4 ms·

The ancient Artha Shastra had an interesting take on this. Thanks to its time period, it advocated torturing suspects during interrogations (of limited duration

by ummonk 7y ago

The ancient Artha Shastra had an interesting take on this. Thanks to its time period, it advocated torturing suspects during interrogations (of limited duration). However, due to the near certainty of false confessions in such an interrogation, it instructed the interrogator to attempt to obtain knowledge through the torture that only the guilty could have, such as the location of stolen property or murder weapons.

Steve44 7y ago
This is basically the 'ticking bomb' scenario isn’t it. If the question was to keep torturing until “was Mr Bloggs a part of the meeting” is a yes then that is pretty much not valid as the subject will likely say anything to stop it. To find the location of bomb going off in 30 minutes is a very different matter as it’s a clear true or false question with a very direct answer.
- sorokod 7y ago
  No it isn't. It is information that may be difficult to obtain but trivial to verify.
maxxxxx 7y ago
I have read that good interrogators will do that without torture. They will check the information they are getting against facts that can be checked. From what I have read about innocent people that got convicted most of these convictions relied on “evidence” where nobody made the effort to sanity check the information and see if it really makes sense.
- simonh 7y ago
  Also check for the consistency of the person's story. Lying is stressful and you have to remember details you have invented and that don't match your own memory. This is difficult to keep straight, especially over an extended period.
  - itronitron 7y ago
    Memory is malleable and false memories can be created in people's minds even when they know it is happening. If the police are showing pictures and telling a narrative then that will eventually be adopted as the person's memory.
    - barrkel 7y ago
      That's exactly right and I don't know why people would downvote it unless they've never had it happen to them. I remember having a quite nasty accident as a kid, but actually it happened to my friend, and I only found out many years later when recounting it. I've had some similar episodes while drunk, but not as extreme as that one.
      - sharkweek 7y ago
        I have a memory as a young kid watching a spaceship launch in person. I even told my first grade class about it during show and tell time or something. I remember this because the teacher corrected me, suggesting maybe I watched something on TV (probably true). I live in the PNW and have never been near a spaceship launch but to this day it feels kind of like a real memory. It seems that over time it’s pretty easy to write false memories into our real memories.
  - rzzzt 7y ago
    Psychological questionnaires also make use of this: turn a page or two, and you might find the same question get asked a second time.
  - rcxdude 7y ago
    While true, people also make honest mistakes. While this is a very different context, I have played a lot of mafia (AKA werewolves) online, and often the liars are the ones who have gone to great lengths to make sure their story checks out. Innocents are often more likely to be accidentaly inconsistent, because they are not trying to keep their story straight.
- jasonhansel 7y ago
  I wonder if this is part of why police officers (on podcasts etc.) often decline to discuss details of, say, unsolved crime scenes. They need to make sure that some arbitrary details aren't made public, so that they can later prove a confession is real.
pryce 7y ago
Besides the ethical implications of using torture at all (especially those who do not the criteria for being convicted), I am deeply skeptical that any organization could simultaneously: * use torture of prisoners to obtain confessions (true or otherwise) * still respect the rights of those prisoners enough to refrain from planting evidence in line with those confessions
- naniwaduni 7y ago
  It doesn't have to be about respecting the rights of the prisoners if you think it's bad enough to have the real culprit run free because you got the wrong person and thought you were done.
stordoff 7y ago
> it instructed the interrogator to attempt to obtain knowledge through the torture that only the guilty could have This (AIUI) is currently used in Japan (without the torture). It's not a cast-iron guarantee against false confessions: > Article 38 of Japan's Constitution categorically requires that "no person shall be convicted or punished in cases where the only proof against suspect is his/her own confession," In practice, this constitutional requirement take a form of safeguard known as "revelation of secret" (Himitsu no Bakuro, lit "outing of secret"). Because suspects are put through continuous interrogation which could last up to 23 days as well as isolation from the outside world, including access to lawyers, both the Japanese judiciary and the public are well aware that confession of guilt can easily be forced. Consequently, the court (and the public) take the view that mere confession of guilt alone is never any sufficient ground for conviction. > However, most miscarriage of justice cases in Japan are, indeed, the results of conviction solely based on the confession of the accused. In these case, (1) the record of sequence and timing of the police discoveries of evidence and the timing of confession is unclear (or even faked by the police) (2) the contents of the revelation of secret has only weak relevance to the crime itself or that (3) the revelation of secret to be actually vague enough that it is apply only loosely to the elements of crime (Prosecutor's fallacy). Serious miscarriage of justice cases in Japan involve police deliberately faking the police evidence (and insufficient supervision by the prosecutor to spot such rogue behaviour) such as where the police already knew (or suspected) the location of the body or the murder weapon but they fake the police record to make it appear that it is the suspect who revealed the location. During the 1970s, a series of reversals of death penalty cases brought attention to the fact that some accused, after intensive interrogation signed as-yet unwritten confessions, which were later filled in by investigating police officers. Moreover, in some cases, the police falsified the record so that it appear that the accused confessed to the location where the body was buried, yet the truth was that the police had written in the location in the confession after the body was discovered by other means. These coerced confessions, together with other circumstantial evidence, often convinced judges to (falsely) convict. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system_of_Japan#Confession_in_Japanese_criminal_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system_of_Jap...
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago

by ummonk 7y ago

Steve44 7y ago

This is basically the 'ticking bomb' scenario isn’t it. If the question was to keep torturing until “was Mr Bloggs a part of the meeting” is a yes then that is pretty much not valid as the subject will likely say anything to stop it. To find the location of bomb going off in 30 minutes is a very different matter as it’s a clear true or false question with a very direct answer.

