"Torture Doesn't Work"

[The Parkus Empire]

Just because torture works on Game of Thrones does not mean it works in real life.

The CIA admits it doesn't work, and they were one of the biggest proponents of it in the early 2000s.

So are you saying that if you were in the situation described in the OP that you would be able to take infinite torture without ever yielding the information?

it just sounds a bit unbelievable

Improves the odds of getting into heaven, I would figure. If I crack and they kill me, I die unrepentant. But if I die under torture for refusing to crack, I think God will excuse my lack of last confession

[Seangoli]

So are you saying that if you were in the situation described in the OP that you would be able to take infinite torture without ever yielding the information?

it just sounds a bit unbelievable

In that one very specific instance, valuable info may be obtained.

However the intelligence services now have the unenviable job of going through all the other confessions as well to try and figure out who is actually telling the truth and who made up a load of stuff in the hope of retaining the use of their hands.

That valuable info is now diluted in a massive amount of info that is less... reliable.

Torture may produce results but it is impossible to tell if these are real or not.

There are far better - though admittedly more lengthy - ways of getting information and interrogating suspects.

The entire premise of the OP is counter to reality. James god damn Mattis opposes the use of torture due to its ineffectiveness in producing actually useful data. You cannot tell me that man is some sort of closet university liberal.

The fact is that torture does get people to talk. Amd talk. And talk. Its a great way to extract a confession, even when the person had nothing to do with the crime. Its a wonderful way tp get a whole lot of utterly useless information that will take ages to verify, burying any useful information that can be garmered in a sea of bullshit a thousand leagues deep.

There us a reason why intelligence agencies have moved away from torture, and thats because it leads to way more trouble with piles of useless, fabricated, exaggerated information that honestly serves no purpose to anybody.

[Jebslund]

Just because torture works on Game of Thrones does not mean it works in real life.

The CIA admits it doesn't work, and they were one of the biggest proponents of it in the early 2000s.

So are you saying that if you were in the situation described in the OP that you would be able to take infinite torture without ever yielding the information?

it just sounds a bit unbelievable

They wouldn't have to. Either the deadline passes, they die under torture, or the torturer gets bored and executes them. Nothing to lose by lying any way.

[Galloism]

In that one very specific instance, valuable info may be obtained.

However the intelligence services now have the unenviable job of going through all the other confessions as well to try and figure out who is actually telling the truth and who made up a load of stuff in the hope of retaining the use of their hands.

That valuable info is now diluted in a massive amount of info that is less... reliable.

Torture may produce results but it is impossible to tell if these are real or not.

There are far better - though admittedly more lengthy - ways of getting information and interrogating suspects.

The entire premise of the OP is counter to reality. James god damn Mattis opposes the use of torture due to its ineffectiveness in producing actually useful data. You cannot tell me that man is some sort of closet university liberal.

The fact is that torture does get people to talk. Amd talk. And talk. Its a great way to extract a confession, even when the person had nothing to do with the crime. Its a wonderful way tp get a whole lot of utterly useless information that will take ages to verify, burying any useful information that can be garmered in a sea of bullshit a thousand leagues deep.

There us a reason why intelligence agencies have moved away from torture, and thats because it leads to way more trouble with piles of useless, fabricated, exaggerated information that honestly serves no purpose to anybody.

One must never forget the black Muslim extremists in Montana.

#NeverForget

[Hydesland]

Lots.

I have strong suspicions of the external validity of the first paper and what can be extrapolated from it, it's a huge stretch to call that experiment torture. The second paper literally says empirical investigation is impossible right in the abstract. I don't have much time right now to go through the rest, but that wasn't a good start.

If you can instantly verify it, you can also find it instantly.

How is that the case? I like to use the example of unlocking an encrypted laptop; a password can be verified wrong instantly, but can't be found instantly. To say "torture doesn't work" as an absolute would mean that you think that: if I put man's balls in a vice, and slowly started turning unless he gave me the password, he would almost never give me the correct password, even if the information on the laptop is extremely trivial and unimportant to him - i.e. a man would rather undergo excruciating pain and impotency than provide the password, no matter how trivial the information on the laptop is. Since that scenario is so absurd, you at least can't claim "torture doesn't work" is a universally applicable absolute.

[The Johtian Republic]

The only type of torture that works 100% of the time is leaving a cake out and saying "only people who confess get a slice" and slowly eating it in front of their face.

On a serious note, does torture work? Yes. Should it be used? If needed. Is it humane? Absolutely not.

Some types of torture are specifically designed to give the maximum amount of pain until they break (flogging, iron maidens, etc.), some are made to psychologically break the subject by giving the fear of death (waterboarding, controlled dropping, etc.), and some are in another class of their own.

But is it needed? Of course. Some people won't break unless they're tortured.
Do I support it? That depends on your definition of support. I support it if it's absolutely needed, but if it's not, then no. It shouldn't be used.

[Dogmeat]

No, but maternal guilt is 100% effective.

[Jebslund]

Lots.

I have strong suspicions of the external validity of the first paper and what can be extrapolated from it, it's a huge stretch to call that experiment torture. The second paper literally says empirical investigation is impossible right in the abstract. I don't have much time right now to go through the rest, but that wasn't a good start.

If you can instantly verify it, you can also find it instantly.

How is that the case? I like to use the example of unlocking an encrypted laptop; a password can be verified wrong instantly, but can't be found instantly. To say "torture doesn't work" as an absolute would mean that you think that: if I put man's balls in a vice, and slowly started turning unless he gave me the password, he would almost never give me the correct password, even if the information on the laptop is extremely trivial and unimportant to him - i.e. a man would rather undergo excruciating pain and impotency than provide the password, no matter how trivial the information on the laptop is. Since that scenario is so absurd, you at least can't claim "torture doesn't work" is a universally applicable absolute.

That's like saying a boat can't be called unsinkable because it would sink if you remove every anti-sinking feature it has. It's so outside the realm of likelihood, I'm surprised you didn't pull something reaching for it. If it were that trivial, you wouldn't need to torture him for the info. He'd give it to you. Especially if you were in desperate enough need to even consider torturing him for it.

In any event, if the info on that laptop is so important as to warrant the level of protection that would "require" torture, the victim is still in the same lose-lose scenario as has already been pointed out several times: Divulging the information is not guaranteed to improve the situation, no matter what they do, they're not walking free, and giving up the info means betraying *someone*. In such circumstances, the only winning move is not to play the captor's game. At least then, you get the satisfaction of watching them get more and more desperate as their deadline approaches. Once you're captured, you have all the time in the world. Your captors don't. Your information has an expiration date.

[Hydesland]

]
That's like saying a boat can't be called unsinkable because it would sink if you remove every anti-sinking feature it has. It's so outside the realm of likelihood, I'm surprised you didn't pull something reaching for it. If it were that trivial, you wouldn't need to torture him for the info. He'd give it to you. Especially if you were in desperate enough need to even consider torturing him for it.

It's not that outside the realm of likelihood, all that needs to happen is:
a) a laptop with important information to someone else exists (not outside the realm of likelihood)
b) the person who owns the laptop is alive and can be caught (not outside the realm of likelihood)

Also I didn't say it was "that trivial", I said that you would have to think that there is no level of triviality to which he would give up the info, which is obviously absurd.

In any event, if the info on that laptop is so important as to warrant the level of protection that would "require" torture, the victim is still in the same lose-lose scenario as has already been pointed out several times: Divulging the information is not guaranteed to improve the situation, no matter what they do

As long as there is a non zero chance it can, it's rational to try, and it's obviously the case that people will vary on what they estimate the likelihood the torturer will stop is. If they judge the torturer to not be 100% motivated by sadism, then it's completely reasonable to expect that they would stop if they get the information they needed. And it's completely reasonable to not think your torturer is a sadist because such a personality trait is actually exceptionally rare in humans, and it's absolutely possible to commit gravely immoral acts without being a sadist.

, they're not walking free, and giving up the info means betraying *someone*. In such circumstances, the only winning move is not to play the captor's game.

No, the winning move depends entirely on the payoffs/punishments. If the cost to you of "betrayal" is less than the cost of excruciating pain and impotency + the likelihood to you that the torturer happens to be a sadist who will continue anyway is sufficiently low, then the "winning" move is indeed to just give up the password.

