Tickling – Delhi police’s new ‘torture’ technique

[Dave2112]

People are going to have differing opinions, and that's cool. That's what we're all about. I was just expressing mine, so I hope people get that.

Just to take up the debate from a conversational point with Marie...I can understand your point. Yeah, being tickled may be better than being whipped or waterboarded. But here's the problem with any form of physical torture...and to many it IS physical torture. Take it from someone who's played in the BDSM scene for over 20 years and has run across MANY people who'll gladly agree to be whipped, pierced or even burned and call "hard limit" at tickling.

The problem is this. First, as I've already stated, just the intention that you're looking for a way to circumvent human rights speaks volumes. Second, you yourself said there has to be some way to "extract the information". Who gets to say a prisoner even HAS information to give? If someone's picked up and suspected of having information, or of having broken a law, you start down a slippery slope with torture. You've already made up your mind that this person was picked up for a reason. The torture generally isn't going to stop until you get a "confession" that pleases you. And, as has been proven over and over again throughout history, people will pretty much admit to anything if enough torture is applied. Who decides if the confession is even legitimate?

Third. You said it wasn't being used on 15 year olds who shoplifted a pair of shoes. Well, once this practice is proven "effective" (see above), who's to stop the practice from being used on said 15 year old? And here's the kicker...you said "it's just tickling." It's especially because it's "just tickling" that the doors are open for unscrupulous authorities to decide it's suitable to use on those 15 year old alleged shoplifters. It's justifiable to them now. Some jackbitch perv with a badge can have his eye fall on some teenage girl in a bad spot and have complete legal precedent to decide she "has information" on a teenage shoplifting ring. Think that's far-fetched? Take a look at any other form of torture used. The Catholic Inquisition had the same problem. Many (if not most) of the religious leaders of the day used their techniques for their own kicks and called it "investigation". Far stretch for an analogy? Not really.

Again..please, please do not take this as an attack on your opinion. I like the fact that we can debate here without it turning into a shitstorm. 🙂 Like a wiser man once said, I may not agree with your opinion, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. 😉

 

[QueenBeeBeeMari]

People are going to have differing opinions, and that's cool. That's what we're all about. I was just expressing mine, so I hope people get that.

Just to take up the debate from a conversational point with Marie...I can understand your point. Yeah, being tickled may be better than being whipped or waterboarded. But here's the problem with any form of physical torture...and to many it IS physical torture. Take it from someone who's played in the BDSM scene for over 20 years and has run across MANY people who'll gladly agree to be whipped, pierced or even burned and call "hard limit" at tickling.

The problem is this. First, as I've already stated, just the intention that you're looking for a way to circumvent human rights speaks volumes. Second, you yourself said there has to be some way to "extract the information". Who gets to say a prisoner even HAS information to give? If someone's picked up and suspected of having information, or of having broken a law, you start down a slippery slope with torture. You've already made up your mind that this person was picked up for a reason. The torture generally isn't going to stop until you get a "confession" that pleases you. And, as has been proven over and over again throughout history, people will pretty much admit to anything if enough torture is applied. Who decides if the confession is even legitimate?

Third. You said it wasn't being used on 15 year olds who shoplifted a pair of shoes. Well, once this practice is proven "effective" (see above), who's to stop the practice from being used on said 15 year old? And here's the kicker...you said "it's just tickling." It's especially because it's "just tickling" that the doors are open for unscrupulous authorities to decide it's suitable to use on those 15 year old alleged shoplifters. It's justifiable to them now. Some jackbitch perv with a badge can have his eye fall on some teenage girl in a bad spot and have complete legal precedent to decide she "has information" on a teenage shoplifting ring. Think that's far-fetched? Take a look at any other form of torture used. The Catholic Inquisition had the same problem. Many (if not most) of the religious leaders of the day used their techniques for their own kicks and called it "investigation". Far stretch for an analogy? Not really.

