Standards of international law require countries to refrain from using torture. Torture can sometimes bring about right information, but usually the information is mixed with false or incomplete in purpose. The author also arguments that even if the information is accurate, there are no curranty that the information could have been obtained without torture. Because torture is usually done in secret, there is no direct research on the matter. Nevertheless the criminal justice system offers evidence that from different studies (f.e. DNA analysis later revealed false confessions) can be found that as the coerciveness increases, so does the probability of false confessions. It is problematic that the decision to interrogate is usually based on if the person’s behavior is observed as suspicious, persons or link with known or suspected terrorists, because the false alarm rate in this is so high and this leads to innocent …show more content…
These differences tend to increase the risk of unreliable information. Studies shows that long interrogations and strong coercion increase the false confession. The criminal interrogation is focused in the past whereas the terrorist interrogations are focused on the future, and this is problematic, because the future plans are likely to be changed. It has been noted often that in terrorist organizations, very few know the important plans, and the ones that do, are trained to withstand torture. In the war of terror the suspected people are usually from the Middle East, and therefore the culture, language, emotional and nonverbal displays can vary a lot from the Western concepts. In the civilian criminal justice system, impartiality is important, and the evidence must be tested in the adversarial system. Research shows that these checks and balances increase the likelihood of getting to the right