[Thermodolia]

The only type of torture that works 100% of the time is leaving a cake out and saying "only people who confess get a slice" and slowly eating it in front of their face.

On a serious note, does torture work? Yes. Should it be used? If needed. Is it humane? Absolutely not.

Some types of torture are specifically designed to give the maximum amount of pain until they break (flogging, iron maidens, etc.), some are made to psychologically break the subject by giving the fear of death (waterboarding, controlled dropping, etc.), and some are in another class of their own.

But is it needed? Of course. Some people won't break unless they're tortured.
Do I support it? That depends on your definition of support. I support it if it's absolutely needed, but if it's not, then no. It shouldn't be used.

Iron Maiden’s where never actually a thing

[Jebslund]

It's not that outside the realm of likelihood, all that needs to happen is:
a) a laptop with important information to someone else exists (not outside the realm of likelihood)
b) the person who owns the laptop is alive and can be caught (not outside the realm of likelihood)

Also I didn't say it was "that trivial", I said that you would have to think that there is no level of triviality to which he would give up the info, which is obviously absurd.

Again, if the info is trivial/unimportant to the owner, and vital to you, you wouldn't have to torture them for the password. Unless they're a world-class sadist, they'd *give* it to you, either by you asking, or by you paying them/agreeing to a favor/putting their name in the right ear/etc. The main argument for torture is that there are people who won't crack unless it's administered. The problem is, there are no such people that torture would really work on, for the same reasons that other, more proven methods aren't working.

As long as there is a non zero chance it can, it's rational to try, and it's obviously the case that people will vary on what they estimate the likelihood the torturer will stop is. If they judge the torturer to not be 100% motivated by sadism, then it's completely reasonable to expect that they would stop if they get the information they needed. And it's completely reasonable to not think your torturer is a sadist because such a personality trait is actually exceptionally rare in humans, and it's absolutely possible to commit gravely immoral acts without being a sadist.

It really doesn't. Especially since it doesn't take a sadist not to stop. As others have pointed out, the excuse then becomes, "well, let's see what else he knows". By the time you're being tortured, the chances of you being freed are zero, and your chances of being executed or locked up and left alone if they think they've gotten all they're going to get out of you are virtually 100%. You're actually better off in the long run with them thinking you're useless. I'd also like to point out that anyone, at this point, important enough to know anything useful will have been trained to resist torture and/or be too loyal to ever betray their organisation. Even then, the vast majority of information obtained through torture, as discovered by the CIA, is useless. Even when they do get useful information, it's often old intel by the time they can act on it.

No, the winning move depends entirely on the payoffs/punishments. If the cost to you of "betrayal" is less than the cost of excruciating pain and impotency + the likelihood to you that the torturer happens to be a sadist who will continue anyway is sufficiently low, then the "winning" move is indeed to just give up the password.

There IS NO PAYOFF to playing their game. Those of the mindset to use torture aren't going to be satisfied. Ever. Give a little info, they want more. Know nothing, and they will torture you until you "give up" something. The only way to 'win' is to convince them that torture won't get them anything, in which case they dispose of you as they will. There is no chance you will just go free. NONE. Castration isn't that big a problem if you've no chance of getting to use what you'd have lost anyway. Anyone who thinks freedom is on the table by the time torture is resorted to, *especially* if it's as a first resort, is a fool.

[Hydesland]

It's not that outside the realm of likelihood, all that needs to happen is:
a) a laptop with important information to someone else exists (not outside the realm of likelihood)
b) the person who owns the laptop is alive and can be caught (not outside the realm of likelihood)

Also I didn't say it was "that trivial", I said that you would have to think that there is no level of triviality to which he would give up the info, which is obviously absurd.

Again, if the info is trivial/unimportant to the owner, and vital to you, you wouldn't have to torture them for the password. Unless they're a world-class sadist, they'd *give* it to you, either by you asking, or by you paying them/agreeing to a favor/putting their name in the right ear/etc. The main argument for torture is that there are people who won't crack unless it's administered. The problem is, there are no such people that torture would really work on, for the same reasons that other, more proven methods aren't working.

