by Gerhard Adam

Created on: June 14, 2008

While many of the discussions focus on the legalities or morality of torture, the answer to this question is actually much simpler. Where is the evidence that torture has produced quality intelligence?

Of course, that information would probably be classified, and consequently the poor track record that torture has experienced throughout history cannot be vindicated. So we are left with the task of assessing what the probability of reasonable results might be.

First, let's define torture as any activity that places mental or physical stress on an individual such that there is reason for them to fear permanent harm or damage will be done. Certainly if such damage occurs then the issue is resolved, but I will suggest that even the fear that such damage may occur is sufficient to qualify as torture with respect to the mental health of the victim.

While some may disagree with me, the simple test is whether the interrogation techniques employed would be viewed by an innocent party as ultimately being fair. They might be harsh and they might be aggressive, but would someone who was found innocent, look back on the experience and be able to say that they were treated fairly? If we don't consider this, then who draws the line between who the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are if their actions are indistinguishable.

Now let's consider what the resultant information obtained by torture might be like. Since we don't have such statistical data readily available, let's conduct a thought experiment. If we suppose that a particularly heinous act was committed, and we simply round up people at random, what would be the likelihood that we could obtain a confession? If there is ANY probability of this occurring, then we have a serious problem, because the true guilty party will have gotten away.

So, we can combine this with the probability that in our random "round-up" we also coincidently actually picked up the guilty party. In this case the problem is if we get more than one confession. Once again, the biggest bulk of the work will be involved in validating the information given and hoping that the interrogator didn't inadvertently (or otherwise) provide enough data to question the results obtained.

If we can validate the results then we can potentially claim success, however, we still have to rule out coincidence, so real evidence and proof would have to be obtained or everything is still suspect. The rules of evidence exist in the law because it was long recognized how easy it

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>