"Torture Doesn't Work"

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Those people can also be helped with psychotherapy. The damage can be eased.

But not fully erased. PTSD is impossible to reverse.

In any case where torture has caused severe scarring damage, the torturer always wins.

PTSD can can be helped with therapy, so I don't see that as a total victory for the torturer.

[The Johtian Republic]

But not fully erased. PTSD is impossible to reverse.

In any case where torture has caused severe scarring damage, the torturer always wins.

PTSD can can be helped with therapy, so I don't see that as a total victory for the torturer.

It can't be erased. It can be helped, but not totally erased. As long as it has a lasting psychological effect, that means torture works, and it's a victory for whoever traumatized the individual.

If they're not traumatized, then it doesn't work. I concede that.

[Senkaku]

PTSD can can be helped with therapy, so I don't see that as a total victory for the torturer.

It can't be erased. It can be helped, but not totally erased. As long as it has a lasting psychological effect, that means torture works, and it's a victory for whoever traumatized the individual.

If they're not traumatized, then it doesn't work. I concede that.

I mean, if your sole goal is to damage people and inflict pain, then yeah, torture works great. This thread is about its value for extracting information, though.

[The Johtian Republic]

It can't be erased. It can be helped, but not totally erased. As long as it has a lasting psychological effect, that means torture works, and it's a victory for whoever traumatized the individual.

If they're not traumatized, then it doesn't work. I concede that.

I mean, if your sole goal is to damage people and inflict pain, then yeah, torture works great. This thread is about its value for extracting information, though.

Then it doesn't work. I concede that.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

PTSD can can be helped with therapy, so I don't see that as a total victory for the torturer.

It can't be erased. It can be helped, but not totally erased. As long as it has a lasting psychological effect, that means torture works, and it's a victory for whoever traumatized the individual.

If they're not traumatized, then it doesn't work. I concede that.

If it can be helped then it is not a total victory for the torturer. And people with PTSD demonstrate that all the time when they start retaking their lives back. The damage is there, but rising above it is possible.

[Heloin]

Those people can also be helped with psychotherapy. The damage can be eased.

But not fully erased. PTSD is impossible to reverse.

In any case where torture has caused severe scarring damage, the torturer always wins.

But hurting people isn't the end goal of torture in the context being discussed here. Of course torture hurts people, it's literally torture. The fact torture does successfully cause pain doesn't mean torture works as a means of extracting answers or information.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It can't be erased. It can be helped, but not totally erased. As long as it has a lasting psychological effect, that means torture works, and it's a victory for whoever traumatized the individual.

If they're not traumatized, then it doesn't work. I concede that.

I mean, if your sole goal is to damage people and inflict pain, then yeah, torture works great. This thread is about its value for extracting information, though.

And in that it has been proven it doesn't work. Because a person will more often than not buck and tell the torturer anything (even if false) they think he/she wants to hear just to make the pain stop.

[Galloism]

Why do you think torture is ok?

Because otherwise he couldn't justify his threads on NSG.

Cookie for you.

[The Johtian Republic]

It can't be erased. It can be helped, but not totally erased. As long as it has a lasting psychological effect, that means torture works, and it's a victory for whoever traumatized the individual.

If they're not traumatized, then it doesn't work. I concede that.

If it can be helped then it is not a total victory for the torturer. And people with PTSD demonstrate that all the time when they start retaking their lives back. The damage is there, but rising above it is possible.

I concede that fact; but it never truly goes away.
My grandfather served in Korea and Vietnam. It's been decades since both wars, and almost 3 since the fall of the USSR, and he has risen over a majority of his PTSD from not just fighting in battles but also being captured by the North Koreans and tortured.

Has he risen over it? Yes. Is it gone? Absolutely not.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

If it can be helped then it is not a total victory for the torturer. And people with PTSD demonstrate that all the time when they start retaking their lives back. The damage is there, but rising above it is possible.

I concede that fact; but it never truly goes away.
My grandfather served in Korea and Vietnam. It's been decades since both wars, and almost 3 since the fall of the USSR, and he has risen over a majority of his PTSD from not just fighting in battles but also being captured by the North Koreans and tortured.

Has he risen over it? Yes. Is it gone? Absolutely not.

But he has risen above it.

Either way, for the purpose of extracting any useful info on gov'ts and the like, no, it doesn't work.

