History Main / TortureAlwaysWorks

2nd Jan '17 2:36:29 AM SSJMagus
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* {{Deconstructed}} in the Series/StarTrekTheNextGeneration episode "Chains of Command: Part Two," when [[TortureTechnician Gul Macet]] captures Picard. The torture fails to retrieve any useful information-but it does succeed in humiliating and breaking Picard. Mostly Macet tries to make Picard say there are five lights [[TwoPlusTortureMakesFive when in fact there are four]], which Picard later admits he was close to doing before being rescued, even briefly ''seeing'' them as five.

to:

* {{Deconstructed}} in the Series/StarTrekTheNextGeneration ''Series/StarTrekTheNextGeneration'' episode "Chains of Command: Part Two," when [[TortureTechnician Gul Macet]] captures Picard. The torture fails to retrieve any useful information-but it does succeed in humiliating and breaking Picard. Mostly Macet tries to make Picard say there are five lights [[TwoPlusTortureMakesFive when in fact there are four]], which Picard later admits he was close to doing before being rescued, even briefly ''seeing'' them as five.five.
** Also deconstructed in the ''Series/StarTrekDeepSpaceNine'' episode "The Die is Cast", in which the [[ReformedButNotTamed not quite reformed]] Garak is forced back into Cardassia's brutal Obsidian Order. In his previous stint as a spy, Garak had been among other things a skilled torturer and is sent back into that role...but when assigned to torture his friend Odo for information about [[BigBad the Founders]], it's Garak who breaks. He desperately begs Odo to give him ''any'' information, even if it's a lie, so he can stop the torture and report it to his superiors.
9th Dec '16 9:23:46 PM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* This was believed to be fact for most of Western history. Before the 1600s, torture was simply matter of factly used by courts for extracting confessions. It was believed that God would help a person resist torture if they were innocent, so false confessions were thought to be impossible. Even so, there were usually legal limits on its use. In England, torture was not used so frequently as on the continent, requiring the King or his Privy Council's consent. Law courts on the continent issued torture warrants based on sworn accusations commonly. The Inquisition actually had more limits on its use than secular courts, ruling that torture could be used only once, though this was [[LoopholeAbuse gotten around]] by "suspending" torture sessions and starting again later. Confessions under torture had to be repeated afterward in court (though the threat of further torture if the accused recanted made this empty). Witchcraft trials saw even these meager protections thrown out. Since witchcraft was the "crimen exceptem", even suspects managing to hold out and not confess under torture would not save them. Instead, it was said the Devil had aided them to resist, blithely ignoring the belief God would do so for an innocent person mentioned earlier. Not until into the 1600s would torture's effectiveness first be questioned. England banned torture in 1640. One story goes that a German prince whose domain had then seen a number of witch trials was concerned with the fantastic things accused witches had confessed under torture, and asked for the Jesuit Order to investigate. They did so, and reported that the practice was proper. Afterward the prince called the Jesuits into a torture chamber, where he brought them to a woman who had already confessed to witchcraft. The prince asked if the Jesuits were involved too. At first she denied it, but then immediately agreed they were when he threatened to have her tortured further. Astonished, the Jesuits became convinced of its failure. Father Frederich Spee, a Jesuit priest who acted as confessor to people convicted of witchcraft, also wrote a groundbreaking book, ''Cautio Criminalis'' (Precautions for Prosecutors) which noted torture's ability to produce false confessions and argued in favor of banning it, with accused witches having the same legal rights. Another was ''On Crimes and Punishments'' by Italian judge Cesare Beccaria, who also argued against capital punishment (again an innovative view).

to:

* This was believed to be fact for most of Western history. Before the 1600s, torture was simply matter of factly used by courts for extracting confessions. It was believed that God would help a person resist torture if they were innocent, so false confessions were thought to be impossible. Even so, there were usually legal limits on its use. In England, torture was not used so frequently as on the continent, requiring the King or his Privy Council's consent. Law courts on the continent issued torture warrants based on sworn accusations commonly. The Inquisition actually had more limits on its use than secular courts, ruling that torture could be used only once, though this was [[LoopholeAbuse gotten around]] by "suspending" torture sessions and starting again later. Confessions under torture had to be repeated afterward in court (though the threat of further torture if the accused recanted made this empty). Witchcraft trials saw even these meager protections thrown out. Since witchcraft was the "crimen exceptem", exceptum", even suspects managing to hold out and not confess under torture would not save them. Instead, it was said the Devil had aided them to resist, blithely ignoring the belief God would do so for an innocent person mentioned earlier. Not until into the 1600s would torture's effectiveness first be questioned. England banned torture in 1640. One story goes that a German prince whose domain had then seen a number of witch trials was concerned with the fantastic things accused witches had confessed under torture, and asked for the Jesuit Order to investigate. They did so, and reported that the practice was proper. Afterward the prince called the Jesuits into a torture chamber, where he brought them to a woman who had already confessed to witchcraft. The prince asked if the Jesuits were involved too. At first she denied it, but then immediately agreed they were when he threatened to have her tortured further. Astonished, the Jesuits became convinced of its failure. Father Frederich Spee, a Jesuit priest who acted as confessor to people convicted of witchcraft, also wrote a groundbreaking book, ''Cautio Criminalis'' (Precautions for Prosecutors) which noted torture's ability to produce false confessions and argued in favor of banning it, with accused witches having the same legal rights. Another was ''On Crimes and Punishments'' by Italian judge Cesare Beccaria, who also argued against capital punishment (again an innovative view).
9th Dec '16 2:18:25 PM Morgenthaler
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ''VinlandSaga''. After catching an English spy, Askeladd takes a pair of shears to his fingers. Eventually the guy tells him what they want to know, in a way that leaves them all shitting their pants. The torture victim laughs in their faces as Askeladd cuts off his head.

to:

* ''VinlandSaga''.''Manga/VinlandSaga''. After catching an English spy, Askeladd takes a pair of shears to his fingers. Eventually the guy tells him what they want to know, in a way that leaves them all shitting their pants. The torture victim laughs in their faces as Askeladd cuts off his head.



* In the SherlockHolmes ''FanFic/DeliverUsFromEvilSeries'', this is played with when [[spoiler: Holmes was kidnapped and tortured by Moriaty and his henchmen.]] It is averted that [[spoiler: Holmes]] just barely avoided crossing over the DespairEventHorizon but when his rescuers found him, it was clear that he was pretty far gone.

to:

* In the SherlockHolmes Franchise/SherlockHolmes ''FanFic/DeliverUsFromEvilSeries'', this is played with when [[spoiler: Holmes was kidnapped and tortured by Moriaty and his henchmen.]] It is averted that [[spoiler: Holmes]] just barely avoided crossing over the DespairEventHorizon but when his rescuers found him, it was clear that he was pretty far gone.
9th Dec '16 2:17:45 PM Morgenthaler
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The only times when torture doesn't work is when the tortured is just too {{Badass}} to be broken, and doesn't say anything at all. When characters object to torture, they are often portrayed as weak [[StrawmanPolitical liberal Strawmen]] who "don't have what it takes" or "don't realize what's at stake". They only make moral criticisms, and never bother to point out that it's unreliable, presumably because they too know that it Always Works. Even when it doesn't work, characters who should know better assume that it will.

to:

The only times when torture doesn't work is when the tortured is just too {{Badass}} badass to be broken, and doesn't say anything at all. When characters object to torture, they are often portrayed as weak [[StrawmanPolitical liberal Strawmen]] who "don't have what it takes" or "don't realize what's at stake". They only make moral criticisms, and never bother to point out that it's unreliable, presumably because they too know that it Always Works. Even when it doesn't work, characters who should know better assume that it will.
17th Nov '16 6:56:27 PM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Averted in ''Goya's Ghosts''. The father of a woman tortured into confessing to "Judaizing" (refusing pork, and thus supposedly indicating she secretly practices Judaism), brings the Inquisitor who arrested her home for dinner. He questions him on the effect of torture. The Inquisitor assures him than an innocent person will not confess falsely, because God would give them the strength to resist. The father and his sons then torture the Inquisitor into confessing he is a monkey, shaking his belief in the Spanish Inquisition's methods.



* This was believed to be fact for most of Western history. Before the 1600s, torture was simply matter of factly used by courts for extracting confessions. It was believed that God would help a person resist torture if they were innocent, so false confessions were thought to be impossible. Even so, there were usual legal limits on its use. In England, torture was not used so frequently as on the Continent, requiring the King or his Privy Council's consent. Law courts on the continent issued torture warrants based on sworn accusations commonly. The Inquisition actually had more limits on its use than secular courts, ruling that torture could be used only once, though this was [[LoopholeAbuse gotten around]] by "suspending" torture sessions and starting again later. Confessions under torture had to be repeated afterward in court (though the threat of further torture if the accused recanted made this empty). Witchcraft trials saw even these meager protections thrown out. Since witchcraft was the "crimen exceptem", even suspects managing to hold out and not confess under torture would not save them. Instead, it was said the Devil had aided them to resist, blithely ignoring the belief God would do so for an innocent person mentioned earlier. Not until into the 1600s would torture's effictiveness first be questioned. England banned torture in 1640. One story goes that a German prince whose domain had then seen a number of witch trials was concerned with the fantastic things accused witches had confessed under torture, and asked for the Jesuit Order to investigate. They did so, and reported that the practice was proper. Afterward the prince called the Jesuits into a torture chamber, where he brought them to a woman who had already confessed to witchcraft. The prince asked if the Jesuits were involved too. At first she denied it, but then immediately agreed they were when he threatened to have her tortured further. Astonished, the Jesuits became convinced of its failure. Father Frederich Spee, a Jesuit priest who acted as confessor to people convicted of witchcraft, also wrote a groundbreaking book, ''Cautio Criminalis'' (Precautions for Prosecutors) which noted torture's ability to produce false confessions and argued in favor of banning it, with accused witches having the same legal rights. Another was ''On Crimes and Punishments'' by Italian judge Cesare Beccaria, who also argued against capital punishment (again an innovative view).

