if you understand the concept of “torture doesn’t get reliable information, because torture victims say whatever they think could make it stop"…

it’s an interesting exercise to try and think beyond that a little.

what other circumstances might convince you to lie, just because it might get something unbearable to stop?

what could wear you down to the point of saying something untrue, even if it was an incriminating thing about yourself?

if you were being accused of something you didn’t do… at what point would you give up and accept that making a false confession would be better than continuing to deny it?

what circumstances would you have to be in, for that to happen?

how many times would you have to try and fail to find enough evidence to clear your name?

how many authorities refusing to presume your innocence?

how many offers of plea bargains?

how many threats of worse treatment if you continue to deny?

how much exhaustion, how much longing for the whole thing to just stop?

and, once you’ve thought about what circumstances might drive you to a false confession…

now consider other people you’ve seen make confessions.

do you believe their confessions?

Why?

how many of them were in that very same sort of circumstance?

how often would anyone confess to anything, if they weren’t in that sort of circumstance?

many factors can affect whether or not confessing is the best option you have.

But "truth” isn’t always one of them.

in the absence of any hope of solid evidence, the risk/benefit analysis of “confessing versus continuing to deny” is often exactly the same regardless of whether it’s true or false.

so… how much correlation do confessions have with actual guilt?

i don’t know.

but if you accept confession as proof of guilt, without any other evidence– or without evidence that would otherwise convince you–

then, personally, I think you haven’t progressed very far beyond “thinking that torture gets reliable information.”