That's the title of an OpEd in today's New York Times by UCLA Law prof Jennifer L. Mnookin. It's subtitled, "Videotaped Confessions Can Be Misleading." Here's the beginning:
LAST week the F.B.I., the Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal law enforcement agencies instituted a policy of recording interrogations of criminal suspects held in custody. Only a minority of states and local governments have a similar requirement, but the new rule, which applies to nearly every federal interrogation, will most likely spur more jurisdictions to follow suit. It’s not far-fetched to think that such recordings may soon become standard police practice nationwide.
Supporters of the practice present recordings as a solution for a host of problems, from police misconduct to false confessions. But while there are lots of good reasons to require them, they are hardly a panacea; in fact, the very same qualities that make them useful — their seeming vividness and objectivity — also risk making them misleading, and possibly even an inadvertent tool for injustice.
Earlier coverage of the change in federal policy begins at the link. Related posts are in the custodial interrogation and false confessions category indexes.
Comments