This article from the New York Times newspaper highlights one of the most relevant and controversial topics in the field of psychology in the justice system: confessions, their relevance and their impact as important (sometimes considered irrefutable) the proof of the evidence in a trial and the questionable reliability it has in certain circumstances. It shows how the suspect confessed after 12 hours of interrogation and later recanted part of it, citing "a lot of pressure" he suffered over such a long period of time. How a false confession could have easily been proven or unproven with a proper videotape of the entire interrogation and confession process, but how only the confession was recorded (which is standard practice in New York). This fact gave and gives room for doubts about police techniques and possible excessive pressure and coercion during the unreasonably long interview, and makes it difficult to prove the truth of the confession or suspicions about irregular techniques. The article also highlights how the implementation of video recording during interrogations is slow in many departments and how some investigators oppose this measure, calling it expensive, impractical and risky (as it could be considered a tool for criminals). On the one hand, the purpose of an interrogation or interpellation is to extract important information aimed at finding the culprit of the specific fault, and since it is an anti-natural and non-evolutionary behavior of human beings to act against their own well-being and survival instinct, it would be very difficult indeed to obtain evidence without a certain amount of persuasion. Then it becomes obvious that no police interrogation is completely free from coercion... middle of paper... From my point of view, videotaping of interrogations and confession processes is an essential and inevitable measure that should be mandatory and implemented at the level worldwide in all judicial systems. It should not be considered a waste of money, but a turnaround in the name of justice. In today's high-tech computerized world, we cannot allow a partially recorded interview that could be considered manipulated or biased. This measure can be useful both for the police department to avoid false accusations of coercive and inhuman inquisitorial techniques during interrogations and avoid the invalidation of true confessions based on partial and distorted recordings, and for innocent people to prove the abuse of psychological practice . So, definitely something valuable on the path to truth and an important advance in psychology and justice.