The “Good” Psychologist, “Good” Torture,and “Good” Reputation—Response to O’Donohue,Snipes, Dalto,Soto, Maragakis,and Im (2014) “The Ethics of Enhanced Interrogations and Torture”

O’Donohue et al. (2014) sought to derive, from classical ethical theories, the ethical obligation of psychologists to assist “enhanced interrogations and torture” (EIT) in national defense scenarios under strict EIT criteria. They asked the American Psychological Association to adopt an ethics code obligating psychologists to assist such EIT and to uphold the reputation of EIT psychologists. We contest the authors’ ethical analyses as supports for psychologists’ forays into torture interrogation when (if ever) the EIT criteria obtain. We also contend that the authors’ application of these ethical analyses violates the Geneva Conventions, contravenes military doctrine and operations, and undermines psychology as a profession. We conclude that “good” public reputation is not owed to, or expected by, “good” intelligence professionals, and collaborating operational psychologists must share their providence.     

问诊的诊断价值及其方法学探讨

问诊作为临床诊断的开始和方法,具有促进医患良性沟通、明确诊断、减少医疗纠纷和贯彻新医学模式的重要价值。问诊过程中,医生除了注重其技术性和程序性内容以外,更要坚持哲学的普遍联系、辨证发展、病人个体差异和巧用过渡性语言等思维方法。     

A utilitarian argument against torture interrogation of terrorists

Following the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, much support for torture interrogation of terrorists has emerged in the public forum, largely based on the “ticking bomb” scenario. Although deontological and virtue ethics provide incisive arguments against torture, they do not speak directly to scientists and government officials responsible for national security in a utilitarian framework. Drawing from criminology, organizational theory, social psychology, the historical record, and my interviews with military professionals, I assess the potential of an official U.S. program of torture interrogation from a practical perspective. The central element of program design is a sound causal model relating input to output. I explore three principal models of how torture interrogation leads to truth: the animal instinct model, the cognitive failure model, and the data processing model. These models show why torture interrogation fails overall as a counterterrorist tactic. They also expose the processes that lead from a precision torture interrogation program to breakdowns in key institutions—health care, biomedical research, police, judiciary, and military. The breakdowns evolve from institutional dynamics that are independent of the original moral rationale. The counterargument, of course, is that in a society destroyed by terrorism there will be nothing to repair. That is why the actual causal mechanism of torture interrogation in curtailing terrorism must be elucidated by utilitarians rather than presumed.     

The Fallacy of Many Questions: On the Notions of Complexity, Loadedness and Unfair Entrapment in Interrogative Theory

The traditional fallacy of many questions, also known as the fallacy of complex question, illustrated by the question, "Have you stopped sexually harassing your students?", has been known since ancient times, but is still alive and well. What is of practical importance about this fallacy is that it represents a tactic of entrapment that is very common in everyday argumentation, as well as in special kinds of argumentation like that in a legal trial or a parliamentary debate. The tactic combines the use of loaded questions with the complexity of the question. A key notion is that of the presupposition of the question. How to deal with such questions is a point of departure for interrogative theory, and for any attempts to construct formal dialogues of a kind that can be used as normative models of argumentation.     

The Ethics of Enhanced Interrogations and Torture: A Reappraisal of the Argument

This article critically reviews what is known about the ethical status of psychologists’ putative involvement with enhanced interrogations and torture (EITs). We examine three major normative ethical accounts (utilitarian, deontic, and virtue ethics) of EITs and conclude, contra the American Psychological Association, that reasonable arguments can be made that in certain cases the use of EITs is ethical and even, in certain circumstances, morally obligatory. We suggest that this moral question is complex as it has competing moral values involved, that is, the humane treatment of detainee competes with the ethical value/duty/virtue of protecting innocent third parties. We also suggest that there is an ethical duty to minimize harm by making only judicious and morally responsible allegations against the psychologists alleged to be involved in EITs. Finally, we make recommendations regarding completing the historical record, improvements in the professional ethics code, and the moral treatment of individuals accused in this controversy.     

Witnesses' failure to detect covert manipulations in their written statements

Law enforcement agencies and legal professionals often have to rely on witness statements. Undetected errors in witnesses' statements, however, could impede the accurate reconstruction of a crime and lead to the incrimination of innocent suspects. Here, we examined whether witnesses can detect manipulations in their written statements. We expect that writing a statement could provide a good means for discrimination between what is truly recalled and what is an error. This is because writing allows to monitor and control the previously produced information. In 3 experiments, participants watched a mock crime film and subsequently provided a written statement of what they had witnessed. Following a delay of several minutes (Experiment 1), 48 hr (Experiment 2), or 1 month (Experiment 3), participants were exposed to and interviewed about their testimony. Unknown to them, they were confronted with statements, which included 4 secretly manipulated details. Participants' missed a substantial number of manipulations in their written statements. Importantly, the detection rates varied as a function of delay (Experiments 1 and 2: 74–89%; Experiment 3: 36%–52%). Detection rates also varied as a function of the type of details that were manipulated. Our findings indicate that writing a statement comes with limited benefits in witnesses' ability to detect errors in their statements.     

Counter‐Interrogation Strategies when Anticipating Questions on Intentions

The present experimental study adds to the emerging line of psycholegal research focusing on true and false intentions. It is the first to examine mock suspects' (N = 120) counter‐interrogation strategies in investigative interviews in which they anticipate questions on their intentions. As planning is an inherent part of many intentions, mock suspects were, in addition to questions on their intentions, asked a set of questions that pertained to the planning phase in which they formed their intentions. Besides ratings of the anticipation and difficulty of the questions, participants were asked to provide their principal strategy for being perceived as truthful. Both truth tellers and liars perceived the questions on the planning phase as significantly more unanticipated than the questions on their intentions. Furthermore, liars perceived the questions on the planning phase as more difficult to answer than did truth tellers. Liars and truth tellers differed with respect to their principal strategy employed for being perceived as truthful. Liars' most commonly used strategy was to stick to the cover story, whereas truth tellers' most common strategy was to be honest. The results are discussed in relation to the unanticipated questions approach and psychological concepts such as the illusion of transparency. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Torture Is the Ticking Time‐Bomb: Why the Necessity Defense Fails

Abstract : The essay asks whether the ‘necessity defense’ can be used to legitimate torture. By modifying the criteria so as to fit the case, it is argued that torture fails to meet the established norms of the historic just‐war tradition, which also underlie international law. ‘Interrogational,’‘terroristic,’ and ‘demonic’ aspects of torture are distinguished along the way. It is concluded that torture admits no necessity by which it can be justified.