> today that statement would be used to show that you couldve been there (because you said so yourself).
They can use "I don't remember" ?
Isn't the whole point of interrogation to get a suspect to make conflicting statements, then pressure them when the statements don't line up as a means to get a confession?
Why is this a bad thing? If this tool goes away, couldn't conviction rates plummet (for eg. violent crimes)?
I'm having trouble seeing an ethical problem here?