re: #82 Mark Winter

This is the Catch 22 of torture which has actually already been described by a German Jesuit called Friedrich Spee in 1631, in a book called “Cautio criminalis”.

He argued that if you forced a “witch” to confess by torture she would confess anything just to stop it. But interrogators would not be satisfied. Sure she would know other witches? Of course the poor woman would name others. Those others would of course be tortured and “confess”, hence legitimizing the first torture. The absurdity of the procedure was obvious (to him at least).

He challenged the Inquisition to name him the absurdest crime they could think of, hand him any person they chose and he would get a confession. If not, they should hang him instead.

You make a good point. I do think though that it is important to remember that the point here is not to get a confession to something already done but to get information to try to prevent something that has not as yet been done. I think there are pros & cons to both sides of this and they all revolve around the word ‘if”.