sorokod 7y ago
No it isn't. It is information that may be difficult to obtain but trivial to verify.

maxxxxx 7y ago

I have read that good interrogators will do that without torture. They will check the information they are getting against facts that can be checked. From what I have read about innocent people that got convicted most of these convictions relied on “evidence” where nobody made the effort to sanity check the information and see if it really makes sense.

simonh 7y ago
Also check for the consistency of the person's story. Lying is stressful and you have to remember details you have invented and that don't match your own memory. This is difficult to keep straight, especially over an extended period.
- itronitron 7y ago
  Memory is malleable and false memories can be created in people's minds even when they know it is happening. If the police are showing pictures and telling a narrative then that will eventually be adopted as the person's memory.
  - barrkel 7y ago
    That's exactly right and I don't know why people would downvote it unless they've never had it happen to them. I remember having a quite nasty accident as a kid, but actually it happened to my friend, and I only found out many years later when recounting it. I've had some similar episodes while drunk, but not as extreme as that one.
    - sharkweek 7y ago
      I have a memory as a young kid watching a spaceship launch in person. I even told my first grade class about it during show and tell time or something. I remember this because the teacher corrected me, suggesting maybe I watched something on TV (probably true). I live in the PNW and have never been near a spaceship launch but to this day it feels kind of like a real memory. It seems that over time it’s pretty easy to write false memories into our real memories.
- rzzzt 7y ago
  Psychological questionnaires also make use of this: turn a page or two, and you might find the same question get asked a second time.
- rcxdude 7y ago
  While true, people also make honest mistakes. While this is a very different context, I have played a lot of mafia (AKA werewolves) online, and often the liars are the ones who have gone to great lengths to make sure their story checks out. Innocents are often more likely to be accidentaly inconsistent, because they are not trying to keep their story straight.
jasonhansel 7y ago
I wonder if this is part of why police officers (on podcasts etc.) often decline to discuss details of, say, unsolved crime scenes. They need to make sure that some arbitrary details aren't made public, so that they can later prove a confession is real.

pryce 7y ago

Besides the ethical implications of using torture at all (especially those who do not the criteria for being convicted), I am deeply skeptical that any organization could simultaneously: * use torture of prisoners to obtain confessions (true or otherwise) * still respect the rights of those prisoners enough to refrain from planting evidence in line with those confessions

naniwaduni 7y ago
It doesn't have to be about respecting the rights of the prisoners if you think it's bad enough to have the real culprit run free because you got the wrong person and thought you were done.

stordoff 7y ago

> it instructed the interrogator to attempt to obtain knowledge through the torture that only the guilty could have This (AIUI) is currently used in Japan (without the torture). It's not a cast-iron guarantee against false confessions: > Article 38 of Japan's Constitution categorically requires that "no person shall be convicted or punished in cases where the only proof against suspect is his/her own confession," In practice, this constitutional requirement take a form of safeguard known as "revelation of secret" (Himitsu no Bakuro, lit "outing of secret"). Because suspects are put through continuous interrogation which could last up to 23 days as well as isolation from the outside world, including access to lawyers, both the Japanese judiciary and the public are well aware that confession of guilt can easily be forced. Consequently, the court (and the public) take the view that mere confession of guilt alone is never any sufficient ground for conviction. > However, most miscarriage of justice cases in Japan are, indeed, the results of conviction solely based on the confession of the accused. In these case, (1) the record of sequence and timing of the police discoveries of evidence and the timing of confession is unclear (or even faked by the police) (2) the contents of the revelation of secret has only weak relevance to the crime itself or that (3) the revelation of secret to be actually vague enough that it is apply only loosely to the elements of crime (Prosecutor's fallacy). Serious miscarriage of justice cases in Japan involve police deliberately faking the police evidence (and insufficient supervision by the prosecutor to spot such rogue behaviour) such as where the police already knew (or suspected) the location of the body or the murder weapon but they fake the police record to make it appear that it is the suspect who revealed the location. During the 1970s, a series of reversals of death penalty cases brought attention to the fact that some accused, after intensive interrogation signed as-yet unwritten confessions, which were later filled in by investigating police officers. Moreover, in some cases, the police falsified the record so that it appear that the accused confessed to the location where the body was buried, yet the truth was that the police had written in the location in the confession after the body was discovered by other means. These coerced confessions, together with other circumstantial evidence, often convinced judges to (falsely) convict. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system_of_Japan#Confession_in_Japanese_criminal_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system_of_Jap...

AnthonyMouse 7y ago