No you don't; not while interrogating a suspect. I've never heard of a LEO interviewing a suspect with a barking dog being used in any approach on US soil, especially if you want a conviction. While remanded in custody though, in the jail system, most certainly they are used to intimidate and gain compliance.
I don't think they should be held to a higher standard, but if you want the information they provide to turn out to be truthful and viable it's better not to torture them.
I read that at first to mean the cohered info cannot be used against them in Court...true..
But then I wondered, are you really just repeating that old saw, that torment in war time
does not work?
I have never believed that for a second. What "Sargent" type in the Ancients ranks would not begin a field skinning, to find a lost man.
And we know, the American G.I. knew, from the beginning, what to use a hand cranked field phone, for, to find that lost guy.
To me torture and torment are totally different in aims. Torment is for information. Torture has deep psychological reasons behind it.
- The Inquisition, field expediency methods, and long term mammal aversion training, (waterboarding, etc) = Torment for information (or worthless confession RE: the Church)
- Torture as first defined by the Church is punishment. It involved severe physical wounding, not always to death. But, being broken on the Wheel, can not be described as torment.
Sadists and psychopaths torture for no end goal, but punishment for their own pleasure. Warlord Nation-States torture to make examples of the ends they go to punish. Suppose to be a determent. And it is for some but it take the torturer's soul. I think Che would have admitted that, about the punishment of the Batisitas.
Torment yields info, always has, and that is why it is
has always been done. It will not stand up in court, but you can live on, in Gitmo with no physical scars.