pain for the greater good and the bad guy's can only give it out, but can't take it.

Edited February 9, 2022 by dimreepr

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Who is doing the torturing is really irrelevant to the discussion. Having the Father doing the interrogation would be a poor choice for a number of different reasons; emotional state, lack of training, post traumatic stress... etc.

I don't agree at all. The only way, imo, that you make torture effective even in the extreme scenarios we've been talking about is to have a professional torturer, someone who could be effective (if that's possible) and still retain their sanity, if such a "person" exists. How can the choice of torturers be irrelevant when you then assert that the father would be "a poor choice for a number of different reasons"?

[zapatos]

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That's the reason torture doesn't work:

you'll say anything to avoid more pain, even if you're not guilty.

I'll do and say anything to find more pain.

How can the torturer tell the difference?

It's only in Hollywood that, the good guy's can stoicaly endure the pain for the greater good and the bad guy's can only give it out, but can't take it.

Citation?

All the data being shown here is related to extremists, the military, people believed to be extremists, etc. Where is the data on torture regarding people like you and me? If there is none then how can we make the claim that it doesn't work on people like you and me? How much torture is someone willing to endure to avoid giving up the location of their car keys?

There doesn't seem to be the data to support the blanket claim that torture doesn't work.

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

is to have a professional torturer, someone who could be effective (if that's possible) and still retain their sanity

 

[Prometheus]

On 2/7/2022 at 5:23 PM, zapatos said:

I wasn't aware there was evidence that torture did not work in any circumstances. Did I miss something?

Neither is there evidence that torture will work 100% in the very particular scenarios given here.

 

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Citation?

All the data being shown here is related to extremists, the military, people believed to be extremists, etc....

I'm starting to think no one followed the links to the abstracts i gave, because they include data other than from these circumstances.

 

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

I find it hard to reconcile the multiple posts of "torture doesn't work" with my own situation....

Again, incredulity is a poor substitute for evidence. 

Why not simply change the premise of the OP to include the assumption that the torture will certainly work as intended, or work with probability x. You already have one unrealistic constraint regarding certainty that no innocent person is tortured, why not add another to keep the hypothetical scenario 'pure'.

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Citation?

All the data being shown here is related to extremists, the military, people believed to be extremists, etc. Where is the data on torture regarding people like you and me? If there is none then how can we make the claim that it doesn't work on people like you and me? How much torture is someone willing to endure to avoid giving up the location of their car keys?

There doesn't seem to be the data to support the blanket claim that torture doesn't work.

This a joke, right?

 

[Peterkin]

6 hours ago, beecee said:

But you fail to consider the prospect of a real live intruder and the probable assault of an old Lady.

 

6 hours ago, beecee said:

Yes tragic mistakes happen, but that probabilty is low.

 Better be on the safe side and shoot a few relatives than risk being assaulted by burglar? No, the probability is quite high. In a culture of guns, accidental shooting of family members is common.  You can't calculate the probability without collecting the information: that's just guess-work. Criminal investigation and prosecution can't rely on guess-work: you have to take the trouble of collecting all possible information, rather than just beat any old statement out of a prisoner.

 

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The question remains, is there any situation when all  else fails where, regardless of law, that torture in an attempt to obtain a better overall outcome can be justified?

That depends entirely on who does the justifying and what their moral tenets are. Whether another person - more to the point, 12 other persons - accepts their justification will determine their fate. Whether they convince themselves will determine the quality of their sleep. 

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I want to understand, and maybe even be convinced of the reasons, why the answer would be NO. 

It will never be unanimous. Some people have more absolute standards of morality - at least in theory - while others are pragmatic on a statistical basis - at least in theory. We have each explained our position. 

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

The main problem with the death penalty is the legal system.

The main problem with any law, code, standard, principle or directive is the people who apply it.  

 

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

In the case of the child or the bomb, we have to live with the fact of a tortured and murdered child, or millions of people blown to bits.

Again, it's only in the contrived imaginary example that torturing the prisoner is a guarantee of getting  accurate information in time to stop the negative event. The kid might already be dead before your captive was brought in, or while you were exhausting all those other avenues. The member of the terrorist cell you captured may not know where his co-conspirator finally left the bomb, or when it's set to go off, or how to disarm it. He may deliberately been given false information and left as a decoy, or might lie of his own accord for the cause. You might get there just in time to be blown up with the other people, or waste time and resources hunting down false leads.

In the very best case, extracting information from such a source in such a manner is chancy.  Of course it would be tried in desperation by many, probably most, agencies. But as policy, it sucks.

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

And the fact is, if you are innocent, you can actually survive torture, and have a life.

Probably.... That's not guaranteed, either.  None of the sequelae or long-term effects are known or knowable when the decision is taken.

39 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Where is the data on torture regarding people like you and me?

In Syria, China, Cambodia, Argentina, Ireland.... the Vatican archives....

Edited February 9, 2022 by Peterkin

[Intoscience]

44 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I don't agree at all. The only way, imo, that you make torture effective even in the extreme scenarios we've been talking about is to have a professional torturer, someone who could be effective (if that's possible) and still retain their sanity, if such a "person" exists. How can the choice of torturers be irrelevant when you then assert that the father would be "a poor choice for a number of different reasons"?

