When Apache County made the decision to interrogate an 8 year old boy in the murder of his father and a boarder in his home, without an adult guardian, without Miranda warnings and without honest, they left themselves in a hole from which they will never dig out.  At least they’ve decided not to try him as an adult, and videotaped the interrogation.

Gideon at A Public Defender has posted a portion of the video of the confession, with links to other parts.

It’s absolutely disgusting. There are two cops talking to this child, without the presence of a parent, guardian or lawyer.

They repeatedly ask him if he’s lying and whether he was home before he says he was. He steadfastly maintains his version of events and denies being involved.

In fairness, the officers are female and speak to the kid in a relatively soft voice.  No one is screaming at him or threatening to beat him with a club.  They do, however, suggest his answers and push him to be agreeable.  But then, this is a 3rd grader.  To any parent, the chance of an 8 year old saying whatever an adult, especially a police officer, wants to hear renders any sound out of his mouth suspect.

This doesn’t mean that he didn’t shoot his father.  It does mean that this “confession” is irreparably tainted.

Given the seriousness of the crime, the murder of two people, the handling of this interrogation is just mind-boggling.  Clearly, the police should not have interrogated this young boy without an adult, whether mother, guardian, lawyer, present in the room to assert his rights.  An 8 year old is not capable of doing so on his own, practically or legally.  Adults, by and large, can’t withstand the pressure and succumb to the shield.  A child has little chance.

Then there’s our old buddy Miranda, which presents an almost laughable irony in this case.  Of course, the 8 year old was not mirandized, but then what possible comprehension would he have had if the police had given him warnings?  The likelihood that a child would understand and appreciate the Miranda warnings are far too slim to make it meaningful as a warning, reducing it to a legal mantra.  Yet they didn’t even go that far.

Legally, it seems impossible that the videotaped confession could be used as evidence against this child.  Of course, that will be a test for a judge one day, and a good lawyer never underestimates the ability of a judge to render the wrong decision.

But on a practical level, can we put any faith in what this child told police?  Only the most hate-filled, myopic fool would adopt this statement without severe doubts.  Any half-competent authority figure can put any words they want into a child’s mouth.  If adults couldn’t easily manipulate children, no mother would ever make it through parenthood.

As Gid says:

Sometimes cops are too eager to “solve” a crime and do so at the expense of Constitutional rights. This also strikes me as a situation where they have blinders on and are now committed to their theory that the boy did it, while other legitimate avenues of investigation are going cold.

Because of this confession, the case was closed.  Why bother to look elsewhere when the killer is sitting right in front of you.  Closing cases is where it’s at.  Not finding killers, but closing cases.  The compulsion to “solve” can be overwhelming, and rarely do police want to unsolve a solved crime.  It’s inductive: Pick the perp and then nail it down.  To investigate elsewhere is to raise questions.  Questions don’t solve crimes.

Even if the cops believed the confession to be 100% accurate, however, the fact that they were dealing with an 8 year old makes a difference.  A “crime” begets a criminal.  If this boy shot his father, did he have criminal intent in his child’s mind?  Is criminal process the solution to the harm done to society?  Do we need to be protected from this 8 year old.  Does he understand any of this?

Everything is different when the police and prosecutors are dealing with a child of such tender years.   This is a test case, and the case tests us.