Again..please, please do not take this as an attack on your opinion. I like the fact that we can debate here without it turning into a shitstorm. 🙂 Like a wiser man once said, I may not agree with your opinion, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. 😉

No,no,I hear you and I see where you are going and it scares me to no end.I don't want to see children brought into this thing.They don't deserve it.They are children and make mistakes.I forgot about extracting false confessions but you are very right there.It really is scary about how they can abuse power but they do and I thought well gee how far can they possibly take a little tickling,okay well this ought to be a great tool and really helpful and it can't really hurt anyone but I wouldn't even give them the chance to do that to a poor little child who is scared and made a mistake.The thought has me angry.They aren't the only ones I am worried about but they are my main concern.
Oh and btw no I want people to have their rights and of course an attorney and video camera should be present during all questioning.

 

[Dave2112]

Coolness! I totally agree with you about having any interrogation recorded and observed, even if it's outside the knowledge of the "interviewee" on occasion.

Police and law-enforcement interrogators have many, many techniques people aren't even aware of. Psychological techniques. Using a criminal's fear against them. Trapping them with words and coversation.

And don't get me wrong. There are specific situations where more physical techniques may be the only recourse. But these are specific and rare. Not so much in white-collar crime or when you're not 100% sure that the person you're interrogating has even done anything. I'm talking about situations where you already know the person is responsible for something and, say...other lives hang in the balance. Or, let's say someone has been caught after a kidnapping spree and said person is keeping the location of a victim from you.

I'm not advocating torture, but life is fluid. I'm not a person who believes in absolutes. I mean...if someone kidnapped my daughter and I needed to find out where she was and got my hands on him...fuck the law, you know?

 

[Sir Bombers]

Sigh...


That's the greatest dilemma ever... you need to get info from someone you know is up to no good...

but if you beat or hurt them in anyway to get info, people will disagree.

If you tickle them, then people (and some of us in this community) will disagree...

If you try talking it out of them people will disagree...

SO... what the heck do you do then?!

LOL

The cops are just gonna sit there and stare at the violator and do nothing? Oh wait that's a torture too... lol

In the second point that Dave made... yeah who's to say the suspect does have info? But at the same time the police in question could say "who's to say that they don't have any?"

It's a hard balance that I believe only is in the discretion and moral quality of the police officer.

All in All...As long as the cops know that whatever means of torture is effective, they're gonna use it... no matter who objects to it, and with each method used, there's always someone who won't like it...

If someone gets beaten, some group won't like it...

If someone gets tickled tortured, some group (or a particular community 😉 ) won't like it...

But at the same time there will be someone who does... especially the cops who use it... 😉

 

[QueenBeeBeeMari]

Sigh...


That's the greatest dilemma ever... you need to get info from someone you know is up to no good...

but if you beat or hurt them in anyway to get info, people will disagree.

If you tickle them, then people (and some of us in this community) will disagree...

If you try talking it out of them people will disagree...

SO... what the heck do you do then?!

LOL

The cops are just gonna sit there and stare at the violator and do nothing? Oh wait that's a torture too... lol

In the second point that Dave made... yeah who's to say the suspect does have info? But at the same time the police in question could say "who's to say that they don't have any?"

It's a hard balance that I believe only is in the discretion and moral quality of the police officer.

All in All...As long as the cops know that whatever means of torture is effective, they're gonna use it... no matter who objects to it, and with each method used, there's always someone who won't like it...

If someone gets beaten, some group won't like it...

If someone gets tickled tortures, some group (or a particular community 😉 ) won't like it...

But at the same time there will be someone who does... especially the cops who use it... 😉

That's right.I can see where they are coming from too.They must be between a rock and a hard place in figuring out what to do with these criminals.It's already drove me crazy trying to figure it out myself

 

[QueenBeeBeeMari]

Coolness! I totally agree with you about having any interrogation recorded and observed, even if it's outside the knowledge of the "interviewee" on occasion.

