The fine line between interrogation and retribution

Carlsmith, Kevin M.; Sood, Avani Mehta

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.025

Cited by 70 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But terrorists may be presumed to be culpable of wrong-doing, and hence may be less likely to be targets of moral concern and more likely to be targets of retributive justice. The results of Carlsmith and Sood (2009) are consistent with the interpretation that torture is endorsed in TTB scenarios not so much because of its usefulness in extracting information but for its punitive nature. This is perhaps the most telling difference between the standard TTB and the vast majority of moral dilemmas used in psychological studies of moral judgment-the target of harm is presumed guilty of wrong-doing.…”

Section: Implicit Assumptions Underlying Utilitarian Structure Of Ttbsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…Carlsmith and Sood (2009) manipulated the likelihood that a suspect was withholding information that might prevent lethal attacks on soldiers and innocent civilians, along with the suspect's past history of involvement in terrorist-related activity. They found that participants recommended increasingly severe interrogation as the target's likelihood of knowledge increased.…”

Section: Implicit Assumptions Underlying Utilitarian Structure Of Ttbmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Ticking Time Bomb: When the Use of Torture Is and Is Not Endorsed

Spino

Cummins

2014

Rev.Phil.Psych.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although standard ethical views categorize intentional torture as morally wrong, the ticking time bomb (TTB) scenario is frequently offered as a legitimate counter-example that justifies the use of torture. In this scenario, a bomb has been placed in a city by a terrorist, and the only way to defuse the bomb in time is to torture a terrorist in custody for information. TTB scenarios appeal to a utilitarian "greater good" justification, yet critics maintain that the utilitarian structure depends on a questionable set of hidden assumptions. Three experiments were conducted to investigate endorsement of torture when these hidden assumptions were violated. In Experiment 1, results indicated that endorsement varied as a function of the success likelihood of torture and its alternatives. In Experiment 2, people found torture to be more acceptable, less wrong, and more obligatory when the suspect in custody was described as a "terrorist" than when he was described simply as an individual, and when he was described as culpable as opposed to innocent. These results are more consistent with retributive justice than utilitarian "greater good" concerns. The results of Experiment 3 indicated that utilitarian decision profiles were not associated with lower levels of empathic concern but were instead associated with personal distress and the ability to transpose oneself into a fictitious character's experience. Across the three experiments, deontologists were more likely to reject torture than utilitarians.

show abstract

Section: Implicit Assumptions Underlying Utilitarian Structure Of Ttbsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Implicit Assumptions Underlying Utilitarian Structure Of Ttbmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ticking Time Bomb: When the Use of Torture Is and Is Not Endorsed

Spino

Cummins

2014

Rev.Phil.Psych.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first question is an interesting one. Alison and Alison (2017) and Carlsmith and Sood (2009) have argued that one motivation is surely retribution with no real ambition to seek information at all. This notion emerged as long ago in the 16th century to justify the trial and execution of men, women and even children for witchcraft.…”

Section: E B a T Ementioning

confidence: 99%

Tortured Logic: Information and brutality in interrogations (with debate)

Schiemann¹

2018

Torture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Pragmatic arguments for interrogational torture rest on the twin assumptions that torture generates reliable information and that torture can be controlled and limited. Methods: I assess the claims of torture proponents by providing the intuition behind a game theoretic model of interrogational torture. Tracing out the logic of different combinations of possible interrogators and detainee types results in eight outcomes that can be compared to three claims made by torture proponents: that information will be predictably reliable, that the frequency of torture will be minimized, including no torture of innocents, and that the severity of torture can likewise be limited and controlled. Findings: Of the eight outcomes generated by the model, only two result in full information, but an innocent is tortured in both and in one the detainee providing information is tortured after having no more information to give. Moreover, these outcomes are only possible for an extremely restricted and empirically unlikely combination of circumstances. With respect to torture frequency, detainees are tortured in seven of the eight outcomes, including innocent detainees. The incentives facing interrogators also compel them to ratchet up their brutality in an effort to compel information. Discussion: The outcomes of a model of interrogational torture based on the proponent ideal violate the three conditions individually necessary to support that ideal: (1) information from torture is unpredictable and unreliable, with no information and false information far more Tortured Logic: Information and brutality in interrogations John W. Schiemann PhD* Key points of interest:Employs mathematical game theory to assess the pragmatic argument for interrogational torture, with the intuition behind the math presented here. Multiple real world uncertainties facing both interrogators and detainees mean that information from torture will be unreliable. These same uncertainties cause torture to exceed limits and controls imposed by torturers themselves, leading to slippery slopes of torture frequency and brutality. A rigorous logical examination supports historical, social scientific, psychological, and neurobiological evidence refuting the pragmatic argument for interrogational torture. S C I E N T I F I C A R T I C L Elikely than good information; (2) torture will be used more frequently-including against innocents-than control and limits permit; (3) torture will be more brutal than controls and limits allow. Conclusion: The only thing reliably effective about interrogational torture is its ability to generate slippery slopes of frequency and brutality, violating the basic premises of the pragmatic argument for interrogational torture.

show abstract

“…Choosing a hard interrogation style seems more an issue of retribution that efficiency. An experimental study conducted with a broad national sample of US residents found that the desire for harsh interrogation is largely isomorphic with the desire to punish, and that both effects are mediated by the perceived moral status of the target, but not the perceived effectiveness of the interrogation (Carlsmith & Sood, 2009). So, are we seeking information or revenge?…”

Section: S C I E N T I F I C a R T I C L Ementioning

confidence: 99%

Drawing the fine line between interrogation and torture: towards a Universal Protocol on Investigative Interviewing

Pérez–Sales¹

2017

Torture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interrogation is an essential component of a comprehensive view of torture and deserves special reflection. In interrogational torture, physical and psychological techniques serve the purpose of creating the physical, cognitive and emotional exhaustion in the detainee considered necessary for the successful questioning of a potential source of information. Interrogation can, at the same time, be conducted in a way that deepens the effect of torturing methods and environments when the interview is carried out in a way that fosters cognitive and emotional exhaustion, leading to breakdown (Pérez-Sales, 2016). Interrogations follow procedures and regulations, but in most countries there is a lack of transparency and information. Academia has only recently begun to do systematic research on interrogation and interviewing techniques (Walsh, Oxburgh, Redlich, & Myklebust, 2017; Intelligence Science Board, 2006; Meissner, 2012; Rassin & Israëls, 2014) to prove effects beyond personal opinions.

show abstract

The fine line between interrogation and retribution

Cited by 70 publications

References 18 publications

The Ticking Time Bomb: When the Use of Torture Is and Is Not Endorsed

The Ticking Time Bomb: When the Use of Torture Is and Is Not Endorsed

Tortured Logic: Information and brutality in interrogations (with debate)

Drawing the fine line between interrogation and torture: towards a Universal Protocol on Investigative Interviewing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About