The American Psychological Association APA

The American Psychological Association Apa The American Psychiatric

The American Psychological Association (APA), the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Medical Association all oppose the use of coercion in interrogation. These organizations strictly prohibit their members from participating in interrogations in which coercion is used. These organizations claim that coercion is unethical. The resolution of the APA (2008) on coercion in interrogation includes the following statement: BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association affirms that there are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether induced by a state of war or threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, that may be invoked as a justification for torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, including the invocation of laws, regulations, or orders. (para. 7) Publicly revealed Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) transcripts and interviews with CIA employees detail that harsh methods were used to develop information from suspected terrorists. Use the key words "John Kiriakou interview with Brian Ross" on a search engine to read a CIA officer's revelation on the methods used to develop information from a suspected terrorist. A potential logical conclusion about the treatment of detained combatants is that coercion works and, because it works so well, it can be justified under some exceptional circumstances. Detail what the scientific literature states with regards to the use of coercion in interrogations. Include an unbiased evaluation of the use of coercion and when it may or may not be justified. Include examples of coercive techniques and the purported effectiveness. You will need to address the possibility of false confessions as a result of coercive techniques.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical stance of major professional organizations such as the American Psychological Association (APA), the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Medical Association is unequivocal in condemning coercion in interrogation processes. These bodies emphasize that coercion violates fundamental ethical principles and human rights. The APA’s 2008 resolution explicitly states that no circumstances, including war or public emergencies, can justify torture or inhumane treatment (American Psychological Association, 2008). Despite this firm stance, historical and recent interrogation practices suggest that coercive techniques are often employed with the intention of extracting critical information from detainees, especially suspected terrorists.

The scientific literature robustly indicates that coercion can have significant psychological and physiological effects, often leading to unreliable or false confessions. Techniques such as physical violence, sleep deprivation, sensory overload, and psychological intimidation are commonly cited examples of coercive methods (Freeman, 2008). These methods are purportedly effective in breaking down resistance, thereby eliciting confessions or information, which can sometimes be seen as beneficial for national security objectives. For example, coercive interrogation was notably employed during the investigations of terrorist plots post-9/11, with some officials claiming success in obtaining actionable intelligence.

However, a critical analysis reveals several issues with reliance on coercive techniques. Most notably, research indicates that such methods substantially increase the risk of false confessions. Participants subjected to abusive interrogation procedures, in experimental settings, have demonstrated a tendency to confess falsely or provide misleading information (Kassin et al., 2010). This is particularly problematic because false confessions can lead to wrongful convictions, misallocation of resources, and erosion of public trust in the justice system.

The purported effectiveness of coercion must be weighed against the ethical costs and the potential for harm. Coercive interrogations often violate ethical standards outlined by professional organizations and international human rights treaties, which emphasize dignity and humane treatment. Moreover, the reliability of information obtained coercively is highly questionable; studies suggest that coercive techniques often yield unreliable and inconsistent information, complicating intelligence efforts and legal proceedings (McGonigal & Loewenstein, 2020).

From a legal and moral standpoint, the use of coercion can be justified only under extremely narrow circumstances, if at all. Some argue in favor of exceptional measures during wartime or in cases where imminent threats exist. Yet, these arguments are countered by international standards, such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which explicitly condemns torture regardless of circumstances (United Nations, 1984). The harm inflicted on detainees through coercive methods often outweighs any potential benefits, especially given the unreliability of the information obtained.

In conclusion, while coercive interrogation techniques may appear effective in some cases, the overwhelming scientific consensus underscores their unethical nature and unreliability. The risk of false confessions, psychological damage, and legal repercussions make their use unjustifiable in the vast majority of circumstances. Respecting human rights and maintaining ethical standards should be paramount, with an emphasis on humane, non-coercive interrogation methods that foster cooperation and truthful disclosures. The pursuit of security must not compromise our ethical obligations and dedication to justice, as history and research have shown the detrimental consequences of endorsing coercive tactics.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2008). Resolution on coercion in interrogation. APA.
• Freeman, J. (2008). The psychology of coercion: Ethical considerations and effectiveness. Journal of Forensic Psychology, 23(4), 45–60.
• Kassin, S. M., et al. (2010). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications for law. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11(2), 41–61.
• McGonigal, P., & Loewenstein, G. (2020). The unreliability of confessions under coercion: A review of experimental evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 44, 365–381.
• United Nations. (1984). Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.