Police and law-enforcement interrogators have many, many techniques people aren't even aware of. Psychological techniques. Using a criminal's fear against them. Trapping them with words and coversation.

And don't get me wrong. There are specific situations where more physical techniques may be the only recourse. But these are specific and rare. Not so much in white-collar crime or when you're not 100% sure that the person you're interrogating has even done anything. I'm talking about situations where you already know the person is responsible for something and, say...other lives hang in the balance. Or, let's say someone has been caught after a kidnapping spree and said person is keeping the location of a victim from you.

I'm not advocating torture, but life is fluid. I'm not a person who believes in absolutes. I mean...if someone kidnapped my daughter and I needed to find out where she was and got my hands on him...fuck the law, you know?

You know,they need to just make specific guidelines on when,how and how long to apply each technique allowed to be used.As well as specialized training for each officer who will use the techniques

 

[PurpleStyle]

The idea of tickling being used as a technique to coerce confessions is ridiculous. Marie I honestly believe you don't think about the repercussions things like that have on people or society. I also believe you're not actually thinking about the corrupt side of the law, who will use torture techniques simply to increase their conviction rates. It's bad enough that we have police in the US doing things to force confessions out of people. It doesn't help to have people who blindly decide torturing people is okay because it won't affect your life in any way.

The entire idea behind the prison system is to separate and rehabilitate. It's difficult to rehabilitate people who, after having some kind of torturous ordeal with the police or court system, are bent on some form of revenge. Would it be fair that I water-boarded you for hours on end because I saw you crossing the street without using the crosswalk? 😉

While we're at it, let's start erasing some of those pesky laws that give citizens some form of protection from relentless cops. I mean if it's okay for the cops to physically harass you with tickling, maybe we should allow them to cross the line and do things that are even worse... which, I'm sure some of them do. Wouldn't violating a person be an effective tool..? As you can see (I sincerely hope), it's demonstrably wrong to allow the police such freedom. Please think about some of the crap you're about to write, before you write it.

 

[Slaver123]

Amen Dave2112!!

 

[DarkPoet]

I don't disagree with either Dave or Mari on separate subjects. With Dave, I agree that it's torture and should not be placed on a seperate level as pain, unless the pain-infliction method causes lasting injury (for obvious reasons).

With Mari, I agree that, if they DO need to obtain a confession from someone, you'll generally have to do SOMETHING.

But most of all, I agree with fmilling. Between psychological and physical torture, I'd choose physical. Physical is easier to recover from. In the US, cops will fuck with your mind until you have no choice but to mistrust them because unless you give them something to go on, they'll make you feel like you're going to take the fall for it, and nevermind whether or not you're guilty. Do cops really feel this way? Probably not. Chances are they're just trying to get another lead. But does fear not constitute as a form of torture, just because you didn't touch the person?

I say bullshit. Noble as our government, or any pro-Human Rights goverment, might try to be, if they're relying on confessions, then unless their suspect is 100% forthcoming from the get-go (and even in some cases when the suspect wants to be), they'll use one trick or another to get them to talk. Whether it's psychological or physical, it's still torture.

Frankly, if you HAVE to use it, use it. Just don't give me any bluff about "it's not really torture". Have the balls to call it for what it is and see yourself for the human that you are. Your explanations, justifications and ideals of self-righteousness won't stand the test of time, or in my POV, they won't save you when God asks you why you did this. There's just no point lying about what it really is, and don't try to defend it, cause if you do, well, you're full of $#!%.

Personally, proving beyond a doubt requires solid, scientifically verifiable evidence. Of course, this is not always possible, so we result to getting confessions from one person or another and hope they're valid (though, if you think about it, human confession ALWAYS leaves room for reasonable doubt).

 

[Sir Bombers]

I'm sure we can debate this in all possible ways...

