Psychology of mass violence/sadism and mass irrationality.

[zwzsg]

The threat of torture can be a form of psychological torture

Err, no, you got to draw the line somewhere, or else everything is torture and the word will lose its meaning.

[MidKnight]

The threat of torture can be a form of psychological torture

Err, no, you got to draw the line somewhere, or else everything is torture and the word will lose its meaning.

AAAAAAAAAAH STOOOP IT IT HUUUUUURTS YOUR POST HUUUUUURTS!!!!

...Does this mean we can ban people wHo p0st liek tihs on teh foramz on torture charges?

[dizekat]

its a pattern in psychos that they don't understand e.g. that it is more important in this particular case to know where the child is than to prosecute the criminal, they don't (and can't) understand why police did this (hint: NOT to win the case. Doing this they all had their asses on the line in a major way, and a risk of losing the case), etc etc.
Even if this violation 100% gets the criminal off the charges through appeals (and we can very well normally argue whenever it should or should not, or whenever threat of torture is torture), policemen, as human beings (not some psychopaths following some pseudo-moral ruleset blindly), had to do it, that's what any normal human being just understands.

Also, if threat of torture is torture, then threat of threat of torture must be torture too. "Hey, if you don't tell us where the kid is, we're going to inflict mental pain by telling you something scary".

It's ridiculous to nullify the word torture by expanding it to mean anything that's uncomfortable. There is perfectly good word to use - intimidation. Furthermore, in all the countries police routinely uses torture - sleep deprivation, rubber hose, etc. things far worse than intimidation (and arguably less effective). Police often beats up suspects, and gets away with it as long as it is not caught on camera.

[dizekat]

Also, I think the really bad thing that has to be eliminated from the law is confessions. Confessions should have zero legal value, not be presented to jury (unless confessed during trial), there should be no attempts made to obtain confessions for the purpose of proving guilt (in that case it was for the purpose of possibly saving child's life), etc. That, and plea bargains (which are nothing more than using a credible threat of risk of stronger punishment to obtain confession sufficient for lighter punishment). Police should not be allowed to even try to get a confession IMO.

[Neddie]

I drew the line somewhere, and I'm not nullifying the word in doing so.

While there is no clear measure of fear or social pressure, a certain amount of repetition, intensity or elaboration is, I feel, necessary to inflict significant psychological harm.

I define it as painful harm rather than mere discomfort, where harm is understood as lasting damage to the self. I am not alone in saying that there is such a thing as psychological torture. Torture as defined by the United Nations is "...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person..." I do not think suffering and pain are sufficiently defined in their definition, as both can be fleeting, incidental and/or consensual, but there we are. I personally feel that much of the harm resulting from "physical" torture is in fact primarily psychological itself - after all, waterboarding often leaves no lasting physical damage, the welts left by a belt fade over weeks, and the pain induced by current applied to the body generally ebbs away without lasting harm to internal organs.

[Gota]

Police should not be allowed to even try to get a confession IMO.[/quote]
That seems like a very complex subject.
I personally dont feel i have the tools and experience to tackle such a question with 100% confidence, do you?

[dizekat]

I drew the line somewhere, and I'm not nullifying the word in doing so.

While there is no clear measure of fear or social pressure, a certain amount of repetition, intensity or elaboration is, I feel, necessary to inflict significant psychological harm.

I define it as painful harm rather than mere discomfort, where harm is understood as lasting damage to the self. I am not alone in saying that there is such a thing as psychological torture. Torture as defined by the United Nations is "...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person..." I do not think suffering and pain are sufficiently defined in their definition, as both can be fleeting, incidental and/or consensual, but there we are. I personally feel that much of the harm resulting from "physical" torture is in fact primarily psychological itself - after all, waterboarding often leaves no lasting physical damage, the welts left by a belt fade over weeks, and the pain induced by current applied to the body generally ebbs away without lasting harm to internal organs.

Well that is all true, but the fear is not pain and intimidation is not torture. Rather than defining torture as to include intimidation, perhaps intimidation should be banned?

[dizekat]

Police should not be allowed to even try to get a confession IMO.

That seems like a very complex subject.
I personally dont feel i have the tools and experience to tackle such a question with 100% confidence, do you?

i somehow get a feeling that you're thinking along the lines that someone in the government has tools and experience to 'tackle' something like this, and can be trusted to tackle it.

[Regret]

Nobody is ever damaged. Only changed.

[bobthedinosaur]

I'm about to get mass violent on mod db idiots.

[Gota]

Police should not be allowed to even try to get a confession IMO.

That seems like a very complex subject.
I personally dont feel i have the tools and experience to tackle such a question with 100% confidence, do you?

i somehow get a feeling that you're thinking along the lines that someone in the government has tools and experience to 'tackle' something like this, and can be trusted to tackle it.

Not the "govenrmnet" just people who have been thinking about these issues for a long time and officials and invesestigators and pips related to the judicial system that have experiance with all thisand have insight about these processes and how effective or not they are....

[zwzsg]

I define it as painful harm rather than mere discomfort, where harm is understood as lasting damage to the self. I am not alone in saying that there is such a thing as psychological torture.

Oh I don't. Good torture method don't leave traces. And I make a clear distinction between physical pain (when your pain nerve are being activated), and mere mind trick (when you manage to talk someone into something using just words). I'd say torture is when your pain nervous system is overdriven for extended period of times (like hours), for no other reasons than cause suffering (and consequences).

[Neddie]

I make a clear distinction between physical pain (when your pain nerve are being activated), and mere mind trick (when you manage to talk someone into something using just words).

I'm still making the same distinction.

I'd say torture is when your pain nervous system is overdriven for extended period of times (like hours), for no other reasons than cause suffering (and consequences).

So you'd say torture depends upon the infliction of direct, tactile pain purely for the purpose of harm. I simply believe that you can achieve the same effects or express the same intent through psychological manipulation, often by use of other senses and faculties.

[knorke]

And I make a clear distinction between physical pain (when your pain nerve are being activated), and mere mind trick (when you manage to talk someone into something using just words)

"mind tricks" can be torture too! Soldiers can get trauma even if they were not personally hurt, fire fighter and other helpers often require help after an operation. And it is possible to use the same "triggers" to purposefully torture people.
ie mock exceutions. or making the prisoner believe that his family has been killed. Also sleep deprivation etc though is maybe bordering into the "physical pain" area.

[dizekat]

Well, as long as you're using confessions to jail people, there will be tricks. And there will probably be a great deal of torture.

The problem with tricks is that a lot of tricks can work just as well on innocent. E.g. "We have evidence that you killed John! We found your blood at the crime scene, and a few of your hair. But if it was a drunken fight, you can admit it now and receive lighter sentence of voluntary manslaughter". Now suppose you did not do it, but you trust this policeman and you imagine that someone framed you and you're totally going to go for murder and there is nothing you can do (a sufficiently evil cop can even suggest this possibility).
Also, it would be very psychologically damaging to go through this (discover on trial that policeman lied and you screwed up yourself), even though it isn't torture.