[The Johtian Republic]

I concede that fact; but it never truly goes away.
My grandfather served in Korea and Vietnam. It's been decades since both wars, and almost 3 since the fall of the USSR, and he has risen over a majority of his PTSD from not just fighting in battles but also being captured by the North Koreans and tortured.

Has he risen over it? Yes. Is it gone? Absolutely not.

But he has risen above it.

Either way, for the purpose of extracting any useful info on gov'ts and the like, no, it doesn't work.

As I said before, I agree.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I watched a documentary on the English witch trials of the 1600s (under King James) and that is one thing that was discussed. How we nowadays are sure of the innocence of the people convicted and killed on accusations of witchcraft, and yet, many confessed to certain things under torture that makes one think. After holding on to their conviction that no, they weren't witches, something made them break in the end. Just so the pain stopped.

[Infected Mushroom]

The answer to your first question is obvious. The details/things can only practically be verified after you extract some parameters from the person tortured. For example, think of narrowing down a list of 10,000 suspects to five when you have a deadline or a list of infinite locations to two. This comes up in law enforcement all the time.

You’re using a logical fallacy, it’s not a case of... “hey I can verify 100 percent of all possibilities practically without interrogation” or “I have nothing and I need 100 percent from the person.” And evidence gets verified all the time in investigation after it’s been extracted, happens all the time. This “if I have to verify it then I never needed to narrow down possibilities or even find the evidence to begin with” is bad logic.

The answer to your second question is that you would use standard law enforcement questioning and deduction to figure out if they are the contact or not. Hopefully, you tortured the first person because it was a relatively fast way to get to the second person and by narrowing down an otherwise unworkably large (potentially infinite) suspect list.

Why do you think torture is ok?

I'm saying it can produce results

[Heloin]

Why do you think torture is ok?

I'm saying it can produce results

But history has shown that it doesn't produce results. At least not real results that can stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

[Senkaku]

Why do you think torture is ok?

I'm saying it can produce results

Yeah, but you're wrong, and once again have demonstrated you seem to have no grasp as to how actual humans behave in real situations.

[Chan Island]

There are many arguments against torture and some of them even make a bit of sense. However, one thing I never understood was the assertion:

"Torture doesn't work."

I don't understand how anyone can say it doesn't work/can't produce results. I have heard many liberal-minded people claim this while I was at university... where they would say something along the lines of "why would any government ever use torture? those tortured would just keep making things up to annoy the authorities/frustrate them. Torture could never work." I have always felt that this was a somewhat delusional position and that people would eat their own words under unfortunate situations.

Its one thing to say that torture is a "human rights abuse" or that its not necessarily always the best go-to method for extracting information... but to say it doesn't work? Seems a bit strong.

Fact of the matter is, threats do produce results. When threats are backed up by the definite use of force and pain inducement... I can't see how someone can hold out. Now of course... if you have NOTHING to tell the government because you in fact know nothing, you're kind of in a doomed position. But if you do have something... I don't see how it won't be extracted (just a question of time frame). A person without any kind of anti-torture training would probably yield in minutes...

Not sure what your thoughts on this subject are.

Now let's discuss a little thought experiment:

You are a criminal and you have some information the government wants from you. You don't want to give it to them. After some back-and-forth, the government decides to resort to torture. They say to you:

"Since you refuse to tell us what we need to know... we will keep hurting you until you do tell us."

They start to torture you and it goes on and on and it doesn't stop until you give them what they want (if you pass out from the pain, you get reset and it continues). Assume that they use a method that is in the style of Ramsay Bolton.

The questions I'd like you to ponder, think about, and then explain are as follows:

1. How long would you be able to hold out? A few minutes? 1 hour? Days? Months? Years? Try to estimate.
2. How do you reconcile the phrase "torture doesn't work" with the fact that 99-100 percent of people in the above situation (including yourself probably) would in a pretty short amount of time, tell the government what they need to know to avoid the torture?
3. What do you think in general about the phrase, "Torture Doesn't Work"... is there a way to re-phrase/clarify it so that its a more defensible position?

1. I'll give myself 10 minutes. And I feel that this is being EXTREMELY generous.

2. There is no need to reconcile it because it can't be reconciled. Its a misleading slogan. Torture does work. Anyone who actually has the information is going to give it up. Its just a problematic method in the sense that if the person was wrongly suspected and in fact knows nothing... they will be tortured ad infinitum. But you can be sure that if anyone knows anything, they will divulge. This is why its historically been used throughout history by the police and military forces.

3.

It doesn't work in getting legal convictions. It doesn't work if there isn't any actual information from the person tortured (they can't gain clairvoyance while being tortured if they are innocent). It doesn't work if you want to stay true to human rights.

However, if someone has got something... they are going to tell you pretty soon if you use a sufficiently painful method. Its just a matter of how far you want to go.

In general I understand other objections to torture but a blanket "torture doesn't work" statement just doesn't hold up.

2007 called. It said that even back then torture was utterly inexcusable and completely bankrupt as an idea, and that frankly the fact that we were even seriously discussing torture back then is a damning indictment on the human race.

Let's pick this post apart, piece, by, piece.

There are many arguments against torture and some of them even make a bit of sense. However, one thing I never understood was the assertion:

"Torture doesn't work."

I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that some arguments against torture make sense. In fact, I'd wager even these unnamed reasons are entirely logical, rational and compelling reasons not to have torture... but you are going to ignore that because you don't understand the idea of torture not working. This point has been explained to you now dozens of times in this thread, and I'll repeat that later for you...

I don't understand how anyone can say it doesn't work/can't produce results. I have heard many liberal-minded people claim this while I was at university... where they would say something along the lines of "why would any government ever use torture? those tortured would just keep making things up to annoy the authorities/frustrate them. Torture could never work." I have always felt that this was a somewhat delusional position and that people would eat their own words under unfortunate situations.

Its one thing to say that torture is a "human rights abuse" or that its not necessarily always the best go-to method for extracting information... but to say it doesn't work? Seems a bit strong.

Oh torture produces results. As your liberal-minded friends both at university and on NS have pointed out, the tortured will say anything they think the torturer wants to hear to make it stop. It produces a stream of half-truths, lies and lies and lies. Not because the tortured is exercising some iron discipline, but purely because they just want the pain to stop.

Also, the fact that torture is a human rights abuse is by itself an excellent reason not to inflict torture on anyone. And the fact that there are far better ways to go about extracting information makes torture an obsolete cruelty.

Let's drive harder into that point. Many posters on here have discussed at length various other methods of extracting information from captives. These ranged from the questionable to the outright humane. Ironically, the methods involving being nice to people gets you much more reliable information faster. So why would you even need torture? Certainly not because it's effective.

Fact of the matter is, threats do produce results. When threats are backed up by the definite use of force and pain inducement... I can't see how someone can hold out. Now of course... if you have NOTHING to tell the government because you in fact know nothing, you're kind of in a doomed position. But if you do have something... I don't see how it won't be extracted (just a question of time frame). A person without any kind of anti-torture training would probably yield in minutes...

Not sure what your thoughts on this subject are.

Sometimes threats work... assuming of course that we are dealing with a coward. For anybody with a modicum of pride or a martyr complex, the threat will entrench them even further into making them not want to give you any information. Ditto to 11 if it is actually backed by force. You can't see how someone can hold out but if so then you only need to open a history book. It is full of examples of people who held out for days, weeks, months. On rare occasions even years... without ever confessing the truth. Many have even died under torture, which is one hell of a first class ticket to becoming a martyred hero for your cause.

Interesting how you admit that if you know nothing, then you are doomed. Because that is an extremely good reason not to inflict torture. If the suspect genuinely doesn't know anything at all about what you're talking about, then you're just needlessly causing this person pain and suffering, and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. So they lie. They lie and lie and lie just to get you to stop. They will say anything that they think the torturer will want to hear.

But you establish that we are dealing with someone who does know something. Of course, the assumption that anyone high up in a terrorist or criminal cell has no anti-torture training is extremely naive by itself. But even without the training, again anyone with a modicum of pride, spite, fear of their own side or martyr complex will lie to you. Anyone who doesn't know everything will lie to you. People with bad memories (and memory is generally terrible) will accidentally lie to you. The slow-witted will lie to you because you don't give them a reasonable chance to collect their thoughts.

My thoughts are outlined above and below, but let me consider another angle.
What happens after the war?

You can't hold people indefinitely (unless neither human rights nor practicality are not on your priority list), so eventually you will release this prisoner. Something tells me that a person who was tortured under captivity will hate you for ever. Especially if they were innocent. This person will dedicate their time, talents and resources towards either avoiding you at all costs or opposing you in every way they can - often both. How many times have you heard this story, IM? "A journalist from Hellholeia is arrested for an anti-government article. Journalist is tortured and released. Journalist escapes abroad, and from there regularly contributes to underground anti-government news, calling for the immediate violent overthrow of the regime". Because that is an extremely common story in our modern world. Just talk to refugees and you find that it is a refrain that surfaces constantly. And, boy, can some of them hold a grudge.