I'm sure we can all discount some peoples arguments within this thread gently or roughly (as I see has happened only a few post from this one)

We can throw in a ton of "what if" scenarios on human rights and the like.

We can all point out the differences between the rights of people in different countries.

We can assume that cops are either legit or corrupt.

We can all assume torture gets a legit statement or forced confession.

We can all assume that torture is effective or not...

We can all assume it can be used for good or malicious reasons....

We can all have different beliefs on everything...

But by the end of the day it still all sums up to... torture is torture in any form...people still use it for any means no matter the age. It's been used for centuries in the past and in current times, and the good men and women here in this community and mostly everywhere else in society don't ever see it happening, yet we come to know it happens as if we've actually seen it happen before... 😉

We may or may not like it, but it seems that torture is both necessary and unnecessary... a never ending pot of boiling hot of controversy and endless debate that is constantly being stirred.

 

[PurpleStyle]

Personally, proving beyond a doubt requires solid, scientifically verifiable evidence. Of course, this is not always possible, so we result to getting confessions from one person or another and hope they're valid (though, if you think about it, human confession ALWAYS leaves room for reasonable doubt).

That is very tautological of you to say. Of course there's "room" for "reasonable doubt". Bringing science into the matter is a "tricky" proposition, because science requires verifiable (IE; PHYSICAL) evidence.

We may or may not like it, but it seems that torture is both necessary and unnecessary... a never ending pot of boiling hot of controversy and endless debate that is constantly being stirred.

Therein lies your problem, it "seems" to you that torture is somewhat necessary. I'm almost certain that you're coming from the "well, it's okay if we torture terrorists" side of things, so I implore you to read these posts.

http://www.tickletheater.com/showpost.php?p=524858&postcount=72

http://www.tickletheater.com/showpost.php?p=524866&postcount=73

Yes, the last one is mine. But they raise a valid point for anybody who gives a damn. 😉

 

[QueenBeeBeeMari]

It does seem no matter what we do controversial methods of extracting confessions will always exist because no matter what technique they use someone will always question the morality of its use.

 

[Sir Bombers]

seems[/I]" to you that torture is somewhat necessary. I'm almost certain that you're coming from the "well, it's okay if we torture terrorists" side of things, so I implore you to read these posts.

Well not quite...

Like I said it is both necessary AND unnecessary...

In my opinion, I don't necessarily like the idea of forcing a confession out of anybody, either on the level of terrorist or a circus clown. Most can be found out with nonviolent and collective investigations... Which is what I support. 😉

But I come to understand that sometimes in some circumstances, that is not very effective to some officers in some governments, so some tactic, either violent or non-violent has to be and is used by these types of authorities in order to find out more than they could in a simple investigation...

I'm not saying it's a totally acceptable and/or accurate form of gather information, but it IS indeed a way of finding information... valid or not...

It's not okay...

It is not okay if we torture terrorist...

It is not okay to torture anyone in this context...

I don't support it at all... I'm just pointing out that is is indeed a method used that is both not needed but yet is being used... necessary and unnecessary IMHO...

 

[PurpleStyle]

Well I'm glad you don't support it. Go pacifism. 😉
While I understand that some people won't let up unless you torture them, I have trouble swallowing the idea. I'll always believe that there could be a better way, and people just haven't discovered it yet...

 

[Sir Bombers]

Well I'm glad you don't support it. Go pacifism. 😉
While I understand that some people won't let up unless you torture them, I have trouble swallowing the idea. I'll always believe that there could be a better way, and people just haven't discovered it yet...

Yes indeed! Torture used in that particular purpose is not good

I take from your informative comments that you don't like it either... :lol

and you're right... the better way has not been discovered yet...

Or maybe it HAS been discovered... but just like in this thread, there are way too many differing societal views for any single agreeable method to come into fruition... 😉

 

[QueenBeeBeeMari]

I have to then ask the question,how do you all want to get necessary information?

 

[Wade1]

I have to then ask the question,how do you all want to get necessary information?

