1 of 21

No

Write now Article Tools

The use of torture as an interrogation technique is both unjustified and misguided. Morally, it is a blatant example of expediency: the convenient but erroneous idea that "the end justifies the means", which could be used to justify practically any vile behaviour if it were valid.

Legally, interrogation under torture violates the excellent principle, long accepted in Western legal systems, that suspects should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. By torturing a suspect to extract information, the interrogator is effectively assuming they are guilty and that putting them under physical duress will induce them to confess or give up other incriminating information. This is directly contrary to the "right to remain silent" which arrested suspects in the UK enjoyed until quite recently (and which they retain today with the proviso that their silence may be interpreted by a jury to their disadvantage).

Historically, interrogation under torture takes us back to medieval practices like trial by ordeal - according to wikipedia, "a judicial practice by which the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined by subjecting them to a painful task. If either the task is completed without injury, or the injuries sustained are healed quickly, the accused is considered innocent". The logic behind such trials was that God would protect the innocent by performing a miracle to rescue them from the ordeal. It's not clear that defenders of torture today believe that God will rescue the innocent - instead, they seem to assume that the innocent would never find themselves under this type of interrogation anyway, so their hypothetical suffering can be disregarded.

Some people think these kinds of objections and historical comparisons are high-minded and far-fetched, and that they fail to recognize the reality of the threats that we face today from terrorism. I disagree, but be that as it may, there is a problem with interrogations under torture that is absolutely inescapable. Confessions extracted under torture are unreliable.

People who are disoriented or in pain, suffering from sleep deprivation or lack of food, are likely to be confused and rambling at best. They are also highly motivated to say whatever it is they think their interrogators want to hear, in order to obtain relief from the torture. And this is assuming they are prepared to cooperate.

A person subjected to continuing and inescapable physical punishment may have a complete mental breakdown - or if they are made of stronger stuff, they may cope by developing a powerfully hostile attitude to their interrogators. In that case, they will close down communication and focus their energies on survival and resistance.

Suspects subjected to torture have little incentive or opportunity to explain accurately or in detail to their interrogators what really happened before their arrest. If the interrogators have got things wrong (which is entirely possible, even if the suspect is far from innocent), using torture effectively entrenches the errors: the suspect is pushed to their limits so that they either cave in and agree to the interrogators' version of events, or alternatively deny everything and verbally abuse the interrogators.

None of this helps with the discovery of the truth or the administration of justice. Frankly, it is corrupt, it encroaches on all of our rights and freedoms as citizens, and it turns Western governments from defenders of justice and democracy into proponents of "Might is Right".

Learn more about this author, Eleanor Scott.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Is the use of torture as an interrogation technique ever justified??
We want to hear your view. Write now!