As long as there is a non zero chance it can, it's rational to try, and it's obviously the case that people will vary on what they estimate the likelihood the torturer will stop is. If they judge the torturer to not be 100% motivated by sadism, then it's completely reasonable to expect that they would stop if they get the information they needed. And it's completely reasonable to not think your torturer is a sadist because such a personality trait is actually exceptionally rare in humans, and it's absolutely possible to commit gravely immoral acts without being a sadist.

It really doesn't. Especially since it doesn't take a sadist not to stop. As others have pointed out, the excuse then becomes, "well, let's see what else he knows". By the time you're being tortured, the chances of you being freed are zero, and your chances of being executed or locked up and left alone if they think they've gotten all they're going to get out of you are virtually 100%. You're actually better off in the long run with them thinking you're useless. I'd also like to point out that anyone, at this point, important enough to know anything useful will have been trained to resist torture and/or be too loyal to ever betray their organisation. Even then, the vast majority of information obtained through torture, as discovered by the CIA, is useless. Even when they do get useful information, it's often old intel by the time they can act on it.

No, the winning move depends entirely on the payoffs/punishments. If the cost to you of "betrayal" is less than the cost of excruciating pain and impotency + the likelihood to you that the torturer happens to be a sadist who will continue anyway is sufficiently low, then the "winning" move is indeed to just give up the password.

There IS NO PAYOFF to playing their game. Those of the mindset to use torture aren't going to be satisfied. Ever. Give a little info, they want more. Know nothing, and they will torture you until you "give up" something. The only way to 'win' is to convince them that torture won't get them anything, in which case they dispose of you as they will. There is no chance you will just go free. NONE. Castration isn't that big a problem if you've no chance of getting to use what you'd have lost anyway. Anyone who thinks freedom is on the table by the time torture is resorted to, *especially* if it's as a first resort, is a fool.

All you're doing is morphing the situation into something completely different so that the payoffs change. It's ridiculously easy to come up with a non absurd example that doesn't conform to your assumptions, to flesh it out a bit more:

Suppose you work at a bank.
Suppose you have access to a computer or server that, if a malicious person could gain access to, could use it to drain the accounts to credit another person's account and make them rich (assume they could use some convoluted crypto coin exchange mechanism to make the transaction untraceable if necessary).
A bank robber breaks in, and demands the password, you initially refuse, as you risk losing the job or damaging your company if you just give him the password to the server.
The robber, in desperation, then starts inflicting torture on you through some mechanism (e.g. he uses a taser on you repeatedly, he starts breaking your bones one by one, anything you can imagine that's practical).

What's the most rational move here?

While the information is non trivial, it's not extremely important to you either, after-all, bank deposits are probably insured, and the managers would understand the situation so you probably wouldn't lose your job.
There is absolutely no reason to assume that the bank robber, just through sheer massive coincidence, also just happens to be a sadist who will, despite being in a rush, continue to inflict torture on you even after you've given him what he needs.

Given that, are you really saying that it's still worth enduring agony and torture, and possibly lifelong psychological trauma, all to protect some depositors money who probably have insured deposits anyway?

[Salandriagado]

Again, if the info is trivial/unimportant to the owner, and vital to you, you wouldn't have to torture them for the password. Unless they're a world-class sadist, they'd *give* it to you, either by you asking, or by you paying them/agreeing to a favor/putting their name in the right ear/etc. The main argument for torture is that there are people who won't crack unless it's administered. The problem is, there are no such people that torture would really work on, for the same reasons that other, more proven methods aren't working.



It really doesn't. Especially since it doesn't take a sadist not to stop. As others have pointed out, the excuse then becomes, "well, let's see what else he knows". By the time you're being tortured, the chances of you being freed are zero, and your chances of being executed or locked up and left alone if they think they've gotten all they're going to get out of you are virtually 100%. You're actually better off in the long run with them thinking you're useless. I'd also like to point out that anyone, at this point, important enough to know anything useful will have been trained to resist torture and/or be too loyal to ever betray their organisation. Even then, the vast majority of information obtained through torture, as discovered by the CIA, is useless. Even when they do get useful information, it's often old intel by the time they can act on it.


