Suppose you are an investigator, a journalist or a lawyer, and you are tasked with seeking and establishing the truth of an incident. How do you get to the truth of what happened? People are often deceptive if the truth or saying the truth will harm them somehow. And so they manipulate testimonial evidence or tamper with physical evidence to self-preserve. The question then becomes: how do you know if someone is being deceptive? Is there an exact science or technique to discovering deception and establishing the truth? Or do you just have to inflict physical or psychological pain (torture) on an individual to get the truth out of them? Can one be truthful and yet be deceptive? Can a statement be truthful but be also tainted with lies? Are half-truths considered lies or should they be considered “truth”? Is there also such a thing as “false truths and honest lies”?
As humans, our first instinct is to go into self-preservation mode when faced with any situation that is likely to harm our reputation, cause us to be punished, or adversely affect us in some way. And so we engage various methods to self-preserve and these methods include: outright denial of accusations, justifying our actions, minimising our role, blaming someone else, blaming the situation, exaggerating information, employing half-truths, paltering and so forth. Faced with a situation where you must find the truth, what methods can you use as a journalist, investigator or lawyer to get to this truth?
Various methods have been employed by humans to try and get the truth out of people, and most of these methods or techniques utilise some of form of psychology or a concept of the divine (God) siding with the truthful. A concept of the divine siding with the truthful ranges from trial by ordeals such as cruentation, or having suspects walk on hot coals, to ordeal by combat (where two people duke it out). It’s important to note that many forms of trial by ordeal, like torture, will be considered inhumane today.
We see people swearing on holy books before they give their testimony to the TRRC. The swearing is based on the thought that if you swear on a holy book and lie, there will be consequences; ergo, swearing on a holy book or item can compel someone to tell the truth. Whether one believes in what could happen if one lies after swearing on a holy book or not, there’s an undeniable element of psychology to it. The stronger one actually believes in these consequences, the more they are likely to be truthful.
I remember one particular individual that I interviewed on an issue. The profile on him revealed that he had become very religious and active in the religious circles. When he came to my office, I had placed a holy book to the right of him and between us such that it’s in his line of vision. In a previous interview with other colleagues, he had denied his involvement and claimed no knowledge of the incident. I’m not sure if the holy book placement did the trick or not but suffice to say in the end, he fessed up.
From time immemorial, psychology has also been employed to get to the truth in disputes and crimes. Remember the biblical story of King Solomon, when two women claimed to be the mother of a child? When King Solomon said he was going to cut the baby into two, the real mother asked that the baby be saved and given to her rival claimant. King Solomon employed some psychology to be able to identify who the real mother was. Most mothers will not allow their child to be cut into pieces!
In ancient times, an instance of using psychology to get to the truth goes like this: Suspects were asked to enter a room with a donkey inside. Unbeknown to the suspects, the donkey’s tail was powdered with a black substance and if you pull the tail, the black substance would leave marks on your fingers. The suspects were told that the donkey will not bray if an innocent person pulls its tail and that if a guilty person pulls its tail, it will bray. It was a psychological trick. If you are guilty, chances are you will go in the room and not pull the tail of the donkey because you’d not want it to bray. Someone telling the truth will probably not have any such concerns; they will pull the tail of the donkey and thus leaving the black powder on their fingers. The guilty one is most likely not going to touch the tail at all and so when they come out, they will claim they pulled the tail but somehow, their hands will not have any black powder on them.
In our own neck of the woods, a very popular way of determining guilt is through the use of the Qur’an, where Suratul Mulk or ‘Tabara” was recited. Oftentimes, the mere mention of reciting Tabara has led to quick confessions by the guilty. Whether Tabara works or not is often up to the faith one has in it, but it’s psychological effect on some suspects is indisputable.
The above are just two examples where psychology is used to identify the guilty. But from cognitive interviewing techniques, the Reid method, the kenisic interview technique, humans have continued to employ various methods to get to the truth. Torture, even though is not reliable, and as unpalatable as it is to our senses, is one such method. I hasten to add that torture is the initial and last resort of the desperate and oftentimes inadequate truth-seeker. And the torturer does not only dehumanise their victim, they also dehumanise themselves along the way. US military personnel who participated in torture have been known to suffer from PTSD, suicide ideations and actual suicide. So, why torture? People torture because…
Alagie Saidy-Barrow was the lead investigator at the TRRC.
