1

Running head: AGINST USE OF TORTURE

The Case against the Use of Torture

Martha Nowacki
Loras College
 2
AGAINST USE OF TORTURE
The Case against the Use of Torture
There are several definitions used to explain torture. According to most people, torture is

defined as the deliberate or intentional infliction of pain on another person. A more specific

explanation of torture, used by the World Medical Association, defines it as deliberate,

systematic or “wanton” infliction of physical or psychological pain on someone, completed by

one or more people on the basis of acting alone or orders from an authority figure. Torture is

used in order to force an individual to release information, make a confession, or for any other

reason. The United Nations definition of torture is more restrictive, lending added specifics:

torture inflicts severe physical or mental pain/suffering, is deliberate in nature, and is used for a

number of reasons, including but not limited to obtain information or a confession from the

person who is being tortured or from someone else not being tortured, to punish the person being

tortured or another person for wrongdoing (suspected or has done), to intimidate or put pressure

on the person or another person, and for any reason based on “discrimination” (BBC, 2014). The

common set of themes among these definitions presents torture as intentional, physically or (and)

mentally painful, and used for a variety of reasons.

Along with the definitions of torture being relevant, the methods used are also

noteworthy in order to gain a complete understanding on just how destructive torture is. Some of

the techniques that are known to have been used by the CIA after high-value target individuals

were captured include, box confinement, cold water dousing, threats of violence, and sleep

deprivation. During box confinement, individuals are restricted in their movement. The Busch

administration approved box confinement in the case of Abu Zubaydah, who explained that this

type of torture restricted his breathing and reopened wounds. Cold water torture is fairly

straightforward—the individuals are doused with cold water during interrogations and in the case
 3
AGAINST USE OF TORTURE
of Walid bin Attash, are wrapped in plastic after being drenched, their bodies rid of clothing

while wrapped. The kinds of threats used are diverse, some including severe violence, while

others include sexual assault either against the detainee or his family. Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri

said that during interrogation he was told that he would have to watch his mother be sexually

assaulted in front of him. He also was threatened with a gun pointed at his head. Lastly, sleep

deprivation consists of keeping detainees awake for up to a week and when they start to fall

asleep they are sprayed with water. Sleep deprivation is used frequently, 11 out of 14 detainees

interviewed by the International Committee of the Red Cross reported being subjected to this

type of torture (Laughland, 2015). Despite the continued use of various methods of torture by

interrogators such as the CIA, this does not justify its use. Torture is both ineffective and

unethical, which is supported by research. Therefore, under no circumstances should torture be

used by any organization, group of people, or single person.

First and foremost, torture should never be used under any circumstance, because no

evidence exists that explains torture as an effective means for getting reliable information.

Coercive strategies are simply not effective interrogation tools for gaining intelligence as well as

cooperation (Costanzo, Gerrity, & Lykes, 2007; Bell, 2008; Lowth, 2017). Specifically,

interrogation is used if it is presumed that the suspect under investigation is lying or is holding

back vital information. Torture is utilized when interrogators are certain that the suspect is lying,

however there is a considerable amount of research explaining that trained interrogators are not

accurate in distinguishing if a suspect is lying or not (Costanzo, et al., 2007). Often, the civilian

authorities and military officers who make the decisions about torture and interrogation are

rarely knowledgeable about interrogation. The individuals with the most knowledge about

interrogation are ranked too low in the military hierarchal system to have a say in decision
 4
AGAINST USE OF TORTURE
making which puts power in the wrong hands (Janoff-Bulman, 2007). Along with the lack of

knowledge about interrogation, prejudice may also affect the decision to use torture or not.

Prejudice may lead interrogators to target individuals based on physical appearance, ethnicity, or

stereotypes in regards to the behavior of suspects. Situational factors have an influence in

deciding to use torture as well. These factors can overwhelm the “better” impulses of accusers,

causing them to resort to cruelty. The presence of an authority figure, in this case the accuser, as

well as the power dynamics that exist between the two groups (prisoners and guards—detainees

and military leaders) influence individuals into taking the harsh role of authority or the more

powerful.

Survivors of torture point to another important force in the ineffectiveness of torture: that

they would have said anything just to make the experience end (Costanzo et al., 2007).

According to a personal account of a British detainee captured in Afghanistan, he was in such

pain that telling the authorities what they wanted to hear was the only ticket out of more

punishment. “I was in extreme pain from the frostbite and other injuries, and I was so weak I

could barely stand. I was freezing cold and shaking and shivering like a washing machine.