There IS NO PAYOFF to playing their game. Those of the mindset to use torture aren't going to be satisfied. Ever. Give a little info, they want more. Know nothing, and they will torture you until you "give up" something. The only way to 'win' is to convince them that torture won't get them anything, in which case they dispose of you as they will. There is no chance you will just go free. NONE. Castration isn't that big a problem if you've no chance of getting to use what you'd have lost anyway. Anyone who thinks freedom is on the table by the time torture is resorted to, *especially* if it's as a first resort, is a fool.

All you're doing is morphing the situation into something completely different so that the payoffs change. It's ridiculously easy to come up with a non absurd example that doesn't conform to your assumptions, to flesh it out a bit more:

Suppose you work at a bank.
Suppose you have access to a computer or server that, if a malicious person could gain access to, could use it to drain the accounts to credit another person's account and make them rich (assume they could use some convoluted crypto coin exchange mechanism to make the transaction untraceable if necessary).
A bank robber breaks in, and demands the password, you initially refuse, as you risk losing the job or damaging your company if you just give him the password to the server.
The robber, in desperation, then starts inflicting torture on you through some mechanism (e.g. he uses a taser on you repeatedly, he starts breaking your bones one by one, anything you can imagine that's practical).

What's the most rational move here?

While th

Give him the information. But that was also the most rational move before the torture started.

[Hydesland]

All you're doing is morphing the situation into something completely different so that the payoffs change. It's ridiculously easy to come up with a non absurd example that doesn't conform to your assumptions, to flesh it out a bit more:

Suppose you work at a bank.
Suppose you have access to a computer or server that, if a malicious person could gain access to, could use it to drain the accounts to credit another person's account and make them rich (assume they could use some convoluted crypto coin exchange mechanism to make the transaction untraceable if necessary).
A bank robber breaks in, and demands the password, you initially refuse, as you risk losing the job or damaging your company if you just give him the password to the server.
The robber, in desperation, then starts inflicting torture on you through some mechanism (e.g. he uses a taser on you repeatedly, he starts breaking your bones one by one, anything you can imagine that's practical).

What's the most rational move here?

While th

Give him the information. But that was also the most rational move before the torture started.

Only if you judge the threat of torture to be credible enough to begin with, which implies torture (or a credible threat of such) does indeed work at least in that situation. But you might not initially judge the threat credible, you might doubt the robber would be willing to go through with it, in which case a bit of actual torture might be needed to prove his threats are credible.

[Hydesland]

Here's some principles I think people should agree on:

Torture can work at least when all of these conditions are met:

1) The information can be immediately verified, such as a password to a computer, and there is a finite amount of info the torturer needs.
2) The personal cost to the individual of giving up this information is less than the personal cost of endless agony from torture.
3) The individual does not have reason to suspect the torturer also happens to be a sadist that will continue to torture them even after they've provided the verified information

[The New California Republic]

Here's some principles I think people should agree on:

Torture can work at least when all of these conditions are met:

1) The information can be immediately verified, such as a password to a computer, and there is a finite amount of info the torturer needs.
2) The personal cost to the individual of giving up this information is less than the personal cost of endless agony from torture.
3) The individual does not have reason to suspect the torturer also happens to be a sadist that will continue to torture them even after they've provided the verified information

The problem is that condition three is something that the torture victim probably won't know, it isn't something that they can check or verify. All that they know is that this asshole is inflicting pain and suffering on them, they likely won't have any idea of gauging how far they will go.

[Herador]

Here's some principles I think people should agree on:

Torture can work at least when all of these conditions are met:

1) The information can be immediately verified, such as a password to a computer, and there is a finite amount of info the torturer needs.
2) The personal cost to the individual of giving up this information is less than the personal cost of endless agony from torture.
3) The individual does not have reason to suspect the torturer also happens to be a sadist that will continue to torture them even after they've provided the verified information

So basically torture only works in an episode of 24.

