Eyewitness identification is ineffective and unjust. Studies have shown that 40% of eyewitness identifications are wrong (Vrij, 1998). Eyewitness identification has great importance in the legal system. This requires the best eyewitness testimony procedure. This essay examines the three main types of eyewitness line-ups; the showup, the sequential and the simultaneous line-up. This essay draws conclusions as to which method the legal system should implement.
The showup is a suggestive procedure. A show-up is an identification procedure in which, the police present a single suspect to an eyewitness, then ask the eyewitness whether the suspect is the perpetrator. The showup is suggestive because the witness views the suspect, whilst the suspect are in police custody. (Behrman & Vayder, 1994). According to United States vs, Funches (1996) eyewitnesses believe that when an officer presents a suspect for
…show more content…
For target absent line-ups, the sequential condition wrongly identified the suspect 18.3% of the time; compared with 35.0% for the simultaneous condition. Using a target present line-up, participants in the sequential condition identified the suspect 50% of the time. In the simultaneous condition, participants identified them correctly 58%.
Each line-up procedure affects the decisions of eyewitnesses. The show-up method is the least effective at correctly identifying suspects. They present suspects to witnesses, whilst in police custody. In addition, the time taken can drastically increase the rate of misidentifications. Therefore, they are not how eyewitness testimonies should be conducted. In the simultaneous line-up, witnesses overestimate their ability to make an identification, resulting in misidentifications. This is due the nature of judgements, promoted by the simultaneous line-up, relative
Lack of physical evidence: Overall in this case there was a lack of physical presented. There were no conclusive DNA results in the case. There was no weapon recovered. The majority of the evidence presented in this case was circumstantial evidence produce by witness testimony.
Detectives emphasized to David that the assailant may or may not be in the photo line up. Detectives also "told him they had arrested the man who raped him, and asked him to pick the assailant out of a photographic lineup. " David then picked Larry Youngblood as his assailant out of the photo line up. Although the photo lineup that David was given was reliable many other parts of this case were not.
As stated earlier, the first point of identification is the police or any professional who may so be called to identify any vulnerabilities. After identification is done, information is sent to the next level for it to be captured and acted upon. After a decision is taken by the higher agencies like the crown prosecution service and witness protection and the court, the necessary measures are then applied with strong collaboration between or among the relevant agencies. Identification is thus a process and as was shown in R-v-Green Youth Court herein, even the most straight forwards decision like may be an issue and measures and assistance are not merely granted on the basis of
The description of the Lockerbie bombing may provide image on how lengthy and complicated an investigation and a trial process could be. Eyewitness would have to go through repeated interviews. The purpose of this procedure is to assess the consistency and accuracy of the testimony. Unfortunately, it is often not realized that repeated interview may also have a negative effect on the quality of the testimony given. A study by Sharps, Herrera, Dunn, and Alcala investigated the effect of repeated questioning in the format based of police procedure (2012).
Effects of post identification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentification confidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 334–346. Lindsay, R., & Wells, G. (1985). Improving eyewitness identification from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556–564.
He says that when a suspect is not in a line up, witnesses will tend to pick the most similar to the criminal. The two key properties of eyewitness testimony is that it is often unreliable and highly persuasive. Recognition memory is rapid so if someone takes longer than 10-15 secs then they are not using reliable recognition memory. Showing a photo one by one is more effective and accurate as it allows the victim to compare each photo to their memory rather than each other. A study person was undertaking whereby 300 participants viewed deliberately shaky footage of a man putting a bomb down an airshaft.
This specific procedure necessitates the witness to view each photo separately from the rest so not to pick the suspect due to his/her close similarity. When reviewing photos sequentially, one will be more likely to compare the photo to their memory rather than to the others grouped together. Lineups continue to be called to question from the defense in that there is always the possibility the results may produce a false identification of a suspect. This is commonly due to the officer inadvertently providing verbal or no-verbal clues as the witness reviews the lineup. In addition, lineups are to be construct so those displayed have similarities such a facial hair, eye glass, or skin tone.
Own-race identifications are those in which people distinguish someone of the same race as their own. Cross-race identifications mean identifying individuals from a race different from our own. A comprehensive study, with 271 real court cases, was conducted in connection with these issues and the results revealed that witnesses pertinently identified 65% of the defendants who were of the same race as them. On the other hand, 45% of the defendants were identified who belonged to a different race than the witnesses. A further scientific study also indicates that own-race identifications are liable to be more precise, by 10 percent to 15 percent, than cross-race identifications (Eysenck and Keane
In the article “Lineup Procedure in Criminal Cases,” Paul Bergman is informing us on the ins and outs of criminal lineups. He states that lineups are not a more accurate way of an identification than showups or photo identification. Studies show witnesses are not more likely to accurately identify a suspect in a lineup than any other pretrial identification procedure. During a lineup, a prosecutor is usually present along with police officers. Attorneys can also be there representing the suspect that was charged with a crime.
When analyzing a witness testimony, the first thing to consider is; is this witness telling the truth or are they lying? One must be able to spot the small nuances and
Jim Dwyer, a columnist and author, wrote an article which discusses the possible steps that can be taken to battle false confessions and witness identifications. As he argues in the article these aspects are closely connected and one leads to another. Dwyer (2005) proposes that testimonies and memories of suspects and witnesses should be treated just like any other physical evidence that is discovered in the crime scene. Also, investigators and police officers should keep in mind that testimonies are also subjected to contamination (Dwyer, 2015, para. 4). One proposal that regards eye witnesses is to present the potential evidence by an investigator who is not on the case, thus eliminating leading questions and hints on specific details
Fourth, if there is more than one witness, the position of the suspect in the lineup should be changed in each lineup so as to prevent communication of the suspects position between witnesses influencing identifications. Finally, it is recommended that no cues of any kind should be given to the witness concerning whether or not the identified person is the suspect in the case as doing so can
Most cases where someone has been exonerated due to DNA retesting had a problem with eyewitnesses misidentifying the suspects. This is a problem that can change someone’s life forever. Misidentification of suspects is a flaw in the criminal justice system that can be addressed through more police training and increased help from the judges. Misidentification by the eyewitnesses and the police officers are current problems in the justice system. Suspects are identified by the eyewitnesses of the crime, but this can lead to some problems with who is identified.
This week’s topic was very interesting to learn about how important eyewitnesses can be when a crime and accidents do occur. In the case that was presented in the 60-minute segment of Ronald Cotton and Jennifer Thompson is exactly how legal system can fail us when it comes to the eyewitnesses’ identification testimony and how a person’s perception and memory can be altered. The aspect of psychology and law research from this week’s course material is most relevant to the topic of perception and memory. The memory has different stages the first is encoding the process of entering perception into memory.
When a suspect has unique features such as visible tattoos, scars or hairstyles, it can make the lineup process a little easier. I selected suspect number three who participated in a simultaneous lineup, where all people are presented at the same time. My choice was incorrect due to the fact that the suspect was not