to:

* This was believed to be fact for most of Western history. Before the 1600s, torture was simply matter of factly used by courts for extracting confessions. It was believed that God would help a person resist torture if they were innocent, so false confessions were thought to be impossible. Even so, there were usual usually legal limits on its use. In England, torture was not used so frequently as on the Continent, continent, requiring the King or his Privy Council's consent. Law courts on the continent issued torture warrants based on sworn accusations commonly. The Inquisition actually had more limits on its use than secular courts, ruling that torture could be used only once, though this was [[LoopholeAbuse gotten around]] by "suspending" torture sessions and starting again later. Confessions under torture had to be repeated afterward in court (though the threat of further torture if the accused recanted made this empty). Witchcraft trials saw even these meager protections thrown out. Since witchcraft was the "crimen exceptem", even suspects managing to hold out and not confess under torture would not save them. Instead, it was said the Devil had aided them to resist, blithely ignoring the belief God would do so for an innocent person mentioned earlier. Not until into the 1600s would torture's effictiveness effectiveness first be questioned. England banned torture in 1640. One story goes that a German prince whose domain had then seen a number of witch trials was concerned with the fantastic things accused witches had confessed under torture, and asked for the Jesuit Order to investigate. They did so, and reported that the practice was proper. Afterward the prince called the Jesuits into a torture chamber, where he brought them to a woman who had already confessed to witchcraft. The prince asked if the Jesuits were involved too. At first she denied it, but then immediately agreed they were when he threatened to have her tortured further. Astonished, the Jesuits became convinced of its failure. Father Frederich Spee, a Jesuit priest who acted as confessor to people convicted of witchcraft, also wrote a groundbreaking book, ''Cautio Criminalis'' (Precautions for Prosecutors) which noted torture's ability to produce false confessions and argued in favor of banning it, with accused witches having the same legal rights. Another was ''On Crimes and Punishments'' by Italian judge Cesare Beccaria, who also argued against capital punishment (again an innovative view).
11th Nov '16 12:26:31 AM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* This was believed to be fact for most of Western history. Before the 1600s, torture was simply a matter of factly used by courts in Europe to extract confessions. It was believed that God would help a person resist torture if they were innocent, so false confessions were thought to be impossible. Even so, there were usual legal limits on its use. In England, torture was not used so frequently as on the Continent, requiring the King or his Privy Council's consent. Law courts on the continent issued torture warrants based on sworn accusations commonly. The Inquisition actually had more limits on its use than secular courts, ruling that torture could be used only once, though this was gotten around by them "suspending" torture sessions and starting again later. Confessions under torture had to be repeated afterward in court as well (though the threat of further torture if the accused recanted made this empty). Witchcraft trials saw even these meager protections thrown out. Since witchcraft was the "crimen exceptem", even suspects managing to hold out and not confess under torture would not save them. Instead, it was said the Devil had aided them to resist, blithely ignoring the belief God would do so for an innocent person mentioned earlier. Not until into the 1600s would torture's efficacy first be questioned. England banned torture in 1640. One story goes that a German prince whose domain had seen a number of witch trials was concerned with the fantastic things accused witches had confessed under torture, and asked for the Jesuit Order to investigate. They did so, and reported that the practice was proper. Afterward the prince called the Jesuits into a torture chamber, where he brought them to a woman who had already confessed to witchcraft. The prince asked if the Jesuits were involved too. At first she denied it, but then immediately agreed they were when he threatened to have her tortured further. Astonished, the Jesuits became convinced of its failure. Father Frederich Spee, a Jesuit priest who acted as confessor to people convicted of witchcraft, wrote a groundbreaking book, ''Cautio Criminalis'' (Precautions for Prosecutors) which noted torture's ability to produce false confessions and argued in favor of banning it, with accused witches having the same legal rights. Another was ''On Crimes and Punishments'' by Italian judge Cesare Beccaria, who also argued against capital punishment (again an innovative view).

