Talk:Good cop/bad cop
|WikiProject Law Enforcement||(Rated Stub-class)|
It can border on torture as practiced by thousands of police and prosecution authorities who decide for themselves what the bounds of legality, abuse, torture, sensitivity and sensibility are.
I'm not an expert on interrogation and torture, so maybe this is the case, but right now it looks like an unsourced moral stance on the issue, instead of a factual report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Mutt and Feff should not border on any thing near torture, it should actually not even be aggresive to be effective, just one posative stance and one negative stance to be effective. I am a subject matter expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I rewrote the second paragraph to remove the bit that looked like advice, and the reference to the Reid technique (I'm sure it wasn't intended, but it reads like advertising: "this doesn't work, try our special technique instead"). --fuddlemark 11:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, this doesn't read like a wiki article should. For instance, it should say whether this pertains to a common practice, something trained or just to movies and tV shows. 22.214.171.124 23:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, does this actually occur in the real world that often?
This is a very US-centric game - other nations prohibit this technique. Even in the US a good lawyer may question the results in court simply because tricked evidence is inherintly weak. Guidod 13:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- It probably isn't entirely legal in the US, either. In practice, though, that doesn't stop anyone from using it. Hell, I'm not an interrogation expert and I know what it is. The technique isn't ubiquitous and widely known because it is never used. - Plasticbadge 04:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added a template point
How is this psychological torture? A trick, maybe, but torture? --Mr. Vernon 01:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- The threats of the bad cop may very well qualify as that, especially if you consider that it works mostly on misinformed or naive victims, who might take the threats serious no matter how exaggerated or made-up they are. Psyches don't get bruises, thus it can certainly be difficult to decide where pressure ends and torture starts, Lying with the intent to cause fear (beyond getting caught for one's deed) could be considered sufficient. --126.96.36.199 19:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't see how that counts as torture. While it does typically work on those who are naive, it has no impact on those who are aware of the tactic, physical or mental. Many parents use a similar technique but would we say they were torturing their children? --Mr. Vernon 23:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
What is the first version (in movie) of Good cop/Bad cop? BTW, there's one Monk episode where he tries to help an interrogation, and the interrogated victim asks something like: "what is this? Bad cop, crazy cop?". Albmont (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Whose Line Is It Anyway? Episode #
The episode in which in a sketch, Ryan and Colin are dishwasher repairmen whose previous jobs were a good cop, bad cop duo, is Episode 12, Season 3, Production #309 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this article should be renamed to remove the / symbol from the name. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Avoid_non-alphanumeric_characters_used_only_for_emphasis and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Subpages.-- 17:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think there is a good technical reason for not using / as it creates a sub-page. -- PBS (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Those two policies just say "page names should avoid beginning with non-alphanumeric characters" and "do not intentionally use slashes to make subpages". Is the "good technical reason" still an issue, in modern Wikipedia? (An article like AC/DC doesn't appear to have any hacks or warnings on it.) --McGeddon (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Good point, I've asked at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Slash_in_name.-- 17:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Subpages are disabled in the article namespace, so the use of the / character is not a problem. As long as "Good cop/bad cop" is the WP:Most common name (as opposed to, say, "Good cop-bad cop", with a hyphen), then there is no reason it should be a problem. (Note: I'm not actually suggesting which one is more common, I'm just using it as an example.) Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Popular culture section
Any thoughts as to whether we can lose this? All the current examples are "in one scene of a film or TV episode, a character references or tries to use the already-described interrogation technique; it works, or fails, or something really funny happens", none of which add anything to the reader's understanding of the subject. If there was a film entirely based around a good-cop/bad-cop interview, it'd be worth mentioning, but I can't see anything salvageable in the current version here. --McGeddon (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Should be modified to remove POV
This "The technique is easily recognised by those familiar with it, but it remains useful against subjects who are young, frightened, or naïve. Experienced interrogators assess the subject's level of intelligence and experience with the technique prior to its application." is really POV, I think.
'easily recognised by those familiar with it': by what authority is this statement made? Could it not be effective against even those familiar with it (eg, those in a weakened psychological state)?
To say the 'technique is...useful' is really advocating for its use. This is not appropriate in a wiki article, especially given that the ethics of the use of this technique are questionable. Added to this, by whose authority is the statement made that it is more effective on 'subjects who are young, frightened, or naïve' in eliciting desired information? The statement is also very vague - what is 'young'? 15? 18? 23?
Again 'Experienced interrogators assess the subject's level of intelligence and experience with the technique...' implies advocacy of it, which is inappropriate. If this statement is accepted as accurate, then I believe it should be changed to something like: 'Some experienced with this technique believe that the subject's level of intelligence and prior exposure to it should be assessed before its application.' But again, such a statement should only be made if an authority for it can be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would also argue that "It can border on torture as practiced by thousands of police and prosecution authorities who decide for themselves what the bounds of legality, abuse, torture, sensitivity and sensibility are." is blatant POV and should be removed on similar grounds. Waldo (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
original research moved here:
There are various countermeasures available that can disrupt the tactic or cause it to backfire:[original research?]
- An experienced subject may choose to deliberately bait the "bad cop" with provocative behavior of his own short of violent provocation (such as derogatory remarks about the bad cop or his family; racial, ethnic and gender slurs if applicable; or offensive gestures), hoping that the "bad cop" will lose self-control and react violently towards the subject.
- Severe verbal abuse or otherwise insulting behavior targeted at the "good cop" has also proven highly disruptive on occasion.
The good cop/bad cop routine is a common dramatic technique in cinema and television, where the bad cop often goes beyond the boundary of legal behavior. A common variant to subvert expectations is to seemingly introduce the "bad cop" first, only to reveal that he is actually the "good cop" despite his harshness and that the real "bad cop" is even worse.