And then there is your torturer. Frankly, very few people can walk to work every day, inflicting unspeakable horror on suspects, unscathed. Barring the occasional psychopath (and honestly, they don't torture because they think it's the right thing to do, likely making your torture even less useful), most agents will break at some point and will need a lot of therapy. Some will even lose faith in your own cause. Which is, I hope you agree, a wonderfully ineffectual state of affairs.

Now let's discuss a little thought experiment:

You are a criminal and you have some information the government wants from you. You don't want to give it to them. After some back-and-forth, the government decides to resort to torture. They say to you:

"Since you refuse to tell us what we need to know... we will keep hurting you until you do tell us."

My capacity for raw, pure spite can be astonishing. The government just saying that to me will make me much less likely to want to give them that information.

They start to torture you and it goes on and on and it doesn't stop until you give them what they want (if you pass out from the pain, you get reset and it continues). Assume that they use a method that is in the style of Ramsay Bolton.

Interesting that you mention Ramsay Bolton. First all, he didn't inflict torture in the story because he wanted information: he tortures Theon because Ramsay is a psychopath who actively enjoys unleashing cruelty on others. He drive Theon to the point of being a completely useless, broken thrall who can barely utter a coherent sentence. How's that useful for extracting information? Even damning, why the f*** would you consider that even a remotely good example to bring up?!?!

But let's talk torture in Game of Thrones. Where should we begin? Perhaps with Danerys in Mareen, where she tortures the great masters in retribution for their methods against her... even, we find out later, the great masters who actively opposed the war. She needlessly burned potential bridges that could have made her control on that city much easier simply by not inflicting torture.

What about Harrenhal? The Lannister soldiers there are engaged in a war against the Brotherhood. To combat this threat they capture many peasants and ask them where the Brotherhood is. Obviously, these peasants don't know anything about the group, and straight up tell the Lannisters that. So they torture them. The peasants, under the immense pain, tell the Lannisters that the Brotherhood went here, here and here. But they are lying. And each time the Lannisters send out their troops to those locations, and every time they find nothing. It's a complete waste of time, men, resources and fortification. Furthermore, it makes Arya Stark hate the Lannisters for ever, even more than she already did. Notice how the first person she asks Jaquen to kill... is the torturer?

By contrast what about the Sparrows? They capture various Martells and simply talk to them. No torture. No cruelty. And what do we find? The Martells not only willingly confess but become fervent converts and allies for the Sparrow cause.

I could go on. Psychological torture on Tyrion backfires. Torturing Varys causes him to make a point of capturing his abuser and subjecting him to decades of torment for pure spite. Theon tortures inhabitants of Winterfell to get... false information that actively hurts his operation. Stannis is seen with revulsion because of his fire happy red god, and causes the inhabitants of King's Landing, arguably the place that was the most pro-Baratheon in the whole continent, to fanatically oppose his army. Ned Stark threatening Littlefinger all but ensures Littlefinger betrays him later.
The list goes on. GoT is not a fantasy you want to bring up in defence of torture being effective. Because George RR Martin is extremely good at writing people, and people do not respond well or rationally or usefully to torture. So why would they in his stories?

The questions I'd like you to ponder, think about, and then explain are as follows:

1. How long would you be able to hold out? A few minutes? 1 hour? Days? Months? Years? Try to estimate.
2. How do you reconcile the phrase "torture doesn't work" with the fact that 99-100 percent of people in the above situation (including yourself probably) would in a pretty short amount of time, tell the government what they need to know to avoid the torture?
3. What do you think in general about the phrase, "Torture Doesn't Work"... is there a way to re-phrase/clarify it so that its a more defensible position?

Oooh, questions!

1. That's one of those questions that you never know about until you are unfortunately in that position... but depending on what frame of mind I am caught in, I can see myself lasting quite a while. I don't respond well to threats at all, and have found myself achieving the impossible just to prove somebody wrong (seriously, I once wrote an entire essay for university, taking a controversial stance, and got a good grade in it, purely because somebody said I couldn't). But I don't know, can't guess. I've slept in some very gruelling conditions though, and have lived with chronic pain for over a decade. My raw spite coupled with deliberate lying, I estimate I could hold out for 2 weeks.

