In March 2011, public prosecutors offices located in 13 major cities started electronically recording interrogations of suspects on a trial basis. The Supreme Public Prosecution Office's July 4 report on the experiments cites both merits and demerits of the electronic recording reported by public prosecutors who conducted the interrogations.
But it must be remembered that interrogations conducted in an unjust way led to many false charges and that electronic recording of the whole interrogation process is indispensable to prevent false charges. Even if such recording causes difficulty in interrogation, public prosecutors should change their mindset and consider how to improve interrogation methods.
They also should keep in mind that the most important thing is to collect evidence that convincingly proves the guilt of suspects.
With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.