- Recording interrogations makes loads of sense
- Expert: Yogurt Shop case a prime example of false confessions
- False confessions a "systematic feature of American justice"
- Recording confessions saves much grief for police
- Police interrogation a 'guilt presumptive' process
- Would you confess to a crime you didn't commit to save your life?
- If CIA can record interrogations, so can police
- Abilene PD requires recording interrogations
- El Paso conference brought together top minds to prevent false confessions
- Why record interrogations?
- Juries need more, better information to prevent false convictions
Trumping the meager cost is the benefit from stronger cases, fewer suppression hearings, and protection for officers falsely accused of misconduct. If a recording exists of the entire interrogation, it may occasionally generate evidence of a false confession, but more than 9 times out of 10 (where a confession is legitimate), it would likely benefit the prosecution more than the defense.
I get the sense that much of the opposition to this idea comes more or less out of habit, not from some well-thought out policy stance. Some folks are so used to opposing every single reform suggestion that comes down the pike, they simply don't bother to look past who's proposing the idea to decide if it's a good one. In this case, as the saying goes, opponents are cutting off their nose to spite their collective face.
See also a public policy report from The Justice Project on the national trend toward recording custodial interrogations.