Through the professional skills of trained law enforcement officials and interrogators who operate within the Constitution and both the letter and the spirit of U.S. law*. Torture is lazy, and worse than that, it's well-known to be unreliable, driving subjects to make confessions of things whether they're guilty or not.



*I know, this thread isn't about U.S. cops, but from both a moral and practical standpoint that's generally the standard I think should be applied.

 

[DarkPoet]

That is very tautological of you to say. Of course there's "room" for "reasonable doubt". Bringing science into the matter is a "tricky" proposition, because science requires verifiable (IE; PHYSICAL) evidence.

... A confession obtained from a witness or suspect, whether it be from physical, psychological, or NO torture, is NOT physical evidence.

Physical evidence is a gun. It's there. Tangible. You can touch it, see it, taste it, probably hear it.

I don't see how my post is tautological. What I'm saying is that, not just is torture unnecessary, it's worthless. IMO, a confession and 2 quarters is worth 50 cents, whether obtained by force or voluntarily. Its only worth is to give investigators a POSSIBLE angle from which to investigate, but is not worth the trouble of forcing from someone. But at the end of the day, I believe that convictions should rely on evidence and proof. Now, forcing this is, of course, tricky, because, as you said, it requires evidence and proof, which sometimes police just seem to lack. That's when confessions and witness accounts come into play. But, again, IMO, if we're supposed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, I don't think taking someone's word is good enough, even if it's a willing confession.

 

[PurpleStyle]

Through the professional skills of trained law enforcement officials and interrogators who operate within the Constitution and both the letter and the spirit of U.S. law*. Torture is lazy, and worse than that, it's well-known to be unreliable, driving subjects to make confessions of things whether they're guilty or not.



*I know, this thread isn't about U.S. cops, but from both a moral and practical standpoint that's generally the standard I think should be applied.

Thank you.

... A confession obtained from a witness or suspect, whether it be from physical, psychological, or NO torture, is NOT physical evidence.

Physical evidence is a gun. It's there. Tangible. You can touch it, see it, taste it, probably hear it.

I don't see how my post is tautological. What I'm saying is that, not just is torture unnecessary, it's worthless. IMO, a confession and 2 quarters is worth 50 cents, whether obtained by force or voluntarily. Its only worth is to give investigators a POSSIBLE angle from which to investigate, but is not worth the trouble of forcing from someone. But at the end of the day, I believe that convictions should rely on evidence and proof. Now, forcing this is, of course, tricky, because, as you said, it requires evidence and proof, which sometimes police just seem to lack. That's when confessions and witness accounts come into play. But, again, IMO, if we're supposed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, I don't think taking someone's word is good enough, even if it's a willing confession.

I believe you answered your own question there. 😉 Glad that you think torture is worthless though... I couldn't agree more.

 

[kopfhorer1]

Torture is not for gathering information. It's for discrediting a political opponent either by breaking him (and making him look bad to his compatriots) or milking a forced confession from him so that you can publicly justify imprisoning or executing him.

The difference between tickle torture and tickling used as a form of torture is like the difference between getting laid and getting raped.

 

[drew70]

I remember in the early 70s reading a cartoon in a magazine in which police corner a criminal...

"That's it boys! Rip that shirt right off his back."

In the last frame you see the crook laughing and squirming while several scowling policemen tickle his bare torso with feathers.

The detective in charge says to the seargent with him, "Yeah ever since we've come under fire for 'Police Brutality' we've had to come up with some creative alternitives."

This was in Mad Magazine. It was presented as an absolutely absurd scenario.

It's hard for me to take this article any more seriously.

My personal take is that I wouldn't want that to happen in my country but I don't feel I have the right to tell other cultures how to treat their criminals.

 

[anon0907]

Are you f*cking kidding me?

Christopher

 

[skulnbone7]

Very interesting article, I wish I had some video footage of tickling.

Great find, thanks for sharing.