Finally, I’d agreed I’d been at Tora Bora” (Tora Bora being an area where Al Qaeda fought)

(Bell, 2008, p.348). Therefore, false confessions are easy to elicit. Interrogation by torture results

in fear, stress, and pain of the suspect, presumably breaking them into giving information, even if

the information is incorrect. The harsh and correctional behavior, on the part of the interrogator,

encourages lies instead of the truth. Not only does the pain of torture force suspects into agreeing

with the interrogators, but the fear, stress, and pain undermine the brains executive functions,

like recall and cognition, negatively affecting the memory (Lowth, 2017). Even if the suspects

were involved with a criminal act, they most likely would not be able to give the truth due to
 5
AGAINST USE OF TORTURE
memory failures in the brain. The only time that torture is useful in gaining confessions is when

the facts do not matter to the interrogators, but the facts always matter when trying to point the

interrogators in the right direction (Bell, 2008).

Instead of using torture, a coercive technique, noncoercive information gathering

approaches of interviewing have been seen to be most effective and efficient in securing

information (Goodman, Martschuck, & Dhami, 2014). If people are actively listened to, they are

more likely to reveal genuine accounts of memory. Questioning strategies that increase

truthfulness include developing rapport, asking about events in reverse order, maintaining eye

contact with the suspect, and including questions that are irrelevant to the case at hand (Lowth,

2017). These social strategies, such as rapport building, prompt earlier disclosures of information

from suspects. Also, interviews conducted in a comfortable setting are associated with increased

disclosures by detainees of “incriminating” information. Lastly, being neutral and respectful in

regards to the practitioners or accusers resulted in confessions and admitting of fault (four times

as likely compared to when this did not happen) (Goodman, et al., 2014). Thus, using more

effective forms of information seeking procedures, which result in accurate accounts, should be

used instead of coercive, torturous methods, which result in invalid responses, laced with lies.

Secondly, torture should never be used, because it is unethical across many fronts.

According to a statement made by the American Psychological Association (APA), any form of

torture, at any place, time, and for any reason is unethical for psychologists and goes against

being a member of the APA. The APA went on to argue that there is no defense to torture. No

exceptional circumstances whatsoever defend or justify the use of torture, whether it be war,

threat of war, political instability, public emergency, organizational demand, etc. (APA, 2009).

Specifically, torture goes against the ethical principles and code of conduct that psychologists
 6
AGAINST USE OF TORTURE
must abide by. If psychologists ignore their responsibility to the code of ethics, their job/title

could be at stake. For example, Principle A explains that psychologists must take care to do no

harm to others in their work, Principle B states that psychologists need to establish relationships

built on trust with those they work with, and Principle E says that psychologists must respect the

dignity and worth of all people no matter what. The ethical standards included in the code of

ethics apply as well, such as standard 3.04—avoid harm (APA, 2002).

Many different health professionals including psychologists are directed not only under

the code of ethics but under international and inter-professional codes and organizational

resolutions. Psychologists in the United States are to observe a wide range of

international/national treaties, conventions, and laws that prohibit the use of torture, including

US law and resolutions such as the bill of rights and the constitution. Overall, when looking at

the US specifically, the acceptance and (or) use of torture undermines the credibility of the US

when trying to advocate for human rights and the humane treatment of people abroad (this

includes the military and law enforcement) (Costanzo, et al., 2007). In regards to physicians,

specific prohibitions are in place that deter them from being involved in torture situations. In

1975, the World Medical Association (WMA) adopted the Declaration of Tokyo, which forbids

physicians from participating in torture: “The doctor shall not countenance, condone or

participate in the practice of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading procedures,

whatever the offence of which the victim of such procedure is suspected, accused or guilty, and

whatever the victim's belief or motives, and in all situations, including armed conflict and civil

strife…” (Murphy & Johnson, 2004, p.421). Along with other statements and positions that have

been made by the WMA, the association recommends that national medical associations make

sure that physicians entering their country answer allegations of torture before they are able to
 7
AGAINST USE OF TORTURE
practice medicine. This also encourages associations to report any evidence of involvement in

torture to the authorities (Murphy & Johnson, 2004). What all of these procedures are doing,

whether directed toward psychologists or physicians, is claiming that since torture is unethical,

things need to be put into place in order for health care workers to follow/understand.

