No Proof Allowed

by digby

Following up on the post below, here's an excellent article in the LA Times about the ousted prosecutors. This was an ugly episode all around. The reasons that are emerging for their firings are all very distrubing from the obvious political payback to a refusal to file death penalty cases where the only evidence of guilt hinged on the testimony of drug users and criminals. (Has there ever been a more bloodthirsty administration in history? They're as bad as the Romans.)

But one thing jumped out at me that I had noticed earlier in the coverage of this issue and I could use an explanation:


Charlton further butted heads when he wanted FBI agents to tape-record interviews and confessions, particularly in child molestation cases on Arizona's 21 Indian reservations, something the FBI historically has not done.

Charlton believed the recordings would help sway juries, but the Justice Department ordered him to back down last spring. Charlton offered to resign. Cooler heads agreed that he could do a pilot project for taping confessions. The project never got off the ground.


I can't imagine why the US Government refuses to tape confessions unless it has something to hide. But I'm not a criminal defense lawyer or a prosecutor so perhaps I'm missing some nuance. It seems to me that forced confessions, such as those that were revealed in the probes in Illinois, are a problem. So, I'm sure, are false charges of the same. So I cannot think of a good reason why interrogations and confessions should not routinely be taped and put into evidence. If everything is above board then I can't see why law enforcement is against it.

Am I being a completely irrelevant bleeding heart liberal here, or should we be questioning why in the world the Justice Department is so reluctant to tape confessions that they are willing to fire a prosecutor who thinks they are important?


.