MovieChat Forums > Jericho (2006) Discussion > Hawkins' Theory About Torture

Hawkins' Theory About Torture

posted 11 years ago by SeamusWiles
7 replies | jump to latest

As much as I like this show, did anyone else find that moment where he claimed that actual torture is useless in real life and only anticipation of pain gets people to talk to be pretty stupid?

Honestly, we all know he never would have learned such a thing from working in the government. Torturing for information is routine and does force some to talk. Yes I know many have objections to it and that's your opinion that you're more than entitled to (so please spare me the political debate; I'm only talk raw facts here), but it obviously does happen.

Plus, while I do agree that from a psychological standpoint anticipation can actually prove to be a useful tool in some cases, the fact is if you're trying to force some people to talk who are extremely loyal even to death for a cause, making them think about all the pain you're supposedly about to inflict on them can only go so far. If you don't eventually follow through a lot of those people will call your bluff and realize you're just blowing smoke up their ass. At that point they'll be quieter than ever because they know they have nothing to worry about. The only pain at that point will be having to listen to your obvious BS.

Honestly it does seem like this part was just written by someone who disagrees with torture (which again, by itself that would be fine, we all are entitled to our views), but is taking it to the extent of creating a fantasy where the government never does that sort of thing. Yeah this show like any other suspends reality in some ways, but for the most part it seemed like we were to believe Hawkins' character worked for the real government that still exists today. Most of his character seemed to line up with that and feel accurate to how someone from there would think and operate, but it's like this was the one time reality was completely ignored.

If you don't want to be spoiled, you shouldn't be here in the first place.

[–] ayf_1983 11 years ago

I guess it depends on the character of the one undergoing torture . At least, for this show in particular, the message only applied to that New Bern deputy Jake and Hawkins captured . On the following episode, New Bern actually went ahead and tortured Eric Green and he never revealed anything .

So, the message I got was Them/the bad guys fold under only the threat of torture but Us/The Good Guys are heroic for resisting torture ?

[–] HellJacket 11 years ago

@ SeamusWiles

As much as I like this show, did anyone else find that moment where he claimed that actual torture is useless in real life and only anticipation of pain gets people to talk to be pretty stupid?

I thought it was perfectly logical. The show didn't have the budget or the episode time to have a long drawn out torture scene, so unless you pan out, this dialogue resolved that loose end. So, the statement was logical for advancing the plot.

However, in terms of the statement's validity to the real world, it was completely stupid. I agree with you on this. The problem with torture is not that it works. It clearly can. The problem is that the torturer has no acceptable degree of confidence when it does work and when it fails (e.g., because the person actually doesn't know anything).

If you are trying to force someone to reveal the keycode on a briefcase that you have in your possession, torture may get you the keycode. However, except for ideal scenarios like that one, most torture is ineffective because the torturee may have no knowledge, an ineffective memory, or simply willing to say anything if it means you will stop torturing him.

[–] justintyme95 11 years ago

However, in terms of the statement's validity to the real world, it was completely stupid. I agree with you on this. The problem with torture is not that it works. It clearly can. The problem is that the torturer has no acceptable degree of confidence when it does work and when it fails (e.g., because the person actually doesn't know anything).

The problem is that the type of torture that they show on TV is seldom, if ever, used. Mostly, because that type of torture doesn't really work (for the reasons you highlighted). In the real world there are no Jack Bauers screaming "Where's the bomb" as sharp instruments are shoved into body parts. When you do that the person will say anything at all to make it stop, and thus the intelligence is more-or-less worthless.

Rather, torture is typically used to break an individual. Seldom does the torturer ask questions they don't know the answer to (if they even bother to ask questions at all during the torture). Typically, a carrot/stick system is used where truthful answers are rewarded and lies are punished with more torture. This is kept up until the prisoner starts offering up information even when not asked. This is the intelligence that the torturers are actually after, as it tends to have a high truth value.

It's a Fez. I wear a Fez now. Fezzes are cool.

[–] Butterfly041532 11 years ago

I think it is logical.

My Dad was in the military and I remember him telling me a story about a tactic or something they learned in training (or one of his Army buddies had to do it). He said you take 2 or 3 people up in a helicopter and ask them the question you want the info on. If they refuse to talk then you throw one of them out of the helicopter. After that the other 2 can't stop talking. If by chance they still don't talk after the 1st one was thrown out then...well that's what you have the second guy there for. I was appalled because I couldn't imagine doing it...and I don't know if this is still a tactic they use (or ever really used) since my Dad was in the military during Vietnam. If someone is threatening me with torture and they've just shown me that I die if I don't talk then I am going to sing.

Who Cares.

[–] HellJacket 11 years ago

@ Butterfly

My Dad was in the military and I remember him telling me a story about a tactic or something they learned in training (or one of his Army buddies had to do it). He said you take 2 or 3 people up in a helicopter and ask them the question you want the info on. If they refuse to talk then you throw one of them out of the helicopter. After that the other 2 can't stop talking. If by chance they still don't talk after the 1st one was thrown out then...well that's what you have the second guy there for.

Well, I think your example qualifies as old fashion torture rather than just the "threat of torture." Torture may just not need to be directed at the recipient with the information. It would be like torturing a kid to get the kid's parent to talk. Torture is still involved, and not simply the threat of torture.

/This isn't Vietnam. There are rules.

[–] SeamusWiles 11 years ago

Yeah that's still inflicting pain upon someone, even if it wasn't the person you are trying to get information out of them. Someone still had to be harmed physically for this to work. That's really not the same thing as what Hawkins was doing. His version was to simply tell someone they would get hurt and be very descriptive, but nobody was ever actually getting hurt. Based off that theory if he did the helicopter thing he would just take someone in the air and then threaten to push them out, but never actually do it. Again, anticipation is a powerful tool if utilized properly, but it can only go so far before the bluff is called.

If you don't want to be spoiled, you shouldn't be here in the first place.

[–] hathawayj1 10 years ago

Water boarding dosnt even cause pain, it is a threat of drowning that frightens. Its a good solid way to do it, works and causes no lingering after effects.