Eyewitness identification is ineffective and ultimately unjust. Studies have shown that approximately 40% of eyewitness identifications are wrong (Vrij, 1998). Eyewitness identification is given great importance in the legal system. As such, the most accurate and least influential process on witness’s decisions is required. This essay examines the three main types of eyewitness line-ups; the showup, the sequential and the simultaneous lineup. This essay then concludes which is the best and which should be implemented in the legal system. This answers the question how should line-ups be conducted.
The show-up procedure of eyewitness testimony is where the suspect is presented singularly to the witness (Cicchini, & Easton, 2010).Usually this
…show more content…
occurs directly after, or as close as possible to the crimes commencement (Cicchini, & Easton, 2010) The procedure of showups is suggestive. The show-up affects the witness’s decision-making process. The show-up procedure is influences witnesses decision, through observation. Observing the suspect in police custody, makes the witness assume officers have evidence on the suspect. Therefore, witnesses believe the police have the culprit, therefore identify the person in custody as the culprit. This occurs, because the witnesses’ brain fills in the gaps with the details of the person in the car. The face of the suspect becomes the person they saw commit the crime. http://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/eyewitness-identification/ Another factor that makes show ups highly suggestive to witnesses; is the time between the crime and the showup. Research revealed that when using a show-up method, twenty-four hours after a crime, fourteen percent of eyewitnesses mistakenly identify a suspect. Using a show-up method directly after (normal amount of time) fifty-three percent of eyewitnesses, mistakenly identified a suspect. (Cicchini, & Easton, 2010). In the sequential line-up procedure, the presentation of suspects to witness occurs singularly. Before being shown the next suspect, the witness is required to state, if that suspect is guilty. (Gronlund, Goodsell & Andersen, 2012). When a face is positively identified as the culprit, the procedure ceases. No other photos are presented once a photo has been identified. A sequential line-up prohibits a witness using the process of elimination, to identify a suspect. Instead, the witness relies on their recollection of the suspect. https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/0bcaed53-6cdc-47df-91d2-9aa53c65e817/Burton-JR-Final-paper.aspx. Witnesses do not know how many potential suspects will be presented. Lindsay and Wells, reasoned that witnesses would, therefore be forced to make absolute decisions rather than relative judgements (Steblay, Dysart, Fulero & Lindsay, 2001). The sequential line-up protects against biases (Lindsay, Lea, Nosworthy, et al 1991). However, this occurs when sequential processes are double blind. Single blind line-up administration results in biased outcomes. In a single blind line-up only the administrator knows which one is the suspect. This can lead to administrator to steer witness decisions. For example the administrator may discourage a witness from identifying a non-suspect. In addition an administrator may influence the witness nonverbally. Phillips et al conducted a study in which they tested to see if single blind line-ups had a lower rate of false identifications than did double blind line-ups. Phillips et al randomly assigned participants to either the role of line-up administrator or eyewitness. Administrators were presented witnesses with two line-ups. In the first line-up administrators knew the suspects identity (single blind) whereas for the other line-up, they did not (i.e., double-blind administration). Using a Single-blind administration witnesses misidentified suspects fifty-six percent of the time; compared with eight percent using a double blind administrator (Rodriguez & Berry, 2013). However, Sequential line-ups may be ineffective, as a witness’s ability to make absolute decisions may be too weak. In an absolute decision, witnesses must rely on their recall, rather than compare their memory of a suspect to other suspects. Memon and Gabbert (2001) suggested that an individual’s encoding of an event/person maybe weak. The weak memory may not be enough for recognition, resulting in a misidentification. EVIDENCE - STUDY In addition, Levi (2008) suggested a limitation of the sequential method. He stated that the position of the suspects in the line-up may affect the witnesses’ identification. According to Levi, the earlier in the line-up a suspect appears, the higher the likelihood the witness will identify them as the culprit. As a witness is allowed a single response, they may feel pressure to identify; Meaning they may choose an earlier suspect in the line-up. – evidence STUDY Simultaneous line-ups are the most common line-ups used. They require that all line-up members be placed in front of the witness, allowing the witness to look at all of the photos at the same time. Simultaneous line-ups allow eyewitnesses to use relative judgements. Simultaneous line-ups are often compared to Sequential line-ups.
As such, they are said to have a higher rate of misidentifications. Wells (1993) proposed that because simultaneous line-ups induce relative judgements, witnesses may compare all people in the line-up with one another. Therefore, they choose the member that looks most like the culprit. Their choice will be the most similar to their memory. A person’s memory is fallible and can be manipulated; therefore, a witness relying on their memory is not reliable. Therefore, simultaneous line-ups increase the risk of a misidentification.