[Hydesland]

Here's some principles I think people should agree on:

Torture can work at least when all of these conditions are met:

1) The information can be immediately verified, such as a password to a computer, and there is a finite amount of info the torturer needs.
2) The personal cost to the individual of giving up this information is less than the personal cost of endless agony from torture.
3) The individual does not have reason to suspect the torturer also happens to be a sadist that will continue to torture them even after they've provided the verified information

The problem is that condition three is something that the torture victim probably won't know, it isn't something that they can check or verify. All that they know is that this asshole is inflicting pain and suffering on them, they likely won't have any idea of gauging how far they will go.

They can't know, this is why I said "suspect" rather than "know" - but there are certainly situations where they would have no reason to suspect they are a sadist, such as in the bank robber example above.

[The New California Republic]

The problem is that condition three is something that the torture victim probably won't know, it isn't something that they can check or verify. All that they know is that this asshole is inflicting pain and suffering on them, they likely won't have any idea of gauging how far they will go.

They can't know, this is why I said "suspect" rather than "know" - but there are certainly situations where they would have no reason to suspect they are a sadist, such as in the bank robber example above.

Would it be reasonable for a torture victim to suspect that the torturer is not a sadist, if the torturer is inflicting unspeakable levels of pain and suffering to get the torture victim to hand over information? I'm not sure that we can reasonably make that kind of an assumption. Personally, if it was me, I would be leaning towards assuming that the torturer is a sadist, and possibly psychotic or a sociopath.

[Jebslund]

Again, if the info is trivial/unimportant to the owner, and vital to you, you wouldn't have to torture them for the password. Unless they're a world-class sadist, they'd *give* it to you, either by you asking, or by you paying them/agreeing to a favor/putting their name in the right ear/etc. The main argument for torture is that there are people who won't crack unless it's administered. The problem is, there are no such people that torture would really work on, for the same reasons that other, more proven methods aren't working.


Wait him out. As a workplace injury, it would be covered by workman's comp, even after the hospital bills.
It really doesn't. Especially since it doesn't take a sadist not to stop. As others have pointed out, the excuse then becomes, "well, let's see what else he knows". By the time you're being tortured, the chances of you being freed are zero, and your chances of being executed or locked up and left alone if they think they've gotten all they're going to get out of you are virtually 100%. You're actually better off in the long run with them thinking you're useless. I'd also like to point out that anyone, at this point, important enough to know anything useful will have been trained to resist torture and/or be too loyal to ever betray their organisation. Even then, the vast majority of information obtained through torture, as discovered by the CIA, is useless. Even when they do get useful information, it's often old intel by the time they can act on it.


There IS NO PAYOFF to playing their game. Those of the mindset to use torture aren't going to be satisfied. Ever. Give a little info, they want more. Know nothing, and they will torture you until you "give up" something. The only way to 'win' is to convince them that torture won't get them anything, in which case they dispose of you as they will. There is no chance you will just go free. NONE. Castration isn't that big a problem if you've no chance of getting to use what you'd have lost anyway. Anyone who thinks freedom is on the table by the time torture is resorted to, *especially* if it's as a first resort, is a fool.

All you're doing is morphing the situation into something completely different so that the payoffs change. It's ridiculously easy to come up with a non absurd example that doesn't conform to your assumptions, to flesh it out a bit more:

Suppose you work at a bank.
Suppose you have access to a computer or server that, if a malicious person could gain access to, could use it to drain the accounts to credit another person's account and make them rich (assume they could use some convoluted crypto coin exchange mechanism to make the transaction untraceable if necessary).
A bank robber breaks in, and demands the password, you initially refuse, as you risk losing the job or damaging your company if you just give him the password to the server.
The robber, in desperation, then starts inflicting torture on you through some mechanism (e.g. he uses a taser on you repeatedly, he starts breaking your bones one by one, anything you can imagine that's practical).

What's the most rational move here?

While the information is non trivial, it's not extremely important to you either, after-all, bank deposits are probably insured, and the managers would understand the situation so you probably wouldn't lose your job.
There is absolutely no reason to assume that the bank robber, just through sheer massive coincidence, also just happens to be a sadist who will, despite being in a rush, continue to inflict torture on you even after you've given him what he needs.