to:

* This was believed to be fact for most of Western history. Before the 1600s, torture was simply a matter of factly used by courts in Europe to extract for extracting confessions. It was believed that God would help a person resist torture if they were innocent, so false confessions were thought to be impossible. Even so, there were usual legal limits on its use. In England, torture was not used so frequently as on the Continent, requiring the King or his Privy Council's consent. Law courts on the continent issued torture warrants based on sworn accusations commonly. The Inquisition actually had more limits on its use than secular courts, ruling that torture could be used only once, though this was [[LoopholeAbuse gotten around around]] by them "suspending" torture sessions and starting again later. Confessions under torture had to be repeated afterward in court as well (though the threat of further torture if the accused recanted made this empty). Witchcraft trials saw even these meager protections thrown out. Since witchcraft was the "crimen exceptem", even suspects managing to hold out and not confess under torture would not save them. Instead, it was said the Devil had aided them to resist, blithely ignoring the belief God would do so for an innocent person mentioned earlier. Not until into the the 1600s would torture's efficacy effictiveness first be questioned. England banned torture in 1640. One story goes that a German prince whose domain had then seen a number of witch trials was concerned with the fantastic things accused witches had confessed under torture, and asked for the Jesuit Order to investigate. They did so, and reported that the practice was proper. Afterward the prince called the Jesuits into a torture chamber, where he brought them to a woman who had already confessed to witchcraft. The prince asked if the Jesuits were involved too. At first she denied it, but then immediately agreed they were when he threatened to have her tortured further. Astonished, the Jesuits became convinced of its failure. Father Frederich Spee, a Jesuit priest who acted as confessor to people convicted of witchcraft, also wrote a groundbreaking book, ''Cautio Criminalis'' (Precautions for Prosecutors) which noted torture's ability to produce false confessions and argued in favor of banning it, with accused witches having the same legal rights. Another was ''On Crimes and Punishments'' by Italian judge Cesare Beccaria, who also argued against capital punishment (again an innovative view).
11th Nov '16 12:23:38 AM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* This was believed to be fact for much of civilization. Before the 1600s, torture was simply a matter of factly used by courts in Europe to extract confessions. It was believed that God would help a person resist torture if they were innocent, so false confessions were thought to be impossible. Even so, there were usual legal limits on its use. In England, torture was not used so frequently as on the Continent, requiring the King or his Privy Council's consent. Law courts on the continent issued torture warrants based on sworn accusations commonly. The Inquisition actually had more limits on its use than secular courts, ruling that torture could be used only once, though this was gotten around by them "suspending" torture sessions and starting again later. Confessions under torture had to be repeated afterward in court as well (though the threat of further torture if the accused recanted made this empty). Witchcraft trials saw even these meager protections thrown out. Since witchcraft was the "crimen exceptem", even suspects managing to hold out and not confess under torture would not save them. Instead, it was said the Devil had aided them to resist, blithely ignoring the belief God would do so for an innocent person mentioned earlier. Not until into the 1600s would torture's efficacy first be questioned. England banned torture in 1640. One story goes that a German prince whose domain had seen a number of witch trials was concerned with the fantastic things accused witches had confessed under torture, and asked for the Jesuit Order to investigate. They did so, and reported that the practice was proper. Afterward the prince called the Jesuits into a torture chamber, where he brought them to a woman who had already confessed to witchcraft. The prince asked if the Jesuits were involved too. At first she denied it, but then immediately agreed they were when he threatened to have her tortured further. Astonished, the Jesuits became convinced of its failure. Father Frederich Spee, a Jesuit priest who acted as confessor to people convicted of witchcraft, wrote a groundbreaking book, ''Cautio Criminalis'' (Precautions for Prosecutors) which noted torture's ability to produce false confessions and argued in favor of banning it, with accused witches having the same legal rights. Another was ''On Crimes and Punishments'' by Italian judge Cesare Beccaria, who also argued against capital punishment (again an innovative view).

to:

* This was believed to be fact for much most of civilization.Western history. Before the 1600s, torture was simply a matter of factly used by courts in Europe to extract confessions. It was believed that God would help a person resist torture if they were innocent, so false confessions were thought to be impossible. Even so, there were usual legal limits on its use. In England, torture was not used so frequently as on the Continent, requiring the King or his Privy Council's consent. Law courts on the continent issued torture warrants based on sworn accusations commonly. The Inquisition actually had more limits on its use than secular courts, ruling that torture could be used only once, though this was gotten around by them "suspending" torture sessions and starting again later. Confessions under torture had to be repeated afterward in court as well (though the threat of further torture if the accused recanted made this empty). Witchcraft trials saw even these meager protections thrown out. Since witchcraft was the "crimen exceptem", even suspects managing to hold out and not confess under torture would not save them. Instead, it was said the Devil had aided them to resist, blithely ignoring the belief God would do so for an innocent person mentioned earlier. Not until into the the 1600s would torture's efficacy first be questioned. England banned torture in 1640. One story goes that a German prince whose domain had seen a number of witch trials was concerned with the fantastic things accused witches had confessed under torture, and asked for the Jesuit Order to investigate. They did so, and reported that the practice was proper. Afterward the prince called the Jesuits into a torture chamber, where he brought them to a woman who had already confessed to witchcraft. The prince asked if the Jesuits were involved too. At first she denied it, but then immediately agreed they were when he threatened to have her tortured further. Astonished, the Jesuits became convinced of its failure. Father Frederich Spee, a Jesuit priest who acted as confessor to people convicted of witchcraft, wrote a groundbreaking book, ''Cautio Criminalis'' (Precautions for Prosecutors) which noted torture's ability to produce false confessions and argued in favor of banning it, with accused witches having the same legal rights. Another was ''On Crimes and Punishments'' by Italian judge Cesare Beccaria, who also argued against capital punishment (again an innovative view).
11th Nov '16 12:22:43 AM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* This was believed to be fact for much of civilization. Before the 1600s, torture was simply a matter of factly used by courts in Europe to extract confessions. It was believed that God would help a person resist torture if they were innocent, so false confessions were thought to be impossible. Even so, there were usual legal limits on its use. In England, torture was not used so frequently as on the Continent, requiring the King or his Privy Council's consent. Law courts on the continent issued torture warrants based on sworn accusations commonly. The Inquisition actually had more limits on its use than secular courts, ruling that torture could be used only once, though this was gotten around by them "suspending" torture sessions and starting again later. Confessions under torture had to be repeated afterward in court as well (though the threat of further torture if the accused recanted made this empty). Witchcraft trials saw even these meager protections thrown out. Since witchcraft was the "crimen exceptem", even suspects managing to hold out and not confess under torture would not save them. Instead, it was said the Devil had aided them to resist, blithely ignoring the belief God would do so for an innocent person mentioned earlier. Not until into the 1600s would torture's efficacy first be questioned. England banned torture in 1640. One story goes that a German prince whose domain had seen a number of witch trials was concerned with the fantastic things accused witches had confessed under torture, and asked for the Jesuit Order to investigate. They did so, and reported that the practice was proper. Afterward the prince called the Jesuits into a torture chamber, where he brought them to an a woman who had already confessed to witchcraft. The prince asked if the Jesuits were involved too. At first she denied it, but then immediately agreed when he threatened to have her tortured further. Astonished, the Jesuits became convinced of its failure. Father Frederich Spee, a Jesuit priest who acted as confessor to people convicted of witchcraft, wrote a groundbreaking book, ''Cautio Criminalis'' (Precautions for Prosecutors) which noted this and argued in favor of banning torture, with accused witches having the same legal rights.

to:

