It's time Illinois requires videotaping

Illinois has been slow to join the ranks of other states that require videotaping in all child abuse cases. We think that needs to change. In the meantime, however, we applaud suburban counties where videotaping is taking place.

In fact, Daily Herald legal affairs writer Tony Gordon reports today that Lake County is joining Kane, DuPage and McHenry counties in this practice. Cook County is studying the issue.

We think, as does the Illinois Appellate Court, that study time is over. It's time the state join 11 others in requiring videotaping in all child abuse cases.

In 2005, the appellate court said, "More than a year ago, we put the state on notice of the risk it takes by not recording interviews of alleged child victims. We held that the lack of such a verbatim recording could give cause for skepticism that the interview was free of adult prompting or manipulation."

Nothing could be more difficult to handle as a parent or a prosecutor than a child abuse perpetrator freed because a defense attorney was able to convince a judge or jury that the child victim was somehow coerced into making a statement. A videotape limits that possibility.

"We turn on the camera when everybody goes into the room and that argument goes out the window," Lake County assistant state's attorney Christen Bishop told Gordon. "The questions and the responses are right there for everybody to see and hear."

In many cases -- indeed, the most hoped-for scenario -- is that a videotape of the victim telling his or her story results in the accused choosing to plead guilty, avoiding a trial.

And, with a videotape, the child victim only has to go through such an interview once, with the tape only shown to a limited number of people.

"There can be situations where a child could be exposed to numerous interviews by a number of investigators from child welfare agencies and the like," said prosecutor Mark Ali of Essex County, N.J., where almost 1,000 statements have been videotaped. "With the tape, the child goes through it once and anyone else with an interest in the case can simply view the tape."

There simply appears to be no good reason the state has been so slow in requiring videotapes. Opponents of taping contend the tapes may hurt prosecutions because children might at first deny anything happened to them. But enough prosecutors believe that can be overcome and we believe the value to court system and the value to the victim outweighs any concerns.

Certainly, there are cost concerns. Besides the equipment needed, training is vital for law enforcement personnel to properly perform such an interview. Still, those concerns are outweighed, in our view, by the benefits. And by having a videotape, there is no attempt at translating what the child is trying to say. The tape should stand on its own as a strong tool for prosecution.

"Children are very descriptive speakers; they have their own way of expressing themselves," said Laura Notson, executive director of the Lake County Children's Advocacy Center. "It makes for a very powerful statement if the child tells you what happened in his or her own words."