xeni — 2014-05-21T20:46:17-04:00 — #1
fuzzyfungus — 2014-05-21T22:04:31-04:00 — #2
What sort of insane logic ever justified not recording? Surely an investigative body would want to preserve all relevant materials by reasonable means, no?
jaf — 2014-05-21T23:32:31-04:00 — #3
If I remember correctly, the specific reason was the agent got to write the notes on the interrogation. Then if the suspect (or even interviewee) later contradicted whatever the agent wrote down, they had a perjury case.
lorenpechtel — 2014-05-22T12:29:24-04:00 — #4
But a recording also allows them to bring a perjury case. No recording means it's just the agent's word as to what happened--they're free to lie and there's no possibility of correcting misunderstandings. (And from what I've seen in my medical records this is a very real issue. Professionals with no malice, yet I've found plenty of errors.)
boundegar — 2014-05-22T12:42:53-04:00 — #5
Thes recordings will take away one of law enforcement's most important tools: their ability to just make stuff up.
sparg_otyebat — 2014-05-22T19:59:24-04:00 — #6
That's why there are usually two agents during an interview. They can swear against you with no recording present.
xeni — 2014-05-26T20:46:28-04:00 — #7
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.