* This was believed to be fact for much of civilization. Before the 1600s, torture was simply a matter of factly used by courts in Europe to extract confessions. It was believed that God would help a person resist torture if they were innocent, so false confessions were thought to be impossible. Even so, there were usual legal limits on its use. In England, torture was not used so frequently as on the Continent, requiring the King or his Privy Council's consent. Law courts on the continent issued torture warrants based on sworn accusations commonly. The Inquisition actually had more limits on its use than secular courts, ruling that torture could be used only once, though this was gotten around by them "suspending" torture sessions and starting again later. Confessions under torture had to be repeated afterward in court as well (though the threat of further torture if the accused recanted made this empty). Witchcraft trials saw even these meager protections thrown out. Since witchcraft was the "crimen exceptem", even suspects managing to hold out and not confess under torture would not save them. Instead, it was said the Devil had aided them to resist, blithely ignoring the belief God would do so for an innocent person mentioned earlier. Not until into the the 1600s would torture's efficacy first be questioned. England banned torture in 1640. One story goes that a German prince whose domain had seen a number of witch trials was concerned with the fantastic things accused witches had confessed under torture, and asked for the Jesuit Order to investigate. They did so, and reported that the practice was proper. Afterward the prince called the Jesuits into a torture chamber, where he brought them to an a woman who had already confessed to witchcraft. The prince asked if the Jesuits were involved too. At first she denied it, but then immediately agreed they were when he threatened to have her tortured further. Astonished, the Jesuits became convinced of its failure. Father Frederich Spee, a Jesuit priest who acted as confessor to people convicted of witchcraft, wrote a groundbreaking book, ''Cautio Criminalis'' (Precautions for Prosecutors) which noted this torture's ability to produce false confessions and argued in favor of banning torture, it, with accused witches having the same legal rights. Another was ''On Crimes and Punishments'' by Italian judge Cesare Beccaria, who also argued against capital punishment (again an innovative view).
[[/folder]]
11th Nov '16 12:16:27 AM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* This was believed to be fact for much of civilization. Before the 1600s, torture was simply a matter of factly used by courts in Europe to extract confessions. It was believed that God would help a person resist torture if they were innocent, so false confessions were thought to be impossible. Even so, there were usual legal limits on its use. In England, torture was not used so frequently as on the Continent, requiring the King or his Privy Council's consent. Law courts on the continent issued torture warrants based on sworn accusations commonly. The Inquisition actually had more limits on its use than secular courts, ruling that torture could be used only once, though this was gotten around by them "suspending" torture sessions and starting again later. Confessions under torture had to be repeated afterward in court as well (though the threat of further torture if the accused recanted made this empty). Witchcraft trials saw even these meager protections thrown out. Since witchcraft was the "crimen exceptem", even suspects managing to hold out and not confess under torture would not save them. Instead, it was said the Devil had aided them to resist, blithely ignoring the belief God would do so for an innocent person mentioned earlier. Not until into the 1600s would torture's efficacy first be questioned. England banned torture in 1640. One story goes that a German prince whose domain had seen a number of witch trials was concerned with the fantastic things accused witches had confessed under torture, and asked for the Jesuit Order to investigate. They did so, and reported that the practice was proper. Afterward the prince called the Jesuits into a torture chamber, where he brought them to an a woman who had already confessed to witchcraft. The prince asked if the Jesuits were involved too. At first she denied it, but then immediately agreed when he threatened to have her tortured further. Astonished, the Jesuits became convinced of its failure. Father Frederich Spee, a Jesuit priest who acted as confessor to people convicted of witchcraft, wrote a groundbreaking book, ''Cautio Criminalis'' (Precautions for Prosecutors) which noted this and argued in favor of banning torture, with accused witches having the same legal rights.
10th Nov '16 11:52:51 PM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The Mord-Sith are an entire order of {{The Baroness}}es in Terry Goodkind's ''Literature/SwordOfTruth''. To be fair, they are ''long-term'' torturers, in that they "break" a target over weeks or months so that they [[RapeIsLove want to obey their Mistress]], who have been trained since girlhood. They're less a method of gaining information and more a method of making someone into a slave. Hell, they don't even ask any questions until they're sure that their victim is properly "trained."

to:

* The Mord-Sith are an entire order of {{The Baroness}}es in Terry Goodkind's ''Literature/SwordOfTruth''. To be fair, they are ''long-term'' torturers, in that they "break" a target over weeks or months so that they [[RapeIsLove [[{{Brainwashed}} want to obey their Mistress]], who have been trained since girlhood. They're less a method of gaining information and more a method of making someone into a slave. Hell, they don't even ask any questions until they're sure that their victim is properly "trained."



** Subverted, however, when one tries to question a Mord-Sith. The books show two attempts and both have failed (including a {{Room 101}} one)

to:

** Subverted, however, when one tries to question a Mord-Sith. The books show two attempts and both have failed (including a {{Room 101}} one)one).



** At the same time, the said Legion operates a ship where captured Terrorists are subjected to horrific procedures, from dental drilling, to finger breaking, to sex change operations over a period of months to get them to give information. It is mentioned repeatedly that they verify all the information gained with that other prisoners and from intercepted messages. If the captured terrorists are found to be lying their parents are brought in....

to:

** At the same time, the said Legion operates a ship where captured Terrorists terrorists are subjected to horrific procedures, from dental drilling, to finger breaking, to sex change operations over a period of months to get them to give information. It is mentioned repeatedly that they verify all the information gained with that other prisoners and from intercepted messages. If the captured terrorists are found to be lying their parents are brought in....



* Invoked and then subverted in Creator/MercedesLackey's ''[[Literature/HeraldsOfValdemar Arrow's Fall]]'': facing torture, Talia thinks back to her training, in which she was advised that torture ''will'' eventually force anyone to give up whatever information they are trying to keep concealed... so, as per her training, Talia starts off with a SarcasticConfession and then lies extensively and creatively to make sure her torturers won't recognize the truth when they hear it. Of course, they're not especially interested in getting information out of her anyhow.

to:

* Invoked and then subverted in Creator/MercedesLackey's ''[[Literature/HeraldsOfValdemar Arrow's Fall]]'': facing torture, Talia thinks back to her training, in which she was advised that torture ''will'' eventually force anyone to give up whatever information they are trying to keep concealed... so, So, as per her training, Talia starts off with a SarcasticConfession and then lies extensively and creatively to make sure her torturers won't recognize the truth when they hear it. Of course, they're not especially interested in getting information out of her anyhow.