2. They wouldn't. They'd tell the government what they think the torturer wants to hear and then enjoy the reprieve from the pain. It also assumes that people would even know the vital information, which in the real world is not a guarantee.

3. Yes: "Torture is a cruel, damaging, obsolete, expensive, illegal and worst of all ineffectual method of getting information that should be confined to the same dark place we put slavery, witch trials and the divine rights of kings." (and you can sig me with this one).

1. I'll give myself 10 minutes. And I feel that this is being EXTREMELY generous.

2. There is no need to reconcile it because it can't be reconciled. Its a misleading slogan. Torture does work. Anyone who actually has the information is going to give it up. Its just a problematic method in the sense that if the person was wrongly suspected and in fact knows nothing... they will be tortured ad infinitum. But you can be sure that if anyone knows anything, they will divulge. This is why its historically been used throughout history by the police and military forces.

3.

It doesn't work in getting legal convictions. It doesn't work if there isn't any actual information from the person tortured (they can't gain clairvoyance while being tortured if they are innocent). It doesn't work if you want to stay true to human rights.

However, if someone has got something... they are going to tell you pretty soon if you use a sufficiently painful method. Its just a matter of how far you want to go.

1. Can't argue that one.

2. I've pretty comprehensively shown you why it doesn't work. And the only reason police and military forces have used it in the past is because they didn't know better. Now they do, which is why most of them do not use it.

3. Wait, what kind of malarky is this? If the information you are getting, by your own admission, wouldn't hold up in a court of law why would you bother?! Even on important intelligence. You've defeated your own argument with that one sentence. Also, for that last paragraph...

IM. Never. Ever. EVER. Get a job anywhere near power. It's rare that someone on NationStates actively scares me. You've just succeeded with those last 2 sentences. Please consider investing in a conscience.
Is it even Godwin's law when the phrase is literally like something a moustache-twirling stereotypical Nazi villain would say?

Christ those last 2 sentences are horrifying.

[The Johtian Republic]

Is it even Godwin's law when the phrase is literally like something a moustache-twirling stereotypical Nazi villain would say?

Isn't that what they call Hitler's Law?

[NeoOasis]

Why do you think torture is ok?

I'm saying it can produce results

Yes... and?

Results aren't always useful.

[Des-Bal]

As generally applied torture doesn't work. If you don't know the extent of the information you're looking for then it's useless because even if they say something true they'll make shit up just to avoid more torture when they stop talking. If you're trying to ascertain guilt, it's useless because they'll say whatever. There are extremely few situations where torture is effective and there are none where it's appropriate.

[Neurotic Pandas]

*Infected Mushroom, an honourable Royal Guard is brought before me*

So, you know the location and numbers of the Royal Guard. I mean, you must, as you were caught wearing the same garbage they use to dress their officers. "On my honour, I won't tell you anything!" IM says, as he decides to keep the location and numbers a secret, despite knowing what comes next.

*the horrific torture of IM begins. Time passes quicker than I would have liked, but nowhere near quick enough for IM's honourable tastes*

As you're approaching your breaking point, the torture stops. I tell you "If you tell me what I wish to know, I swear on my honour and yours, that I will release you." IM, thinking this is a pretty sweet deal all things considered, pillages his mind for the numbers and location. Unfortunately, IM discovers that he seriously can not remember the numbers or location, despite knowing them before meeting me.

"Still stubborn, eh? Oh well, my offer stands." I say, as I prepare for the next round of torture.

As IM breathes his last breath, I yell in frustration "It didn't work!" "What didn't work, sir?" the guard asks. "the torture, obviously. Take his corpse and feed it to the other prisoners. Make sure it's proper maggoty first." "Yes sir."

As the guard proceeds to do as I ask, I take a moment to contemplate. I was honestly going to release him, had he but told me two little things. Why do outdated concepts like honour continue to vex me so? As I ponder this question, one of my scouts enters, telling me the location and numbers of the enemy.

On a more serious note: torture is kind of useless, because you run the risk of the one you torture for specific information forgetting said information.

[Infected Mushroom]

*Infected Mushroom, an honourable Royal Guard is brought before me*

So, you know the location and numbers of the Royal Guard. I mean, you must, as you were caught wearing the same garbage they use to dress their officers. "On my honour, I won't tell you anything!" IM says, as he decides to keep the location and numbers a secret, despite knowing what comes next.

