However, when the administrator tells the witness that the perpetrator might not be in the lineup, then that influences the witness to most likely not identify anyone and thus the witness is less likely to incorrectly identify any of those in the lineup (Kovera & Borgida, 1351). Thus, in regards to the knowledge of the lineup administrator, when they know who the suspect is and know if they are in the lineup or not then they can influence the witness’s identification process (Kovera & Borgida, 1351). As a result, Kovera and Borgida recommend that the administrators be blind as to whether the suspect is present or not in the lineup as to not interfere with the witness’s memory (1351).
Additionally, studies have shown that presenting the suspects
…show more content…
Context consists of such factors as emotion and environment, and it is necessary to recreate those factors in order to access the memory that has been naturally primed to be recalled in reference to them (Cutler, Penrod, Martens, 629). Thus, when addressing these identification errors made by eyewitnesses and when trying to fix them it is essential that the officials involved in the criminal justice system who are questioning the witnesses “reinstate the context surrounding an event” (Cutler, Penrod, & Martens, 629). In other words, eyewitness identification errors need to be fixed, as well as discrepancies of reliability and accuracy within a jury and among the jury members. Furthermore, authors Kovera and Borgida discuss how social psychologists are not allowed in the courtrooms even though that would be very beneficial as they can share the knowledge of these phenomena that can often lead to injustices (1376). Perhaps the first step to more forcefully addressing and working on these influential estimator and system variables as well as jury biases will be to change that rule. But for now the most important part is that the realization of these social psychological concepts becomes widespread enough so that it becomes second natural to be aware of any biases or misjudgments occurring as a result of them. In other words, there are many issues and errors that occur within the legal system due to these social psychological aspects, and they thus must be more widely acknowledged, addressed, and fixed for they have the power to change a verdict and thus possibly ruin a life if a suspect is falsely convicted as a
Eyewitness accounts play a huge role in general in trials and verdicts, but may be unreliable many times, with certain views placed on evidence provided by children. Unreliability may arise from not being able to recount the identity of the accused, the actions and speech occurring during that time, the relationship of individuals towards the person in question, and many
In “Memory in Canadian Courts of Law”, Elizabeth Loftus introduces the readers to incidents in Canadian courts where “faulty memory of eyewitnesses” have unintentionally convicted innocent Canadians, causing them to carry a burden of being treated as a criminal even if they were later acquitted in order to use it as a tool to motivate those interested in the court system to display the horrendous flaw of eyewitnesses testifying in courts operating under the adversarial system such as in Canada. The flaw cannot be eliminated “unless or until better proof becomes available for these types of claims”. Ultimately, Loftus wants Canadians who cares about the legal system and the wellbeing of other Canadians who may be confronted with the possibility
For example, the gap between eyewitness’ confidence and accuracy at trial. As we all known, judges play significance rule in court; also, on my point of view, the judge is a symbol of justice. However, when something were done in wrong way, the only way to fix it is to compensate the victims of wrongfully convicted
The case highlights the problems associated with flawed eyewitness identification, prosecutorial misconduct, and inadequate legal representation. By addressing these issues through comprehensive reforms, such as improving eyewitness identification procedures, increasing accountability for prosecutors, and providing adequate resources for public defenders, we can work towards a more just and equitable system. The case of Lamar Johnson not only underscores the importance of rectifying individual wrongful convictions but also emphasizes the broader implications for our society and the urgent need for criminal justice
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).
Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 2(4), i-109. Greene, E., & Heilbrun, K. (2011). Wrightsmans psychology and the legal system (7th ed.). 20 Davis Drive Belmont, CA 94002 USA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Thompson-Cannino, J., Cotton, R., & Torneo, E. (2010).
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.
The criminal justice system depends majorly on eyewitness identification for investigating and prosecuting crimes. Psychologists have been the only ones who have warned the justice system of problems with eyewitness identification evidence. Recent DNA exoneration cases have corrupted the warnings of eyewitness identification researchers by showing that mistaken eyewitness identification was the largest factor contributing to the conviction of many innocent people eyewitness testimonies are not reliable therefor you would assume they would be taken out of court, but instead
To be certain, they feel that “you could consider special marks on his face and body, but their significance could only be established by witnesses who recollected the person earlier”(Davis 63). The witnesses are expected to have detailed visual recollections. The justice committee is influenced by legitimate identities within a specific community but also strives to provide a fair trial. The reader can relate this
The human memory of complex and highly charged events is invariably incomplete. Police officers cannot be expected to encode and retain every one of the countless details that make up a use-of-force incident” (Simon). This will provide officers help to get the facts needed for the case. Therefore, there will be more hard evidence that can also be used in court. In addition, “Human memory is also susceptible to a
Near Misses and Wrongful Convictions Erroneous convictions are a terrible injustice to those convicted and have the potential to deteriorate the public’s trust in the criminal justice system. An in-depth study was conducted by the National Institute of Justice and discussed by Dr. Jon Gould and John R. Firman during the presentation, “Wrongful Convictions: The Latest Scientific Research and Implications for Law Enforcement”. This study attempts to discover why some cases arrive into the system are near misses—this is an innocent person cleared or acquitted of all charges based on factual evidence—and other cases arrive into the system a different way become wrongful convictions, which these people are also factually innocent, it was just
Not surprisingly, witnesses are likely to assume that the culprit is in the lineup; when explicitly warned that the lineup may or may not contain the culprit, witnesses are less likely to make a selection (Brewer & Wells, 2006). Identification accuracy is impaired under encoding conditions likely to undermine memory strength, such as divided attention, short exposure duration, and long viewing distance (e.g., Lindsay, Semmler, Weber, Brewer, & Lindsay, 2008; Palmer, Brewer, McKinnon, & Weber, 2010). Some conditions, such as identifying a culprit of a different race or one who was wearing a disguise (e.g., Meissner & Brigham, 2001), undermine encoding and/or lineup discrimination performance. Other conditions such as lengthy retention intervals are associated with diminished memory strength (Deffenbacher, Bornstein, McGorty, & Penrod, 2008). Indicators of Identification Accuracy Because an identification decision is often the key evidence against a suspect, characteristics of identification decisions that might discriminate accurate from inaccurate decisions have been explored.
The concept of jury nullification is not one that is broadly known or spoken about in the discipline of law. This is because until more recent years the concept was considered a complex subject that garnered plenty of conversation and debate. To understand the controversy that surrounds this particular area of the law, a definition of jury nullification is in order. It is known that the jury’s role is to act as the unbiased and impartial voice of judgment during the proceedings of a court case.
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.
Furthermore, there can be several factors at play when a wrongful conviction occurs and each case is unique. Three of the more common and detrimental factors that will be explored in this essay are eyewitness error, the use of jailhouse informants and professional and institutional misconduct. Firstly, eyewitness testimony can be a major contributor to a conviction and is an important factor in wrongful conviction (Campbell & Denov, 2016, p. 227). Witness recall and, frankly, the human emory are not as reliable as previously thought. In fact there has been much research showing the problems with eyewitness testimony such as suggestive police interviewing, unconscious transference, and malleability of confidence (Campbell & Denov, 2016, p.227).