* Caesar relies on this trope in a quite gruesome matter in the fourth ''Emperor" book''. After Brutus' FaceHeelTurn, Julius realises he has to keep the lid on what has happened and make use of the fact that no one ever believed Brutus would betray him, as well as keep an eye on Brutus so that he knows how much he reveals to Pompey. So he lets people believe that Brutus is actually working as a spy, knowing that this is what Pompey is suspecting, and then he selects a soldier to go as a second spy. He purposely selects a clumsy, non-discreet soldier in the hopes that he ''will'' be captured and tortured, in which case he'll reveal the truth as he knows it - that Brutus hasn't betrayed Caesar but is his spy. Julius does show a lot of agony over having to go through with the plan, but feels he has no other choice.

to:

* Caesar relies on this trope in a quite gruesome matter in the fourth ''Emperor" book''. After Brutus' FaceHeelTurn, Julius realises realizes he has to keep the lid on what has happened and make use of the fact that no one ever believed Brutus would betray him, as well as keep an eye on Brutus so that he knows how much he reveals to Pompey. So he lets people believe that Brutus is actually working as a spy, knowing that this is what Pompey is suspecting, and then he selects a soldier to go as a second spy. He purposely selects a clumsy, non-discreet soldier in the hopes that he ''will'' be captured and tortured, in which case he'll reveal the truth as he knows it - that Brutus hasn't betrayed Caesar but is his spy. Julius does show a lot of agony over having to go through with the plan, but feels he has no other choice.



* A running theme in the [[Creator/VinceFlynn Mitch Rapp]] books is that, contrary to the protestations of [[StrawmanPolitical politically correct liberals]], torture works consistantly and gives reliable information. On the rare occasions there's someone who doesn't break easily, there will be a weaker compatriot around for the interrogator to exploit instead. Not coincidentally, the author has worked on [[Series/TwentyFour 24]], below.

to:

* A running theme in the [[Creator/VinceFlynn Mitch Rapp]] books is that, contrary to the protestations of [[StrawmanPolitical politically correct liberals]], torture works consistantly consistently and gives reliable information. On the rare occasions there's someone who doesn't break easily, there will be a weaker compatriot around for the interrogator to exploit instead. Not coincidentally, the author has worked on [[Series/TwentyFour 24]], below.



* Discussed and doubly subverted in TheMalteseFalcon. When Kasper Gutman uses the threat of torture in order to coerce Sam Spade to divulge the whereabouts of the Falcon, Sam responds that torture is only effective if the tormentor is ready at some point during the torture to go all the way and kill the vitim; Gutman cannot afford to kill Sam since he is the only person knowing the bird's location and Sam knows that Gutman knows that etc...which is not quite true since many torture techniques are very painful and specially designed to keep the victim alive for an indefinite amount of time.

to:

* Discussed and doubly subverted in TheMalteseFalcon. When Kasper Gutman uses the threat of torture in order to coerce Sam Spade to divulge the whereabouts of the Falcon, Sam responds that torture is only effective if the tormentor is ready at some point during the torture to go all the way and kill the vitim; victim; Gutman cannot afford to kill Sam since he is the only person knowing the bird's location and Sam knows that Gutman knows that etc...which etc... Which is not quite true since many torture techniques are very painful and specially designed to keep the victim alive for an indefinite amount of time.



* Played straight in ''Literature/ASongOfIceAndFire''. A {{Mook}} in [[AlphaBitch Queen Cersei's]] employ initially gives the false confession they had agreed upon when questioned by the ChurchMilitant, but under torture he gives up the true story.

to:

* Played straight in ''Literature/ASongOfIceAndFire''. A {{Mook}} in [[AlphaBitch Queen Cersei's]] employ initially gives the false confession they had agreed upon when questioned by the ChurchMilitant, [[ChurchMilitant Faith Militant]], but under torture he gives up the true story.



** In fact, a major theme of Day 7 was how torture was necessary because it's so effective and apparently nothing else ever works. In fact, when someone he's interrogating starts saying anything Jack wants to hear, Jack specifies someone who has been in the business as long as him learns to tell when someone is speaking under duress, telling the truth or will never break. He tells the guy off for pretending and states he knows he's dealing with the kind of guy who will cough up the truth under torture. Jack, being Jack, is right (although he's stopped from the completing the interrogation by people who believe torture is never acceptable).

to:

** In fact, a major theme of Day 7 was how torture was necessary because it's so effective and apparently nothing else ever works. In fact, when someone he's interrogating starts saying anything Jack wants to hear, Jack specifies someone who has been in the business as long as him learns to tell when someone is speaking under duress, telling the truth or will never break. He tells the guy off for pretending and states he knows he's dealing with the kind of guy who will cough up the truth under torture. Jack, being Jack, is right (although he's stopped from the completing the interrogation by people who believe torture is never acceptable).