*the horrific torture of IM begins. Time passes quicker than I would have liked, but nowhere near quick enough for IM's honourable tastes*

As you're approaching your breaking point, the torture stops. I tell you "If you tell me what I wish to know, I swear on my honour and yours, that I will release you." IM, thinking this is a pretty sweet deal all things considered, pillages his mind for the numbers and location. Unfortunately, IM discovers that he seriously can not remember the numbers or location, despite knowing them before meeting me.

"Still stubborn, eh? Oh well, my offer stands." I say, as I prepare for the next round of torture.

As IM breathes his last breath, I yell in frustration "It didn't work!" "What didn't work, sir?" the guard asks. "the torture, obviously. Take his corpse and feed it to the other prisoners. Make sure it's proper maggoty first." "Yes sir."

As the guard proceeds to do as I ask, I take a moment to contemplate. I was honestly going to release him, had he but told me two little things. Why do outdated concepts like honour continue to vex me so? As I ponder this question, one of my scouts enters, telling me the location and numbers of the enemy.

On a more serious note: torture is kind of useless, because you run the risk of the one you torture for specific information forgetting said information.

there is no way I would forget the information; also, any competent torture administrator knows how to keep the person alive

this sounds unrealistic

[Infected Mushroom]

As generally applied torture doesn't work. If you don't know the extent of the information you're looking for then it's useless because even if they say something true they'll make shit up just to avoid more torture when they stop talking. If you're trying to ascertain guilt, it's useless because they'll say whatever. There are extremely few situations where torture is effective and there are none where it's appropriate.

which is why you have to emphasise to them that they should tell you the truth, nothing more nothing less and focus on that... just communicate your demands very clearly

[Neutraligon]

As generally applied torture doesn't work. If you don't know the extent of the information you're looking for then it's useless because even if they say something true they'll make shit up just to avoid more torture when they stop talking. If you're trying to ascertain guilt, it's useless because they'll say whatever. There are extremely few situations where torture is effective and there are none where it's appropriate.

which is why you have to emphasise to them that they should tell you the truth, nothing more nothing less and focus on that... just communicate your demands very clearly

And the torturer would know what the truth is how?

[Caracasus]

As generally applied torture doesn't work. If you don't know the extent of the information you're looking for then it's useless because even if they say something true they'll make shit up just to avoid more torture when they stop talking. If you're trying to ascertain guilt, it's useless because they'll say whatever. There are extremely few situations where torture is effective and there are none where it's appropriate.

which is why you have to emphasise to them that they should tell you the truth, nothing more nothing less and focus on that... just communicate your demands very clearly

I think you're approaching a sort of medieval worldview hampered by your own ideological assumptions due to the culture you've grown up in.

In the present day going by the examples and thought experiments you give, torture is more often than not used as a means to secure intelligence or information. That's its primary function, and at that it is a spectacularly lousy tool.

Now, I am not going to post the following extract from Discipline and Punish which goes into serious graphic detail in the opening chapter of the torture and execution of a man accused of regicide because it is very, very unpleasant. The link is here if anyone is particularly interested.

https://monoskop.org/images/4/43/Foucau ... 7_1995.pdf

You seem to have a fascination with the world George R Martin creates - but you seem to have forgotten that both yourself and Martin are products of your time and society. While it's better than many portrayals of Medieval society, you absolutely cannot take Game of Thrones as a guidebook to feudal European society. It simply doesn't work - it's a work of fiction. When it comes to torture, medieval society did not see torture primarily as a means of getting information. It was a punishment, and likely not as widespread as sensationalised fiction and film would have us believe.

Those tortured would have already have been found guilty by whatever legal system was in place at the time in almost every instance. They would be branded, whipped etc. as a punishment for a crime. In some instances torture was used to extract confessions of crimes that had been committed or imagined, but again extracting a confession is absolutely not the same thing as getting information.

I'd imagine that on occasion Medieval rulers would have turned to torture as a means of getting intelligence on opponents - and I'm relatively certain that they'd have run into the same problems that face countries and states today. As a general policy of gathering intelligence it fails spectacularly because you cannot confirm if the intelligence you have gathered is legitimate or if it has been given as a means to escape more pain and suffering.

As a means of extracting information, torture fails compared to many other less horrific methods.

Frankly I'm a little alarmed at anyone who has read Game of Thrones and thought "Yep! That's the society I want!"

[Infected Mushroom]

which is why you have to emphasise to them that they should tell you the truth, nothing more nothing less and focus on that... just communicate your demands very clearly

And the torturer would know what the truth is how?

through physical confirmation generally