Should suspect interrogations be recorded?

There are a couple of camps in this argument with organisations such as the APA on the one hand advocating for the recording of suspect interrogations. The argument is that with the danger of wrongful convictions due to false confessions, recording of suspect interrogations would allow for monitoring of police interview techniques.

On the other hand, other individuals claim that such a practice would be impractical due to financial considerations and that recording interrogations may inhibit suspects from expressing themselves openly.

Until now, it was hard to assess the dangers or benefits.

New research seems to suggest that recording does not in fact inhibit a suspect as previously had been suggested.

With cooperation from a small city police department, 122 suspects were brought in to test the theory that recording would inhibit the suspects. One group was informed that they would be recorded, while others were not.

The researchers then transcribed the interactions and coded the recordings which meant that a mix of measure both objective and subjective could yield results.

The results showed that not one of the suspects refused to be recorded and the act of monitoring had little effect on the suspects’ willingness to engage.

In addition the sessions lasted just as long and the individuals spoke for just as long and as freely as those who were not told about being recorded.

This is the first step in the right direction for assessing the efficacy of recording police interviews of suspects.

Do you think the benefits of recording suspect interviews outweigh the potential drawbacks?

References:

Kassin, S. M., Russano, M. B., Amrom, A. D., Hellgren, J., Kukucka, J., & Lawson, V. Z. (2019). Does video recording inhibit crime suspects? Evidence from a fully randomized field experiment. Law and Human Behavior, 43(1), 45–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000319

Image credits: Geralt/pixabay