Last summer, Chicago police said they had found the killers of 11-year-old Ryan Harris: a pair of boys, ages 7 and 8. That case soon collapsed, causing intense embarrassment for the city. But the debacle had the welcome result of prompting the Chicago Police Department and the state’s attorney to agree to start videotaping interrogations in homicide cases if the suspect agrees. That would be a good start toward bringing a secret process out into the light of day.
Now Rep. Sarah Feigenholtz (D-Chicago) has proposed to make full use of a fine idea. Her bill, approved by a House committee last week, would require police throughout Illinois to tape all interrogations and confessions once a suspect is in custody. It is expected to come to the floor this week, and it deserves speedy approval.
Currently, police do their questioning behind closed doors, leaving suspects vulnerable to physical and psychological abuse and leaving police vulnerable to claims of brutality. Defendants who have signed confessions often recant in court, insisting that they were coerced into falsely incriminating themselves. Sometimes they are telling the truth; sometimes not. But the jury can never be sure.
Videotaping would largely end such disputes. Did the cops read the suspect his Miranda rights, as required by the Supreme Court? Was the suspect beaten, tortured or tricked into making statements? Was the confession blank when he signed it? All these questions can be answered easily by rolling the tape.
This is not a new or untested idea. As early as 1992, one of every three major police departments employed videotaping. So do Minnesota and Alaska. Where it has been tried, once-leery police have learned that the camcorder is their best friend, sparing them from suspicion and false accusations of misconduct. Prosecutors also enthusiastically embrace videotape, having found that while juries may harbor doubts about written statements by defendants, they are generally convinced by the sight of the suspect calmly recounting his crime on camera.
The bill may need minor revisions to allow for situations when police need to question suspects at the site of arrest, where video cameras may not be available. But supporters of Rep. Feigenholtz’s bill have made it clear they’re willing to consider ways of handling such instances. The important thing is for Illinois to commit itself to an innovation that would simultaneously help law enforcement and protect criminal suspects–and the sooner, the better.
