Clarence Page joins us and many others who see the Central Park Jogger case as a prime example of the wisdom of requiring police to videotape the interrogations of suspects as well as their confessions.

"After all, if the police are speaking truthfully when they say they used no unfair coercion, the tape would show it. A judge and jury would be impressed. The complainants would have no case."

"That's the side of the videotape argument that gets too little attention. While videotape acts to protect the rights of defendants, it also helps protect police and the prosecution's case from charges like coercion that sometimes sway jurors to decide against an otherwise solid case."

As we've said before, videotaping is clearly the most recommended remedy to police misconduct.

Videotaping leads to real improvements in police interrogation practices that protect the rights of suspects. Officers now know that everything they do in the interrogation room could be viewed one day in a courtroom.

Videotaping interrogations and arrests is good for the police too. It protects them against baseless claims of coercing a confession or violating a suspect's constitutional rights. Frivolous claims by suspects will diminish once they know that judges and jurors can see the interview and decide for themselves whether detectives intimidated the suspect.

Police and prosecutors have little to fear from a requirement to videotape all interrogations and traffic stops. It's a win-win situation. Videotaping can protect the innocent, help convict the guilty and uphold the public's faith in our criminal justice system.