Humane interrogation works 4 times better than torture

Terrorism suspects were four times more likely to confess "when interrogators struck a neutral and respectful stance," according to a study published this year.

This isn't just theoretical, either. One former U.S. Army interrogator told PRI this week that he was able to break through to an Iraqi insurgent over a shared love of watching the TV show 24 on bootleg DVDs.

"He acknowledged that he was a big fan of Jack Bauer," he told PRI. "We made a connection there that ultimately resulted in him recanting a bunch of information that he had said in the past and actually giving us the accurate information because we had made that connection."

But as Olga Khazan points out in her Atlantic story, torture isn't about getting useful information. It's about punishment:

In another study highlighted by BPS, regular people were found to be more supportive of torture if they were told the suspect was a terrorist—but not because they thought the suspect had more information. Their support for torture, in other words, was rooted on a desire for payback, not intelligence.

Study finds that confessions are four times more likely when interrogators adopt a respectful stance toward detainees and build rapport, instead of torturing