Torture results in numerous psychological impacts on survivors, which connects back to

the notion that torture is unethical. Psychological impacts include Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

(PTSD) (it is somewhat hard to apply the Western based diagnostic material to people of other

cultures/countries, but PTSD is mostly an adequate description of the effects of torture, still all

survivors will not fit the exact diagnosis and it only captures a limited number of aspects

concerning mental problems of survivors—“complex trauma” has been proposed as a term to use

instead), elevated rates of depression, anxiety, adjustment problems (outbreaks of anger and

violence directed toward family members), uncertainty about the future—whether or not they

will be sent back to the country in which they were tortured, sleep disorders, nightmares, trouble

with memory and concentration, as well as personality changes (De C Williams & Van Der

Merwe, 2013; Hardi & Kroo, 2011). Survivors also report social and physical negative impacts,

such as a deep distrust in others and being less physically healthy compared to other individuals

in their community who have not been tortured (De C Williams & Van Der Merwe, 2013; Kira et

al., 2006). Along with these negative outcomes, risk factors are present that predict higher levels

of distress for individuals who have been tortured. Risk factors include social isolation, poverty,

unemployment, institutional accommodation, pain, and the lack of a close social support (De C

Williams & Van Der Merwe, 2013). When looking at the effects of torture on the torturer, one

impact is common with survivors, being PTSD. The torturers also experience symptoms of

burnout with continued exposure to administering torture (Dee, 2017). In looking at all of the
 8
AGAINST USE OF TORTURE
negative outcomes of torture for the survivor, one can see why this practice is so unethical. These

very effects could also factor into why torture is ineffective in gaining accurate information. If

symptoms start setting in while the suspect is still in “custody”, this could only make the

information they release that much less accurate, which is why other forms of noncoercive

tactics should be made use instead.

Those who oppose the view that torture is ineffective and unethical would claim that

torture is justified due to their group sometimes using the practice. People are psychologically

motivated to believe that their group is good and just, so by having knowledge that their own

group uses torture, they will be more inclined to see it as okay. Torture, in the opposing sides

view, is justified through group use. Results of a study including participants from Britain and

the US confirm this—participants who learned that their own country used torture compared

with when a member of the other country used torture, viewed torture as being morally justified.

People on the opposing side, claiming that torture is okay because one’s own nation/group uses

it, would also present a lack of empathy and pronounced blame for the victim tortured by their

group (Houck & Repke, 2017).

However, the claim that torture is justified through one’s group using it is based on bias

towards that individual’s in-group. Individuals tend to favor their group (in-group) over the other

group (out-group). Cognitive dissonance theory can also be used in order to explain why people

come to think this way about torture. When an individual becomes aware that there are

inconsistencies between beliefs, attitudes, or actions, they experience an unpleasantness, or

discomfort. The automatic response is to get rid of the discomfort, which explains why people

change their beliefs about torture and the suspect as they get closer in proximity to the torture

taking place. A study found that “people’s perceptions of guilt are connected with their degree of
 9
AGAINST USE OF TORTURE
closeness to the suspect being tortured. In particular, when participants were placed in the role of

the prison staffer (close to the torture), they were more likely to assume the suspect being

tortured was guilty compared with when they were assigned to the role of radio listener (more

distant from the torture)” (Houck & Repke, 2017, p.279). In other words, people were justifying

the use of torture/accepting the suspect as guilty, in order to relieve unpleasant feelings about

what was going on, which arise from cognitive inconsistencies. If someone knows that their own

nation uses torture on suspects, this may cause discomfort to arise due to inconsistencies, causing

them to change their beliefs so that they are in line with what their group is doing and so that

they relieve the discomfort (Houck & Repke, 2017).

Another claim that those who oppose the view that torture should never be used because

it is ineffective and unethical might say that extreme coercion= ultimate compliancy. Using harsh

techniques, in their view, are a must because “soft” techniques are inappropriate and take too

much time. They claim that extreme coercion makes suspects confess, and that the long history

of torture has shown that it terrorizes populations, producing desired information/behavior. Since

“evil others” are being dealt with, relationship building techniques as opposed to torture are not

okay—the suspect should be tortured. The ticking time bomb scenario is used as well to explain

the pressures of time, in that the scenario involves an imminent catastrophe and the need for

obtaining information now in order to prevent the catastrophe. This is why torture works in the

opposing eyes—since time is limited, and establishing rapport with detainees is time consuming

(and inappropriate), torture is the best method (Janoff-Bulman, 2007).

