Talk:Pain compliance

Stub creation

I changed this article from a redirect to Grappling hold#Pain compliance hold to its own stub article. I did this primarily to add electroshock weapon as a method of applying pain. Tasers have somewhat increased pain compliance's public profile. Flatscan (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torture and opposition by human rights activists

I have been unable to find a statement from a human rights group that directly ties pain compliance to torture. I have removed the sentence from the article.

I did find two recent (2007) statements Amnesty International that mention "pain compliance" and potential abuse with regard to Tasers: [1] [2] Flatscan (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taser

I removed the taser reference, as a taser does not use pain for compliance. Check the taser page for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.211.150 (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for editing the article. Please see Taser#Drive Stun. Briefly, the Taser disrupts motor function and causes pain; since it does both, it doesn't rely on pain compliance alone. If you think this point should be made clearer in the Taser article, feel free to leave a note here or at Talk:Taser. Flatscan (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Pain Compliance" is torture

Flatcan has undone my recent edit, referencing the definition of torture, as given by the UN Committee against Torture; Flatscan's justification was "needs an explicit source". I find this puzzling: what part of torture is not explicit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwanda (talk • contribs) 23:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the last sentence of the definition: It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. Since pain compliance is used in the lawful action of taking a suspect into custody, one may argue that the UN definition therefore excludes pain compliance. Note that this is not in the article either. Without sources, either interpretation of the UN text is unacceptable original research. I've looked for sources (see #Torture and opposition by human rights activists above) and found no reliable sources that explicitly said "pain compliance is torture". Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Lawful sanctions" refers to punishment after trial, not to the "lawful" taking of suspects into custody; this is what the expression means. If you can find a reference stating that "lawful sanctions" includes "taking a suspect into custody", please do so; in the many discussions of "lawful sanctions" I've looked at online, none mention anything like such an interpretation.

Moreover, "pain compliance" is widely used by law enforcement not only for protection from bodily harm, but also, quite frequently, to compel obedience to orders. That is, the intentional infliction of extreme pain for the purpose of coercion. This, by the plain language of the definition, is torture.

I see that you removed well-sourced references to abuse of Tasers because "a taser does not use pain for compliance". But, a taser in "drive stun" mode *is* using pain (only) for compliance, so those references should not have been removed.

You have asked me (elsewhere) not to revert edits under discussion; please follow your own policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwanda (talk • contribs) 02:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be surprised if my interpretation of "lawful sanctions" is completely wrong. I tried a quick search just now, but didn't find a definition. If pain compliance is torture according to the UN definition or a reasonable interpretation thereof, shouldn't we be able to find a reliable source to support that, possibly a clarification from the UN itself? As I wrote above, I had looked for statements from Amnesty International (and probably the ACLU, but I don't remember) and found nothing saying "pain compliance is torture".

I'm not sure which edit you mean, please provide a diff. My initial revert at this article removed (1) the UN torture definition we're discussing here and (2) the UN Committee Against Torture text that I had reverted at Taser, prior to your reworking around the full sentence quotation. My base objection is the same: we do not have a source to support the implied direct link. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pain compliance is not what is normally called ‘torture’. However, a spurious justification for this is offered above. The true reason why pain compliance is not torture is that torture is slow and cold-blooded, whereas pain compliance is fast and in the heat of the moment. This is clear and understood by all native speakers of English who aren't kidding themselves. For example, if you attack me, and I punch you in the face, I'm using pain to stop you. This is pain compliance. If you yield, and the emergency is over, and I decide to keep on kicking you while you're down until you apologise, then I'm torturing you. If I lock you in my cellar and calmly continue over the next couple of days, then it is even more clearly torture.

The false distinction is that lawfulness is the difference. That's very stupid. It would mean that no government or king has ever tortured, because rulers virtually always pass laws to cover their actions where necessary. According to the false distinction, the police could take you away, and amputate a gram of your body tissue every hour until you died or made a false confession, and this wouldn't be torture, just as long as they passed a law authorising enhanced interrogation. The UN is a band of governments, and therefore has a get-out clause for governments. UN documents should not be taken to have precedence over the English language.

This article could correctly note that pain compliance is like a very fast, short-term version of torture. It could then go on to say that pain compliance can be abused, and thus become true torture (e.g. the cops come into your cell and tase you until you sign the confession). — Chameleon 04:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

I searched Google Books for possible sources. The best was Criminal Justice Ethics. Other possibilities discussed pain compliance briefly in non-law enforcement contexts, including Handbook of hospital security and safety and some martial arts or self-defense hobbyist books. Flatscan (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the effects of certain drugs upon compliance

This article’s claim that “altered states such as mental illness, phencyclidine and amphetamine use […] may alter the subject's perception of pain or willingness to submit” is of dubious veracity. Claims of this nature should be treated with extreme skepticism.

Why? Most immediately, this claim should be treated with skepticism because it is asserted without evidence.

But there is something else going on here, and it helps us to understand why somebody might add so bold a claim to a Wikipedia article without any evidence to support it: folklore.

As far as I can tell, belief in the supposed effect of these drugs upon compliance with law enforcement originates in a sort of urban legend or moral panic, perhaps originating among American police officers. If you search the internet for information about “PCP” and violent crime, the stories you will come across are more folkloric in nature than encyclopaedic: the kind of lurid, unsourced claims that were once spread by chain emails.

The claim as it appears in this article is cautiously worded, but the stories about “PCP” one encounters elsewhere go a lot further. Criminal suspects believed to be affected by “PCP” are presented not only as invulnerable to pain, but as possessing superhuman strength and resolve.

In many ways, the American moral panic regarding “PCP” resembles the hysteria surrounding the “crack epidemic”, “crack babies”, etc. That one also trickled up from law-enforcement, and the consequences were devastating: knee-jerk legislative changes produced a sentencing disparity now widely accepted to be a de-facto instrument of racial discrimination.

That, I think, makes clear the potential cost of presenting dangerous nonsense as fact to a readership numbering in the millions. Foxmilder (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]