ATTENTION:
BEFORE
YOU READ THE CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPIC BELOW, PLEASE READ THE
INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!
INFORMATION:
YOU CAN
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COSTS N5,000
ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE
BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08168759420
TORTURE AS A
MEANS OF OBTAINING RELIABLE INFORMATION FROM CRIME SUSPECT
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
Governments
sometimes characterize torture as an indispensable interrogation tool for
gathering strategic intelligence. In this article, we review the relevant
social scientific research on the effectiveness, impact, and causes of torture.
First, we summarize research on false confessions and examine the relevance of
that research for torture-based interrogations. Next, we review research on the
mental health consequences of torture for survivors and perpetrators. Finally,
we explore thesocial-psychological conditions that promote acts of cruelty
(suchasthoseseen at Abu Ghraib) and examine the arguments typically offered to
justify the use of torture. We argue that any hypothesized benefits from the
use of torture must be weighed against the substantial proven costs of torture.
These costs include the unreliable information extracted through interrogations
using torture, the mental and emotional toll on victims and torturers, loss of
international stature and credibility, and the risk of retaliation against
soldiers and civilians.
Torture is
one of the most extreme forms of human violence, resulting in both physical and
psychological consequences. Torture has been used for thousands of years, and
is still widespread, occurring throughout much of the world (Amnesty
International, 2009). Research has shown that torture can have enduring
negative effects on both survivors and perpetrators, and is ineffective for
obtaining reliable information in interrogation. Although many international
laws and codes have been established to prohibit torture, its widespread use
continues as part of internal
conflicts
within nations, as well as in international conflicts. The issue of torture has
most recently stirred debate with respect to interrogation practices used by
the United States.
In 2003, the
world was stunned by a series of photographs of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib
prison in Iraq. These photos, taken by U.S. soldiers on cell phones and digital
cameras, depicted prisoners subjected to cruel and humiliating treatment at the
hands of U.S. troops. In one photo, a handcuffed, terrified prisoner is shown
cornered by a snarling military dog straining against its leash. In many
photos, naked prisoners had been forced to lie on top of one another in a pile
or to simulate sexual acts. Several pictures show naked, hooded inmates
handcuffed in painful positions to beds and cell bars. Some inmates have
bleeding wounds; others appear to have wires attached to their bodies (Hersh,
2004). Some photos were especially disturbing because they show soldiers (both
men and women) posing next to the abused prisoners, grinning or giving “thumbs
up” signs, appearing to take sadistic pleasure in the abuse. In responding to
the outcry created by the photos, soldiers explained that they had been
instructed to “soften up” prisoners for more systematic interrogation (Scherer
& Benjamin, 2003).
At present
the United States is engaged in what it has termed the "Global War on
Terror." In this effort many prisoners are taken by the US and its allies.
Clearly some percentage of these prisoners may hold information which has the
potential to: 1) prevent (or lessen the impacts of) terrorist acts against
civilians; 2) prevent terrorist acts against military targets; 3) provide the
means to break up the terrorist network(s); 4) provide the means to disrupt
terrorist command and control activities. Similar situations may exist in many
other areas of the world, such as Chechnya or Israel, where a recognized
government is "at war" with terrorist organizations.
The
governments or occupying powers hold an asymmetric relationship with the groups
they are fighting. Decisions of the governments will be unilateral and any
concessions toward humane treatment will not necessarily be reciprocated by the
terrorist groups.
This paper
does not directly examine issues of whether the detention of prisoners is
justified, but rather the conduct of interrogation sessions and whether the use
of torture in those sessions is ever justifiable.