I asserted that the father would be a poor choice for the reasons I stated, and also likely to be less effective and it's less likely to be a constructive outcome, than if a "professional" was employed. It's not relevant to the question asked in the OP.

The question is, is torture ever right? in other words is there any situation, any at all, where torture can be justified.

In extreme circumstances the effectiveness of torture (if employed) would be crucial to the outcome and could save many innocent lives. The question is, is there no scenario where the sanity of the torturer and the suffering of the criminal might be a small sacrifice to make if the outcome is successful? 

There seems to be a number of people who believe that torture should never, under any circumstances, be employed regardless of the risk. I'm interested in understanding this stance and the justification for it.

 

       

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

How can the torturer tell the difference?

We're straying into the obvious here. You immediately send a team to the address where the child is supposed to be. Or where the bomb is supposed to be. And make sure that the torture subject knows that that will happen. Your are at least doing your best. If it doesn't work out, at least you tried. 

I have relatives in London. No way would I just let a nuke go off, without trying torture as a last resort, just to preserve the human rights of some obnoxious scumbag. 

But of course, I wouldn't make it legal. 

[zapatos]

47 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Neither is there evidence that torture will work 100% in the very particular scenarios given here.

 

I never made that claim.

42 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

This a joke, right?

No.

31 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

In Syria, China, Cambodia, Argentina, Ireland.... the Vatican archives....

Can you please provide it?

 

[Intoscience]

27 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That depends entirely on who does the justifying and what their moral tenets are. Whether another person - more to the point, 12 other persons - accepts their justification will determine their fate. Whether they convince themselves will determine the quality of their sleep. 

It will never be unanimous. Some people have more absolute standards of morality - at least in theory - while others are pragmatic on a statistical theoretical basis. We have each explained our position. 

 Again, it's only the contrived imaginary example that torturing the prisoner is a guarantee of getting the accurate information in time to stop the negative event. The kid might already be dead before your captive was brought in, or while you were exhausting all those all other avenues. The member of the terrorist gang you captured may not know where his co-conspirator finally left the bomb, or know where, but when it's set to go off, or how to disarm it. You might get there just in time to be blown up with the other people, or waste time and resources hunting down false leads.

There seems to be a lot of if's, but's and maybe's, most which are only relevant to each individual scenario and not really relevant to the crux of the matter.

Regardless, I'll reiterate, All other lines of enquiry, actions, plans, attempts have failed. Time is now seriously of the essence, there is nothing left to lose, people are going to die, torture is now really the only last ditch attempt at rescue.

Would you employ this tactic?

If not, state your reasons for why not? for example:

Because torture is statistically not very effective? Because the outcome is not likely to be positive anyhow? Because its immoral and all people have the same rights and should be treated accordingly no matter what? Because its barbaric and should not be employed by a civilised society?... 

[Phi for All]

21 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

The question is, is torture ever right? in other words is there any situation, any at all, where torture can be justified.

I hope it's been shown that you can devise a scenario in which people are painted into a corner that makes torture seem like a valid solution to the problem. Considering how many hoops you need to jump through to make it seem justified, perhaps this is a signal that torture doesn't align itself well with modern humanity. After all, we're slowly realizing that slaves were actually people who were kidnapped and enslaved, so maybe there's something undeniably wrong about torturing another person that we're not realizing... yet.

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

That's the reason torture doesn't work:

you'll say anything to avoid more pain, even if you're not guilty.

I'll do and say anything to find more pain.

How can the torturer tell the difference?

It's only in Hollywood that, the good guy's can stoicaly endure the pain for the greater good and the bad guy's can only give it out, but can't take it.

If torture doesn't work then why is it employed at all? Why are the special forces operatives taught and trained to employ and endure torture? Seems like a waste of time and resource if your statement was true.

Torture may not be effective the vast majority of the time (I don't know the stats), but when things get desperate then statistics become irrelevant, because even the slightest chance in a "no hope" situation is better than doing nothing.

Desperate times may call for desperate measures. 

[Peterkin]

7 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

There seems to be a lot of if's, but's and maybe's, most which are only relevant to each individual scenario and not really relevant to the crux of the matter.

That may be because none of your interlocutors have actually been on either side of that scenario.

 

9 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Would you employ this tactic?

As I have said - repeatedly: If. But. Maybe. It depends. I do not know.

 

10 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Because torture is statistically not very effective? Because the outcome is not likely to be positive anyhow? Because its immoral and all people have the same rights and should be treated accordingly no matter what? Because its barbaric and should not be employed by a civilised society?... 

All of the above. And i still don't know whether I would, or could, carry it out.

 

23 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Can you please provide it?

Not easily. Amnesty International has a lot of stats and case studies, but we can't know how many more they didn't discover. It's easier to get records from the US - this is just law-enforcement agencies, dealing with ordinary citizen criminals, not military or spy agencies.

[Prometheus]

3 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

If torture doesn't work then why is it employed at all?

That is covered in one of the psychology papers i linked to. Seems to boil down to belief perseverance.