However, according to Steblay et al., (2001) when a target is present in a line-up, simultaneous line-ups have higher correct identification rates than sequential line-up and show-ups. However, the results of Steblay et al’s meta-analytical study found that simultaneous line-ups are ineffective when the culprit is presented statically (rather than a video or live presentation).
Each line-up procedure affects the decisions of eyewitnesses. As such, none of them are fool-proof. The show-up method is the least effective at correctly identifying suspects. Therefore it should not be implemented. Show-ups are suggestive in two ways. Firstly, a witness often views a suspect in police custody, when making their decisions; making it more likely that they will identify the suspect in police custody as the culprit. Secondly, the closer to the crime, they are used, the more likely a
misidentification. Both the sequential line-up and simultaneous line-ups methods are better than the show-up. The sequential line-up makes witnesses use absolute judgements, much like the show-up method. This occurs when double blind. Being double blind also makes the rate of misidentifications lower, as administrators actions cannot influence witnesses. Simultaneous line-ups use relative judgements (comparative decisions). Much like the sequential line-up, the simultaneous line-up is more effective when is process is differed. Studies have shown that simultaneous line-ups are ineffective when the line-up is static (pictures) However, the simultaneous line-up has a much higher rate of correct identifications when being used in conjunction with a target present line-up, than sequential line-ups. Therefore, eye witness identifications should be conducted using both the sequential and the simultaneous methods. However, the sequential line-ups should be implemented when double blind. Simultaneous line-ups should only be implemented in conjunction with target present line-ups.
The use of eyewitnesses has been a constant in of criminal justice system since its very beginning. Unfortunately, people do not make the best witnesses to a crime. The person may not have seen the actual criminal, but someone that looks similar to them. The witness may lie about what he or she may have scene. Also the witness can be influenced by the police as to who or what they saw at the time of the crime. The witness or victims memory of the person may have faded so that they don’t remember exactly what had seen, which could be disastrous for the accused.
“Eyewitness Identification: A Policy Review.” The Justice Project, Iowa State University. Web. 22 April 2014.
In the magic of the mind author Dr. Elizabeth loftus explains how a witness’s perception of an accident or crime is not always correct because people's memories are often imperfect. “Are we aware of our minds distortions of our past experiences? In most cases, the answer is no.” our minds can change the way we remember what we have seen or heard without realizing it uncertain witnesses “often identify the person who best matches recollection
This paper will consider eye witness testimony and its place in convicting accused criminals. Psychology online (2013) defines “eye witness testimony” as a statement from a person who has witnessed a crime, and is capable of communicating what they have seen, to a court of law under oath. Eye witness testimonies are used to convict accused criminals due to the first hand nature of the eye witnesses’ observations. There are however many faults within this system of identification. Characteristics of the crime is the first issue that will be discussed in this paper, and the flaws that have been identified. The second issue to be discussed will be the stress impact and the inability to correctly identify the accused in a violent or weapon focused crime. The third issue to be discussed is inter racial identification and the problems faced when this becomes a prominent issue. The fourth issue will be time lapse, meaning, the time between the crime and the eye witness making a statement and how the memory can be misconstrued in this time frame. To follow this will be the issue of how much trust jurors-who have no legal training-put on to the eye witness testimony, which may be faltered. This paper references the works of primarily Wells and Olsen (2003) and Rodin (1987) and Schmechel et al. (2006) it will be argued that eye witness testimony is not always accurate, due to many features; inter racial identification, characteristics of the crime, response latency, and line up procedures therefore this paper will confirm that eyewitness testimonies should not be utilised in the criminal ju...
Eyewitness misidentification cost innocent people to end up in prison. Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions in the United States, having played a role in more than 70% of original convictions later overturned by new DNA evidence(Dunn). This explains eyewitness misidentification is not a reliable solution to prison the suspect and deal with other solution. The suspect is effected because the suspect goes through terrible life for crime they did not commit and false witness hunts
In the last forty years, there has been a shift in courtroom proceedings. Lawyers are not only focusing their evidence on the scientific aspects of an event, but also on those who may have witnessed the actual event as well. Recently, the number of eyewitness appearances in the courtroom has increased, making statements about either a crime or an event that occurred in their presence. But how does the courtroom decide who is a legitimate witness to an event? Too often, age, race, education, and socio-economics play a major role in this decision. Here, we will discuss the age aspect of this problem in terms of child eyewitness testimony and it's implications in the courtroom.
(Kennedy & Haygood, 1992; Williams & Loftus, 1994), which is worrying considering the growing and substantial body of evidence from laboratory studies, field studies, and the criminal justice system supporting the conclusion that eyewitnesses frequently make mistakes (Cutler & Penrod, 1995; Huff, 1987; Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin, 1986; Innocence Project, 2009; Wells, Small, Penrod, Malpass, Fulero, & Brimacombe, 1998). According to a number of studies, eyewitness misidentifications are the most common cause of wrongful convictions (Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin, 1986; Wells et al., 1998; Yarmey, 2003) and, through the use of forensic DNA testing, have been found to account for more convictions of innocent individuals than all other factors combined (Innocence Project, 2009; Wells, Memon, & Penrod, 2006).