1.1.1 Definitions
Dictionary
definitions:
Interrogate:
verb: 1 : to question formally and systematically [1]Torture: noun: 2 : the
infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish,
coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure verb: 1 : to cause intense suffering to :
TORMENT 2 : to punish or coerce by inflicting excruciating pain [2]
Other
definitions:
[from 18 USC
113C Section 2340 US Anti-Torture Act]
(1) "torture" means an act committed
by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended toinflict severe
physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental
to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical
control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering"
means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (A) the intentional
infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or
application, or threatened administration or application, of mindaltering
substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death;
or
(D) the threat that another person
will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain orsuffering, or the
administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures
calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;
From the UN
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment: For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture"
means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is
intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or
a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a
third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating
or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of
any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of
or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting
in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only
from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
The
definition of interrogate yields very little sense of the fact that subjects of
interrogation do not
generally
want to divulge information. Interrogators often utilize coercive techniques to
cause the subject to cede
the desired
information. These coercive techniques exist on a continuum from “direct
questioning” through “torture” and “death”.[3]
1.2 Statement of the problem
As early as
the third century A.D., the great Roman Jurist Ulpian noted that informationobtainedthroughtorturewasnottobetrustedbecausesomepeopleare
“so susceptible to pain that they will tell any lie rather than suffer it”
(Peters, 1996). This warning about the unreliability of information extracted
through the use of torture has echoed across the centuries. As one CIA
operative who participated in torture during the Vietnam War put it, “We had
people who were willing to confess to anything if we would just stop torturing
them” (Andersen, 2004, p. 3). Indeed, the Army Field Manual explains that
strategically useful information is best obtained from prisoners who are
treated humanely, and that information obtained through torture has produced
faulty intelligence (Leahy, 2005).
It is
important to acknowledge that torture may sometimes lead to the disclosure of
accurate information. That is, confronted with excruciating pain, some people
tell what they know. However, many survivors of torture report that the
truthful information they revealed was intentionally incomplete or mixed with
false information (Harbury, 2005). The goal was to appease the torturer, not to
reveal the truth. And, because the interrogators were not omniscient, they
could not discern which bits of information were true and which were false.
Misreading their victims, torturers often failed to recognize the truth and
continued to inflict pain. Victims continued to disclose, often fabricating
information to in an effort to stop the pain (Conroy, 2000; Haritos-Fatouros,
2003). Many survivors of torture report that they would have said anything to
“make the torture stop” (Mayer, 2005; McCoy, 2006). And, even in cases where
torture may have preceded the disclosure of useful information, it is
impossible to know whether less coercive forms of interrogation might have
yielded the same or even better results.
1.3 Aim of the study
The main aim
of this study is to evaluate torture as a means of obtaining reliable
information from crime suspects.
1.4 Significance of the study
Since the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the national and international public
debate over the use of torture in interrogations has focused on legal and moral
issues. Often overlooked is the psychology of torture and the substantial body
of empirical research relevant to the debate. This study summarizes that
empirical research and places the issue of torture in social-psychological
context. We begin by reviewing research on the psychology of coercive
interrogations and the problem of false confessions. Next, we summarize the
findings of research on the psychological impact of torture on victims and
perpetrators. Finally, we place the issue of torture in context by exploring
the situational factors that facilitate cruelty and the arguments used by
governments and individuals to justify the use of torture.
This study
will also benefit researchers and academicians carrying out research related to
this study.
[1]
“Interrogate.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary,
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/interrogate
[2]
“Torture.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/torture
[3]
Filarowski-Sheaks, Christina, Interrogation Policy & the Global War on
Terrorism, Presentation to Terrorism
Cybersecurity
Class, Berkeley, California, 30-Nov-2005
HOW TO GET THE FULL PROJECT WORK
PLEASE, print the following
instructions and information if you will like to order/buy our complete written
material(s).
HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERIAL(S)
After paying the appropriate amount
(#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to
08068231953 or 08168759420
(1) Your project
topics
(2) Email
Address
(3) Payment
Name
(4) Teller Number
We will send your material(s) after
we receive bank alert
BANK ACCOUNTS
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 0046579864
Bank: GTBank.
OR
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 2023350498
Bank: UBA.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:
08068231953 or 08168759420
AFFILIATE
Comments
Post a Comment