However, none of these points made by the opposing side are accurate. Torture only

produces desired behavioral effects—the detainee will do what the torturer says in order to avoid

negative consequences. Effectiveness in gaining accurate intelligence is not supposed to be

 10
AGAINST USE OF TORTURE
measured by behavioral compliance, but by the reliability of the information provided. The entire

point or aim of interrogation is to produce reliable, accurate accounts, but it does the complete

opposite. Torture is counterproductive and unreliable, producing misinformation, misdirection,

and lies, whereas techniques of rapport are successful in gaining information. In regards to the

ticking time bomb scenario that is often used to justify torture, this framework is nonexistent

outside of TV and movie realms. If the ticking time bomb scenario was representative of reality,

the use of torture and its inaccurateness would prevent success, causing the catastrophe to occur.

Lastly, human bias in judging cause and effect is behind the notion of harsh punishments for

harsh enemies. The more destructive the enemy is, the more likely the goal of interrogation is

revenge and punishment. Therefore, control seems to be the main focus of torture techniques,

failing to acquire the truth (Janoff-Bulman, 2007).

Despite the opposing side’s effort in trying to explain the usefulness of torture, research

overrules the counterarguments. Torture is ineffective: research shows that torture is not a good

technique for gaining accurate/reliable information from detainees or suspects, the pain of torture

effects memory in a negative way, and providing misinformation in order to stop the torture is

common place as well as easy to do. Torture is also unethical based on ethical codes of conduct,

statements, declarations, conventions, etc. The psychological and physical pain on both the

detainee (especially) and the torturer attests to its unethicalness. The arguments used in favor of

torture are based on biased beliefs in regards to the effectiveness of the torture method. Research

suggests that rapport and relationship building techniques are effective (the counter resulting

from a human bias in judgement) and that the ticking time bomb scenario is faulty. Because of

the facts supporting the ineffectiveness and unethical qualities of torture, it should not be used

under any circumstance and by any person.

 11
AGAINST USE OF TORTURE
 12
AGAINST USE OF TORTURE
 13
AGAINST USE OF TORTURE
References

APA (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. APA, 57(12), 1060-1073.

APA (2009). APA ethics committee statement: No defense to torture.

https://www.apa.org/ethics/programs/statement/torture-code.aspx.

BBC. (2014). Definitions of torture. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/torture/law/definitions.shtml.

Bell, J. (2008). Behind this mortal bone": The (in)effectiveness of torture," Indiana Law Journal,

83(1). http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol83/iss1/8.

Costanzo, M., Gerrity, E., & Lykes, M. B. (2007). Psychologists and the use of torture in

interrogations. Analysis of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7(1), 7-20.

De C Williams, A. C., & Van Der Merwe, J. (2013). The psychological impact of torture. British

Journal of Pain, 7(2), 101–106. doi: http://doi.org/10.1177/2049463713483596.

Dee, M. (2017). Effect of torture on the torturer. The University of Utah.

https://www.law.utah.edu/effect-of-torture-on-the-torturer/.

Goodman, D. J., Martschuk, N., & Dhami, M. K. (2014). Interviewing High Value Detainees:

Securing Cooperation and Disclosures. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 883–897.

https://doi-org.ezproxy.loras.edu/10.1002/acp.3087.

Hárdi, L., & Kroó, A. (2011). The trauma of torture and the rehabilitation of torture

survivors. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 219(3), 133-142. doi:

http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.loras.edu/10.1027/2151-2604/a000060.
 14
AGAINST USE OF TORTURE
Houck, S. C., & Repke, M. A. (2017). When and why we torture: A review of psychology

research. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3(3), 272-283. doi:

http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.loras.edu/10.1037/tps0000120.

Janoff-Bulman, R. (2007). Erroneous assumptions: Popular belief in the effectiveness of torture

interrogation. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 13(4), 429-435. doi:

http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.loras.edu/10.1080/10781910701665766.

Kira, I. A., Templin, T., Lewandowski, L., Clifford, D., Wiencek, P., Hammad, A., & Al-haidar,

A. (2006). The effects of torture: Two community studies. Peace and Conflict: Journal of

Peace Psychology, 12(3), 205-228.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.loras.edu/10.1207/s15327949pac1203_1.

Laughland, O. (2015). How the CIA tortures its detainees. https://www.theguardian.com/us-

news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-methods-waterboarding-sleep-deprivation.

Lowth, M. (2017). Does torture work? Donald Trump and the CIA. The British Journal of

General Practice, 67(656), 126. doi: http://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X689701.

Murphy, T. F. & Johnson, P. J. (2004). Torture and human rights: Participation in acts of torture,

despite the approval of government agency, places physicians in a morally compromised

position. Virtual Mentor, 6(9), 420-423. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2004.6.9.oped1-

0409.
 15
AGAINST USE OF TORTURE