The basic intentions of coercion are to compel to an act or choice, which may involve the use of force or fraud to achieve desired results. There are concerns towards the legality of coercion during interrogation as a means of obtaining crucial information. These are related to gross violation of the basic human rights, and disregard of moral and ethical concerns. Information obtained through brutal, coercive means during interrogation may not always considered to be useful as the subject is under strain and can say as desired to prevent more harm. Law enforcement agencies provide guidelines on permissible interrogation techniques to their agents in a bid to avoid violation of suspect’s rights, which would in turn compromise the integrity of information gathered.
Ethics on Coercion: Coercion violates the ethics of human behaviour and self will in almost every possible way. This occurs by offering incentives to an individual who is unwilling to conduct so as a given party or authority desires. As a result, coercion becomes an unethical activity following the force employed to make the unwilling party participate. In the offering of incentives to the unwilling parties in order to secure compliance or participation, this translates to corruption of character and morals, which goes against social mores and norms. As a result, the society as a whole is denied its representation on a level that is recognized by law or one that stands with credibility. In addition to credibility, coercion violates social and personal ethics through the alterations that can be done to individual behaviours and information that one gives. This is particularly so in legal cases where information that is retrieved from an individual through coercion may be misleading to the delivery of justice. This makes coercion a violation of the law due to the interference it directs at the due course of justice, and the denial of rights. Constitutionally, coercion in the provision of information crucial for any purpose is a repugnant practice. This is following the earlier mentioned distortion of information due to the use of threats that target the wellbeing of the individual in question. However, the use of force to extract information from other parties may also have a positive side to it despite all the moral red flags raised. This is in relation to forcing information that is crucial for the greater good of the society rather than the wellbeing of the individual in question. In this case, incentives may be offered to the party in question to ensure cooperation as is the case in issues involving tax evasion. In such cases, parties involved are coerced to implicate one another in order to arrive at the truth, making coercion a strategy in attaining justice. Coercion is a term that is used in relation to the application of force in getting unwilling parties to engage in involuntary behaviour. In this regard, the use of excessive force to extract information becomes a legal issue due to the implication of torture, or the likelihood of torture occurring. Torture occurs when the wellbeing of the party in question is ignored, and the individual is subjected to harm. This is seen in cases where police officers threaten uncooperative suspects in order to secure compliance with their duties as police officers. These include the drawing of firearms or even hitting and tasering the suspects in an attempt to apprehend them. In such cases, coercion is deemed to be legal or ethical, although there is a standard to it. In case the above is not done within the confines of the law or violates, in any way, the