During the identification and prosecution of a suspect, eyewitnesses are the most important. Eyewitness testimony needs to be reliable as it can have serious implications to the perceived guilt or innocence of a defendant. Unfortunately, the reliability of eyewitness testimony is questionable because there is a high number of eyewitness misidentification. Rattner (1988) studied 205 cases and concluded that eyewitness misidentification was the factor most often associated with wrongful conviction (52%). Eyewitness testimony can be affected by many factors. A substantial literature demonstrates own group biases in eyewitness testimony. For example, the own-race bias, in which people are better at recognizing faces of their own race versus another
Wright, D. B. (2007). The impact of eyewitness identifications from simultaneous and sequential lineups. Memory, 15(7), 746-754. doi:10.1080/09658210701508401
Line ups and show-ups are typically used to identify a witness or a suspect. Lineups are an identification procedure, in which the witness or the victim is able to observe and pick out any possible suspects related to the crime. With a traditional lineup, a photo lineup can also be conducted. Investigators will rely on this method more frequently because there is an urgency to proceed in the case. As for a show-up, the witness of the crime is able to view the suspect alone, without other possible suspects. For example, when a suspect is apprehended, a police officer could rely on a show-up procedure and present the victim with a drive by of the detainee in an effort to identify the suspect. These identification procedures are important for the witness because they provided a comfortable setting in which can help them be as precise as possible in making an
There has been considerable debate worldwide, regarding the accuracy of eyewitness testimony in the criminal justice system. Particularly, arguments have surrounded wrongful convictions that have resulted from incorrect eyewitness evidence (Areh, 2011; Howitt, 2012; Nelson, Laney, Bowman-Fowler, Knowles, Davis & Loftus, 2011). The purpose of this essay is to consider psychological research about the accuracy of eyewitness testimony and its placement in the criminal justice system. Firstly, this essay will define how eyewitnesses and their testimonies are used within the criminal justice system and the current debate surrounding its usage. Secondly, the impact of post-identification feedback will be used to show the affect on the confidence of a witness. Thirdly, studies around gender related differences will show how a witnesses gender can affect memory recall and accuracy. Fourthly, empirical studies will be used to highlight how a psychological experience called change blindness can cause mistakes in eyewitness identification. Finally, the effect of cross-examination will be used to explore the impact on eyewitness accuracy. It will be argued, that eyewitness testimony is not accurate and highly subjective, therefore, the criminal justice system must reduce the impact that eyewitness testimony is allowed to have. Developing better policies and procedures to avoid wrongful convictions by misled judges and jury members can do this.
In the court of law, eyewitnesses are expected to present evidence based upon information they acquired visually. However, due to memory processing, presenting this information accurately is not always possible. This paper will discuss the reliability of eyewitness testimony, its use in a relevant court case, and how the reasonable person standard relates to eyewitness testimony.
For example, the old man that lived beneath the boy and his father testified that he heard a fight between the boy and the father and heard the boy yell, “I’m gonna kill you,” along with a body hitting the ground, and then claims that he saw the boy running down the stairs. With this information, along with other powerful eyewitness testimonies, all but one of the jury members believed this boy was guilty. The power of eyewitness testimony is also shown in Loftus’s (1974) study. In this study, Loftus (1974) found that those who claimed to “see” something were usually believed even when their testimony is pointless. She discovered in her study that only 18 percent of people convicted if there was no eyewitness testimony, 72 percent of people convicted when someone declared, “That’s the one!”, and even when the witness only had 20/400 vision and was not wearing glasses and claimed “That’s the one!”, 68 percent of people still convicted the person. This proves that in 12 Angry Men and Loftus (1974) study, eyewitness testimony is very powerful and influential in one’s decision to convict a
Eyewitness testimony is defined as, “an area of research that investigates the accuracy of memory following an accident, crime, or other significant event, and the types of errors that are commonly made in such situations.” Much emphasis is placed on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony as often-inaccurate eyewitness testimony can have serious consequences leading to wrong convictions. Eyewitness testimony is a powerful tool within any field, particularly that of justice, as it is a readily accepted form of evidence that allows for convictions. However, Tests conducted by Loftus have shown an enormous swing from a non-guilty verdict, to guilty within the same case, simply through the introduction of an eyewitness. This alone displays the importance of eyewitness testimony, and accentuates the theory that jurors tend to over believe, or at least rely heavily on such accounts.
The pretrial show-up is used today to make identifications of suspects. It is important that a witness gives precise details of what happened at the time when the crime took place. Show-ups usually takes place right after a crime takes place, and the apprehension of a suspect.