Given that, are you really saying that it's still worth enduring agony and torture, and possibly lifelong psychological trauma, all to protect some depositors money who probably have insured deposits anyway?

Wait him out. I have the most to gain and the least to lose that way. There's no more guarantee he won't kill me after getting the info than he will if I don't give it (ESPECIALLY if he wasn't threatening to kill me in the first place. That speaks of an unwillingness to kill. A weakness in this scenario), workman's comp and/or disability will handle the injuries and therapy (it is, after all, a workplace injury, sustained during the course of my duties), and, as you said, he's in a hurry. He doesn't have *time* to torture me at length for any reason, and not giving him the info means that, regardless of what happens to me, he can't get to the money unless someone else gives him access. It's more to his benefit to move on to someone more easily intimidated than to waste time on prolonged torture. The time constraint element works in my favor one way or another. And I get the satisfaction of watching his reaction when I call his bluff, or the peace of heaven. Either way, by keeping my mouth shut, I win, outright one way, pyrrhicly the other, with my integrity intact.

[Jebslund]

Here's some principles I think people should agree on:

Torture can work at least when all of these conditions are met:

1) The information can be immediately verified, such as a password to a computer, and there is a finite amount of info the torturer needs.
2) The personal cost to the individual of giving up this information is less than the personal cost of endless agony from torture.
3) The individual does not have reason to suspect the torturer also happens to be a sadist that will continue to torture them even after they've provided the verified information

While I'll grant you 1 in the case of criminals, it falls entirely apart in the case of antiterrorism and law enforcement officers investigating organised crime. There is always "more" information. "More" names. "More" plans. "More" hideouts.
The problem with 2 is that 'endless' requires the person committing the torture to have the time to do so, thereby breaking your bank robber example above.
The problem with 3 is that, in all cases of torture, the person *does* have reason to suspect that. This isn't killing someone. This is slowly and methodically causing harm *without* killing them. It takes a specific kind of person to be willing to do that. Torture is a line your average person would be far too empathetic to cross. You need a certain lack of empathy to be willing to carry it out, and a certain enjoyment of suffering to do so to the extent of either of your examples. It's not something that comes naturally to most people.

[NeoOasis]

The problem is the volume of useless information compared to the volume of useful information.

Other methods which beget less useless information are actually used. Torture isn't, mostly, because it is useless.

How much volume of useless information do you expect to get?

How long are you expecting the person to hold out? And again, they have no incentive to lie. They have every incentive to just tell the truth and out of hope of ending the torture permanently.

They have every incentive to lie. Either they are totally dedicated to their government or they literally have no information to actually give. In the case of total dedication to the government, death is a valid outcome to not betraying your homeland... kinda why spies in the real world often carry suicide pills or the like to avoid the possiblity of spilling the beans... kinda why that U2 fiasco got as big as it did.

If the person has literally no information to provide, he has all the incentive in the world to lie. If it ends the pain, why does he care if what he said is true? Not like he could tell them the truth if he wanted to.

From what I understand, using less coercive methods tends to yield better results more often. In this case the saying, "you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar" holds true.

Also if we're talking about US citizens inside the US, tortore falls very solidly under cruel and unusual punishment.

[Infected Mushroom]

So are you saying that if you were in the situation described in the OP that you would be able to take infinite torture without ever yielding the information?

it just sounds a bit unbelievable

They wouldn't have to. Either the deadline passes, they die under torture, or the torturer gets bored and executes them. Nothing to lose by lying any way.

With modern technology it is very possible to keep someone alive and tortured indefinitely, I am sure that It’s part of the torture to communicate and demonstrate that very clearly to the person. Any torturer worth their salt can keep the person alive.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It has been proven that torture doesn't work. Many people will confess to anything, even to falsehood, if it makes the pain stop.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... oesnt-work

[The South Falls]

They wouldn't have to. Either the deadline passes, they die under torture, or the torturer gets bored and executes them. Nothing to lose by lying any way.

With modern technology it is very possible to keep someone alive and tortured indefinitely, I am sure that It’s part of the torture to communicate and demonstrate that very clearly to the person. Any torturer worth their salt can keep the person alive.

The CIA didn't, for some of their prisoners. They're not worth their salt?