You’re probably familiar with editorials and opinion columns in newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, or your local newspaper. More often than not, these editorials and columns offer the considered opinion of someone associated with the newspaper, such as an editor, a member of the editorial staff or editorial board, or a regular columnist. In a growing number of cases, however, newspapers have been offering members of the community—typically a member of the community served by the newspaper who has expertise in a particular area or can offer an important perspective on an issue—the opportunity to publish a guest column or editorial.
Guest editorials often offer solutions to problems. The editorial might suggest a solution to a funding shortfall faced by a local school district, for example, or it might offer advice about how to address a change in state laws, such as the 2012 constitutional amendment that legalized marijuana possession and use in Colorado.
When guest editorials offer solutions to problems, readers expect those solutions to be informed by an understanding of the problem. Because readers understand that the space available for editorials is usually limited, they will not expect to see a great deal of evidence supporting the solution. They will, however, expect a reasonable analysis and a clear description of the proposed solution.
Guest editorials—like regular editorials and opinion columns—use a simple design, typically no more than a series of paragraphs. Guest editorials can include tables or charts, but they are rarely used. In some cases, guest editorials might highlight an important point using a pull quote.
Jim Trainum
Get It on Tape (newspaper article)
In the following guest editorial, which appeared in the Los Angeles Times opinion section, Washington, D.C., police detective Jim Trainum proposes that police departments nationwide be required to videotape all interrogations. Trainum writes from his personal experience with a suspect who gave a false confession and was almost convicted, but his proposal is aimed at a nationwide problem.
A false confession to murder convinced a cop that a visual record can help ensure an innocent person isn’t convicted.
By Jim Trainum
October 24, 2008
Jim Trainum is a detective in Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department.
I’ve been a police officer for 25 years, and I never understood why someone would admit to a crime he or she didn’t commit. Until I secured a false confession in a murder case.
I stepped into the interrogation room believing that we had evidence linking the suspect to the murder of a 34-year-old federal employee in Washington. I used standard, approved interrogation techniques—no screaming or threats, no physical abuse, no 12-hour sessions without food or water. Many hours later, I left with a solid confession.
At first, the suspect couldn’t tell us anything about the murder, and she professed her innocence. As the interrogation progressed, she became more cooperative, and her confession included many details of the crime. The suspect said she had beaten the man to death and dumped his body by a river. She said she made purchases with the victim’s credit card and tried to withdraw cash using his ATM card. Surveillance video from the ATM showed a woman who resembled the suspect, and an expert said the signature on the credit card receipts was consistent with the suspect’s handwriting.
Even the suspect’s attorney later told me that she believed her client was guilty, based on the confession. Confident in our evidence and the confession, we charged her with first-degree murder.
Then we discovered that the suspect had an ironclad alibi. We subpoenaed sign-in/sign-out logs from the homeless shelter where she lived, and the records proved that she could not have committed the crime. The case was dismissed, but all of us still believed she was involved in the murder. After all, she had confessed.
Even though it wasn’t our standard operating procedure in the mid-1990s, when the crime occurred, we had videotaped the interrogation in its entirety. Reviewing the tapes years later, I saw that we had fallen into a classic trap. We ignored evidence that our suspect might not have been guilty, and during the interrogation we inadvertently fed her details of the crime that she repeated back to us in her confession.
If we hadn’t discovered and verified the suspect’s alibi—or if we hadn’t recorded the interrogation—she probably would have been convicted of first-degree murder and would be in prison today. The true perpetrator of the crime was never identified, partly because the investigation was derailed when we focused on an innocent person.
The case was a turning point for me, personally and professionally. I still work as a police officer in Washington, but I also teach a class on interrogations and false confessions, and I work with law enforcement agencies nationwide to help them prevent false confessions.
I’ve learned that this is a nationwide problem. Of the 220 wrongful convictions in the U.S. that have been overturned based on DNA evidence, nearly 25% involved a false confession or false incriminating statements, according to the Innocence Project. In each of those cases, DNA proved that the confession was false.
Threats and coercion sometimes lead innocent people to confess, but even the calmest, most standardized interrogations can lead to a false confession or admission. Those who are mentally ill or mentally disabled may be particularly vulnerable, but anyone can be dazed when confronted by police officers who claim to hold unshakable evidence of one’s guilt. Some confess to crimes because they want to please authority figures or to protect another person. Some actually come to believe they are guilty, or confess to do penance for some unrelated bad behavior. Innocent people come to believe that they will receive a harsher sentence—even the death penalty—if they don’t confess.
Videotaping interrogations is proved to decrease wrongful convictions based on false confessions. When the entire interrogation is recorded, attorneys, judges, and juries can see exactly what led to a confession. Police officers become better interviewers over time, as they review tapes of their interrogations, and confessions are easier to defend in court. The only police officers I’ve met who don’t embrace recording interrogations are those who have never done it. Too many police officers still wrongly believe that recording interrogations will be logistically difficult and expensive, and that guilty suspects won’t confess if they know they are being recorded.
More than 500 jurisdictions nationwide record interrogations, but only 10 states, plus the District of Columbia, mandate the practice. California’s Legislature passed bills in 2006 and 2007 that would have required interrogations to be recorded. Both were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. A third bill died in committee this year. California legislators should not give up. They must make this issue a priority and pass legislation to make our criminal justice system stronger and more accurate.
It may be impossible to fully understand why innocent people confess to crimes they didn’t commit. What is undeniable is that some do—and that we need to enact reforms to prevent more wrongful convictions and ensure that the right people pay for these crimes.
Source: articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/24/opinion/oe-trainum24
In your writer’s notebook reflect on Trainum’s argument by responding to the following questions: