This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/17/courtesy-is-the-key-in-getting-people-to-talk
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 4 | Version 5 |
|---|---|
| Courtesy is the key in getting people to talk | Courtesy is the key in getting people to talk |
| (6 days later) | |
| The case for the effectiveness of non-coercive interrogation was made long before the examples given in Ian Leslie’s excellent essay on the subject (We have ways of making you talk, 14 October). | The case for the effectiveness of non-coercive interrogation was made long before the examples given in Ian Leslie’s excellent essay on the subject (We have ways of making you talk, 14 October). |
| In his late 18th-century short story The Criminal Driven by Lost Honour (Der Verbrecher aus verlorener Ehre), Friedrich Schiller tells of a petty criminal who goes on to become public enemy number one. When he is apprehended, the judge interrogating him initially opts for a decidedly aggressive and domineering tone. The criminal, when asked by the judge, “Who are you?”, replies: “A man who is determined to answer no question until it is put more courteously.” Realising that his rather brutal interrogation method is getting him nowhere, the judge eventually decides that perhaps it would be better to treat the suspect “with civility and moderation” and apologises for his harsh manner. The suspect then informs the judge that his previous behaviour would never have extracted anything from him, whereas the change of tone has given him confidence in and respect for his interrogator. He therefore reveals who he is. | In his late 18th-century short story The Criminal Driven by Lost Honour (Der Verbrecher aus verlorener Ehre), Friedrich Schiller tells of a petty criminal who goes on to become public enemy number one. When he is apprehended, the judge interrogating him initially opts for a decidedly aggressive and domineering tone. The criminal, when asked by the judge, “Who are you?”, replies: “A man who is determined to answer no question until it is put more courteously.” Realising that his rather brutal interrogation method is getting him nowhere, the judge eventually decides that perhaps it would be better to treat the suspect “with civility and moderation” and apologises for his harsh manner. The suspect then informs the judge that his previous behaviour would never have extracted anything from him, whereas the change of tone has given him confidence in and respect for his interrogator. He therefore reveals who he is. |
| It looks as though a work of narrative fiction, and a great writer who had keen insight into the criminal mind, got there first.David HeadPeterborough | It looks as though a work of narrative fiction, and a great writer who had keen insight into the criminal mind, got there first.David HeadPeterborough |
| • One thing that struck me in your long read on interrogation techniques was that the interviewees are “interested to tell the ‘why’”. Understanding the motivation of terror suspects would seem to be extremely valuable, yet we don’t learn from it. Maybe their motivations should be made public, so that instead of professing bafflement at how someone could be radicalised, we can address the issues. I suspect that us invading and bombing other countries has a lot to do with it, but is this correct? Perhaps this uncomfortable aspect is why the motivations of people who commit atrocities are not being released and more widely discussed.Rob BastoReigate, Surrey | • One thing that struck me in your long read on interrogation techniques was that the interviewees are “interested to tell the ‘why’”. Understanding the motivation of terror suspects would seem to be extremely valuable, yet we don’t learn from it. Maybe their motivations should be made public, so that instead of professing bafflement at how someone could be radicalised, we can address the issues. I suspect that us invading and bombing other countries has a lot to do with it, but is this correct? Perhaps this uncomfortable aspect is why the motivations of people who commit atrocities are not being released and more widely discussed.Rob BastoReigate, Surrey |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |
| • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters | • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |
| UK security and counter-terrorism | UK security and counter-terrorism |
| Psychology | Psychology |
| Crime | Crime |
| letters | letters |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |