xeni at May 21st, 2014 20:46 — #1
fuzzyfungus at May 21st, 2014 22:04 — #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 at May 21st, 2014 23:32 — #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 at May 22nd, 2014 12:29 — #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 at May 22nd, 2014 12:42 — #5
Thes recordings will take away one of law enforcement's most important tools: their ability to just make stuff up.
sparg_otyebat at May 22nd, 2014 19:59 — #6
That's why there are usually two agents during an interview. They can swear against you with no recording present.
xeni at May 26th, 2014 20:46 — #7
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.