** He also prepared to torture more Others in ''The Glass Ballerina'', telling Sun he would capture two of them and kill the rest, Sun asked why he would take two and Sayid replied: "One to make the other cooperate." Badass mofo.

to:

** He also prepared to torture more Others in ''The Glass Ballerina'', telling Sun he would capture two of them and kill the rest, rest. Sun asked why he would take two and Sayid replied: "One to make the other cooperate." Badass mofo.



* Played straight again and again in ''Series/TheShield''. [[CowboyCop Vic Mackey]] and his Strike Team frequently torture suspects before arresting them to get useful information. This can range from simply pointing a gun at the suspect or beating them to stabbing them with a badge pin or drowning them in oil. The perps always know exactly what the cops want to find out, they always give in and reveal the details, and they never attempt to give misleading information or tell outright lies. Could be partially justified because Mackey has a fearsome reputation and is likely to to track down and punish anyone who tries to play him, but it even works in situations where the suspect ought to be more scared of the people he is betraying, or where he is about to leave town never to be seen again.

to:

* Played straight again and again in ''Series/TheShield''. [[CowboyCop Vic Mackey]] and his Strike Team frequently torture suspects before arresting them to get useful information. This can range from simply pointing a gun at the suspect or beating them to stabbing them with a badge pin or drowning them in oil. The perps always know exactly what the cops want to find out, they always give in and reveal the details, and they never attempt to give misleading information or tell outright lies. Could be partially justified because Mackey has a fearsome reputation and is likely to to track down and punish anyone who tries to play him, but it even works in situations where the suspect ought to be more scared of the people he is betraying, or where he is about to leave town never to be seen again.



* In ''Series/PrisonBreak'', General Zavala becomes the new head of the prison guards at Sona. Unlike his predecessor, he isn't corrupt and believes Michael Scofield about Gretchen Morgan being a criminal. Zavala has Gretchen tortured and, while that doesn't reveal any information at first, concludes that her behavior and composure indicates that this isn't her first time being tortured, confirming that she isn't who she claims. Later, she pretends to break and agrees to take them to a safehouse, only to surprise and kill the General and his escort.
* Deconstructed in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, "Chains of Command: Part Two," when [[TortureTechnician Gul Macet]] captures Picard. The torture fails to retrieve any useful information- but it does succeed in humiliating and breaking Picard.

to:

* In ''Series/PrisonBreak'', General Zavala becomes the new head of the prison guards at Sona. Unlike his predecessor, he isn't corrupt and believes Michael Scofield about Gretchen Morgan being a criminal. Zavala has Gretchen tortured and, while that doesn't reveal any information at first, concludes that her behavior and composure indicates that this isn't her first time being tortured, confirming that she isn't who she claims. Later, she pretends to break and agrees to take them to a safehouse, safe house, only to surprise and kill the General and his escort.
* Deconstructed {{Deconstructed}} in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, Series/StarTrekTheNextGeneration episode "Chains of Command: Part Two," when [[TortureTechnician Gul Macet]] captures Picard. The torture fails to retrieve any useful information- but information-but it does succeed in humiliating and breaking Picard.Picard. Mostly Macet tries to make Picard say there are five lights [[TwoPlusTortureMakesFive when in fact there are four]], which Picard later admits he was close to doing before being rescued, even briefly ''seeing'' them as five.



* In ''Theatre/OedipusTheKing'', the shepherd who found the abandoned infant Oedipus and gave him to Polybus is brought to Oedipus refuses to talk, Oedipus orders his guards to twist his arm behind his back until he does. Later, he threatens to have the man killed when he hesitates again. Only then does Oedipus become the last in the play to deduce the AwfulTruth that he indeed did, as prophesied, kill his father and marry his mother.

to:

* In ''Theatre/OedipusTheKing'', the shepherd who found the abandoned infant Oedipus and gave him to Polybus is brought to Oedipus and refuses to talk, talk. Oedipus orders his guards to twist his arm behind his back until he does. Later, he threatens to have the man killed when he hesitates again. Only then does Oedipus become the last in the play to deduce the AwfulTruth that he indeed did, as prophesied, kill his father and marry his mother.


Added DiffLines:


[[folder: Real Life]]
This list shows the last 10 events of 304. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.TortureAlwaysWorks