Talk:Good cop, bad cop

Morality?

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 76.107.135.187 (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 70.176.38.252 (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

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. 66.41.66.213 23:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, does this actually occur in the real world that often?

The mention of the Reid technique is very strange. Many people know the "good cop bad cop" phrase, but how many know the Reid technique? Who added this link? May be better to FIRST focus on the main phrase, and then based on that explain the CONTEXT to any OTHER technique. This is even more important when no history is available in the article - people may mistake it as if this is somehow intrinsically linked to the Reid technique or any other technique mentioned by any random visitor there. 2A02:8388:1600:A200:891:599B:CAEB:E16C (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

US-centric

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)

It's not just used by cops, people will accuse others of playing "good cop, bad cop" in other institutional settings and stuff, in the UK, as a metaphor. Merkin's mum 22:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I've added a template point

Psychological Torture?

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. --217.87.121.39 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)

A lot of us would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Origins

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)

I agree. We need to add the history here. Most people know this from movies, but movies are not always a good source for the ORIGIN or HISTORY of something, due to directors doing their "creative freedom" stuff. The article needs a history or time table, even if incomplete, where it first may have appeared. Eventually someone can trace it back to the real "final" origin. 2A02:8388:1600:A200:891:599B:CAEB:E16C (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2022 (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 209.151.52.176 (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Name

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.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 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.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 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 203.11.72.4 (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:

• 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) — Preceding undated comment added an unspecified datestamp.

• Are the cops, in the Blue Bloods S5E14 ep., strategizing, or merely enjoying a well-established traditional black humor]], in the dialog

“Good cop/bad cop?” then “How about “bad cop/worse cop?”?
—2601:199:C201:FD70:11A7:97FF:F10F:72CE (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Why the subject may identify with the bad cop.

It's easy to leave out the other half of this tactic because it's rarely explained in detail. When the subject recognizes the routine, they can begin to side with the "bad cop". Because while the good cop is pretending to be a friend, the subject rejects them believes the bad cop is the one actually telling them the truth. The interrogators often swap places during this time and the bad cop initiates camaraderie with the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.213.187 (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Good cop, bad cop.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 4 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Good cop/bad cop → Good cop, bad cop – Per WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:SLASH. Google Ngrams shows that the proposed title is used around 25% more than the current title (the ngrams API does not support search with commas so to confirm this you will need to download the dataset; the relevant two are "Golden _NOUN_ _ADP_ the 12th" and "good _NOUN_ suit _._ _NOUN_"). In addition, per MOS:SLASH we should try to avoid joining words with a slash, as it suggests that the words are related without explaining how. BilledMammal (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support The slash is a weird non-standard way of titling it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment While MOS:SLASH does, rightfully, observe that a slash suggests that words are related without explaining how, exactly the same thing can be said about a comma, which serves a variety of purposes. Here, for example, it no more aids than does the slash in illuminating the dynamic involving the two cops. Largoplazo (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's true; I didn't consider the issues with the comma. My feeling is that commas are generally slightly more illuminating, as they suggest that everything on the right is related to everything on the left, while slashes can alternatively suggest that only the words immediately adjacent to the slash are related, but that is only a feeling and I feel that in this circumstances readers will interpret both as meaning there is a relation between the "good cop" and the "bad cop".

  Phrases in frequent use, although less frequent than the current title and the proposed title, are "good cop and bad cop", "good cop to bad cop","good cop versus bad cop", and "good cop or bad cop". I don't believe these are any more illuminating than the current title so perhaps a descriptive title would be more suitable here - I think "Good cop, bad cop tactic", "Good cop-bad cop tactic", "Good cop, bad cop interrogation technique", and "Good cop-bad cop interrogation technique" would all be reasonable choices. BilledMammal (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. It's not like there's one cop alternating between good and bad, there are two cops, one good, one bad. JIP | Talk 19:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support MOS:/ alone is reason enough. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Question @BilledMammal: How often is "Good cop bad cop" (with just the space) used in comparison to the other two? Freedom4U (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's not even grammatically correct. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  The current title is used around five times more, and the proposed title around 6 times more. BilledMammal (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. It's two cops, so use a comma. A dash could also be used, I suppose, but people like to argue more about dashes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:SLASH. - Station1 (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons stated above. I always thought the slash was a little odd but hadn't bothered to challenge it since, as others have noted, there seems to be no one standard punctuation for this phrase. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support due to MOS - Born25121642 (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per general consensus and MOS:SLASH - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 17:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.