Taping protects juveniles from aggressive police tactics
Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families is a long-time proponent of audio and video taping of police interrogations of juvenile suspects. Recording not only protects the innocent, it helps convict the guilty and sustain the public’s trust in our criminal justice system. This practice is an important protection for youth because the cognitive and psychosocial immaturity of these offenders makes them vulnerable to sophisticated police interrogations techniques and suggestions of guilt that lead to false confessions.
The Arkansas Supreme Court’s Criminal Practice Committee has drafted an evidentiary rule that “suggest” the use of audio and video taping of police interrogations or what is called custodial interviews. The court is accepting public comment on this new rule until July 1, 2011. We are asking advocates to write a letter to the Supreme Court and ask that they alter this drafted rule to “require” the use of audio and video taping of police custodial interviews. Letters from advocates from across the state have been very effective in other states where evidentiary rules have changed this court practice.
Letters must be addressed to:
Clerk of the Arkansas Supreme Court
Attention: Criminal Practice Committee
Justice Building
625 Marshall Street
Little Rock AR 72201
Re: Rule 4.7 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure
The salutation of your letter should read: “Dear Justices of the Arkansas Supreme Court”
Please send a letter postmarked on or before July 1. This is a critical practice that should be embraced by all who participate in or benefit from our criminal justice system. Creating these changes through the administration of the court process is the most direct and efficient way to make this important change and protect children and youth.
Here are just a few facts that might help you in composing your letter:
- The 238 police departments within the United States that routinely tape police interrogations of children report that it poses no undue burdens.[i]
- Research indicates that adolescents are more susceptible to suggestion of guilt. [ii]
- Children tend to be more compliant than adults and more eager to please adult authority figures.[iii]
- Police are encouraged to use the same interrogation techniques with children that they use with adults.[iv],[v]
- In one study of 125 proven false confessions, 33% involved juveniles[vi]
- Another study found that of juveniles who were exonerated between 1989-2003, 42% had falsely confessed. Of juveniles aged 12-15 who were exonerated, 69% had falsely confessed. [vii]
For more information or questions regarding this request please contact:
Paul D. Kelly, Senior Policy Analyst
Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families
Union Station, Suite 306
1400 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1844
Phone:501.371.9678, Extension 102
Fax: 501.371.9681
Email: pkelly@aradvocates.org
[i] Thomas P. Sullivan, Police Experiences with Recording Custodial Interrogations. 2004
[ii] Allison D. Redlich & Gail S. Goodman, Taking Responsibility for an Act Not Committed: The Influence of Age and Suggestibility, 27 Law & Human Behavior 141, 151 (2003).
[iii] Thomas Grisso, Lawrence Steinberg et al, Juvenile’s Competence to Stand Trial: A Comparison of Adolescents’ and Adults’ Capacities as Trial Defendants, available online at: https://www.mac-adoldev-juvjustice.org/page25.html
[iv] Inbau F., Reid J., Buckley J. and Jayne B.: Criminal Interrogations and Confessions Fourth Edition. Aspen Publications 2001
[v] “Reid Technique” provides no special instructions for how to interrogate youths and surveys of police departments find that officers report to interrogate children the same way as adults. (Meyer, Owen, Repucci (2006)
[vi][vi][vi] Steven A. Drizin of Northwestern University, and Richard A. Leo , the University of California, Irvine. The Problem of False Confessions in the Post DNA Age, 2004
[vii] Samuel Gross; Kristen Jacoby; Daniel Matheson; Nicholas Montgomery; and Sujata Patil. Exonerations in the United States, 1989-2003. University of Michigan Law School 2004