There is an abundance of contrasting views that debate whether psychologists provide a useful service by assisting interrogations. Firstly, before discussing the role that psychologists play in the interrogation and torture process; Both of these aspects need to be defined. Torture is summarised as “intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering on another” while conducting their official duties but there needs to be proof that he had authority and justification do to so, furthermore it is irrelevant whether the suffering is mental or physical Injury (Criminal Justice Act 1998). In addition, the interrogation process is described by Arrigo and Wagner (2007) as withdrawing a great deal of precision from the detainee in a short space of time but in a legal way. If the detainee is willing to talk, it would be considered a debrief rather than an interrogation which highlights how the difference between the two is a very simple factor; the relationship between the interrogator and the detainee and also the environment in which the ‘interrogation/debrief’ takes place.
The reason is it so important to discuss psychologists’ role in interrogations and torture is because they have been associated with the U.S military and previously helped them in both world wars. Boyd, Locicero, Malowney, Aldis, and Marlin (2014) discussed how closely linked both of these groups had been; in the 1950s, 78% of the government's funding for the area of psychology was affiliated with the department of defence. It is said that psychologists were employed by the interrogators so they could inform they of any phobias or vulnerabilities they could exploit in order to advance the interrogation. The APA’s position on the psychologist’s involvement in interrogation is important due to the large number currently working with and in the military. It is declared that APA psychologists shouldn’t work where someone is held in violation of international law or the US constitution unless they are employed by the detainee or an independent third party who is assigned to safeguard a person’s human rights. The APA’s report on psychological ethics and national security contradicted itself by concluding that if a conflict between ethics and law on a certain situation prevails, that it allows psychologists to breach ethical dilemmas and adhere to the law. Further research into psychologists’ involvement in interrogations brought attention to the actual effectiveness of the interrogation process itself, experienced military interrogators and experts actually claimed that it should be avoided. They established that when the accuracy of information is a primary objective, torture is most likely going to result in misleading information which means it is ineffective in its purpose (Janoff-Bulman, 2007). Following this discovery of ineffectiveness, the APA’s Council of Representatives stated psychologists should not be involved, present or even offer advice on any military interrogations. However, despite these recommendations and previous research which would indicate it prohibits psychologists from working on projects such as Guantanamo Bay, there is still a fair amount of research that calls attention to psychologists being used in similar situations.
Soldz, Arrigo, Frakt, and Olson (2018) investigated one instance when a psychologist used her expertise in a corrupt way, in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in an attempt to cause an already vulnerable detainee (in which she was already aware of his distressed state) to ‘break down’ so that he would give a confession. It was the psychologist that made the organisation aware that the detainee would soon break if they followed their advice. All of this was an attempt to gain a confession, not any actionable intelligence that would actually be useful to the operation and could potentially save lives, therefore it was determined there was no real lawful basis of his detention and they had failed to address any ethical violations when the psychologist gave advice on how to make the detainee more vulnerable to the point where he was in such a distressed state that he attempted to end his own life.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Similar to the research conducted into the Guantanamo Bay Psychologist, a further development was made in allowing psychologists to take part in the torture rather than just designing it. This change came about due to the CIA interrogation program being reactivated. The two most notable psychologists and most central to the interrogation program, James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen both designed torture and participated in it too, some of which included waterboarding which they got funded for (Welch, 2017). Additionally, the CIA purposely allowed these instructions to continue by inserting favourable people into the APA ethics panel that would agree with the continuance of these guidelines which highlights the need for regulations to be put in place to prevent the opportunity for a small group of people being able to manipulate the system in order to potentially violate people’s human rights.
Although previous research has drawn special attention to how psychologists have previously used their expertise in a negative way to cause unnecessary and inhumane suffering, Conrad (2019) investigated the origin of psychologists and their involvement in torturous processes which dates back to 2004 in which period of time they were against torture and had an obligation to protect everyone’s wellbeing. Formerly, the APA encouraged psychologists in these kinds of roles as they would help gain useful information all while keeping everyone safe but they eventually used their skills to take advantage of their weakness which further shows the need for interventions to prevent psychologists from being able to exploit any human rights.
Finally, and possibly the most important obligation that a psychologist has in terms of interrogations is to report any accounts of torture, even if they are just a suspicion. The conspiracy charges between psychologists and intelligence entities suggest that this practice is not being followed correctly. Other professional societies such as the American Psychiatric Association have taken the stance that its members are not permitted to engage in interrogations compared to the viewpoint that the APA holds which is embedded in its 12 principles which express it is ethical for psychologists to be involved in them. Psychologists believe it is their duty to make sure the professionals are liable for their work and may have the chance to bring changes to interrogation methods, similar to the example of Mike Gelles who was a psychologist in Guantanamo Bay, he claimed he managed to change interrogation processes. Due to his experiences, he believes taking away psychologists from interrogation environments will only bring about less than favourable change which is likely to be an increase in abuse (Nature, 2009)
Stuck on your essay?
