Building Face Composites Can Harm Lineup Identification Performance

Eyewitness testimony has long been viewed as important evidence in court cases. The general population believes eyewitness identification more than any other evidence, even if the witness account is conflicting with the other evidence presented. Studies show that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and yet it is still considered the most important form of evidence. People think that if a person says they saw something then it must have happened. Currently there are no universal guidelines on how to obtain and present such evidence. The purpose of this paper is to explain why eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and discuss the proposed guidelines on how law enforcement agencies should gather identifications, as well how

There has been considerable interest and study in the accuracy or inaccuracy of the use of eyewitness testimonies in the current criminal justice system. Results collated by several studies add to the bulk of literature suggesting that the current usage of eyewitness testimony by the legal system is far from ideal. Currently, high emphasis is being placed on reviewing and reconsidering eyewitness accounts (Leinfelt, 2004). In particular, recent DNA exoneration cases have substantiated the warnings of eyewitness identification researchers by showing that mistaken eyewitness identification was the largest single factor contributing to the conviction of innocent people (Wells & Olson, 2003). In this essay, the use of eyewitness testimony in the criminal justice system will be explored, with a particular focus on the impreciseness of this practice.

Lindsay et al. (1994) researched descriptor variables for the culprits in real and staged crimes. Hair and clothing were the two most commonly reported descriptors; with staged crimes having an average of 7.35 descriptors and real crimes with an average of 3.94 descriptors. Van Koppen & Lochun (1997) determined that the average amount of descriptors people would likely remember from a perpetrator is 8 – with sex and height being the most common; another problem – the recall was only 52% accurate regarding the height of the perpetrators. Other studies have revealed that witnesses commonly struggle with accurately reporting weight, eye colour, and aspects of clothing such as

Previous research has provided evidence that there is a rather frequent occurrence of false identifications of innocent people in line-ups (Lindsay, Wells, Rumpel, & Campbell, 1981). Eyewitness memories are often distorted by inaccurate memories of how accurate their original identification was (Wells & Bradfield, 1998). Often the eyewitness will be unsure at the time of the line-up identification, but when recalling the identification process they often give a confident positive response (Wells & Bradfield, 1998). A confirming-feedback comment can have a pronounced effect on the reconstructing of the witnessing and identification process. The comment may not only inflate recollections but also have an impact on the eyewitness confidence (Wells

A defendant’s guilt is often determined in a single moment of fleeting emotion. A pointed finger, accompanied by the solidifying eyewitness statement “He’s the one!” is enough for a jury to make its final decision in a court case. Although it is understandable, when faced opposite of the individual creating the accusation, to place one’s belief in the accusation made, the credibility of the eyewitness’s account of events are rarely taken into consideration. Psychologists have taken part in research that recognizes the unreliable nature of eyewitness statements used to determine guilt because of the instability of long term memory acquisition and because of this, eyewitness accounts of situations should not be used before a jury in court.

Eyewitness identification and testimony play a huge role in the criminal justice system today, but skepticism of eyewitnesses has been growing. Forensic evidence has been used to undermine the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the leading cause of false convictions in the United States is due to misidentifications by eyewitnesses. The role of eyewitness testimony in producing false confessions and the factors that contribute to the unreliability of these eyewitness testimonies are sending innocent people to prison, and changes are being made in order to reform these faulty identification procedures.

During the past twenty years reports have shown cases where people had been wrongfully convicted and exonerated in murder and rape cases. Many exonerations occurred during post-conviction and DNA tests have revealed the innocence of wrongfully convicted individuals (Leo & Gould, 2009). Over 230 prisoners have been exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing and in the past twenty years many wrongful convictions prove their innocence through non-DNA means (Leo & Gould, 2009). Before 1989, the first year to use post-conviction DNA testing was used to establish innocent and even in capital punishment cases. There has been a growth in culture and among criminal justice professionals who were wrongfully conviction that occur in criminal justice systems (Leo & Gould, 2009).

The American system of justice is predicated on the search for justice. The emergence of DNA evidence as a source of evidence in this search has become a powerful ally for both the prosecution and defense in criminal trials and there has been no clear cut advantage gained by either side of the equation. The use of DNA evidence, often referred to as DNA profiling, has given police and prosecutors a new, and more reliable, means of identifying criminal but the cost of the procedure, the time involved, and the general unavailability of labs to perform the testing has caused DNA profiling to be used sparingly. On the opposite side of the ledger, DNA profiling has also allowed criminal defense lawyers and defendants to eliminate themselves from suspicion it has also served as a means of exoneration. While DNA profiling has obvious advantages, there remains doubt as to its wide scale use and how it will eventually be used by the criminal justice system. Experts in the field foresee the strong possibility of abuse in the use of DNA evidence and profiling and there are also moral and ethical issues being discussed (Walsh, 2005).

On the website, www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/ examines the accuracy of eyewitness identification. In today’s society, people say if you see something, say something. Now, more and more people are speaking up and giving needed eyewitness statements to the authorities. The Innocence Project points out areas where eyewitness identification can render inaccurate results. For instance, the police may give non-verbal hints that causes the witness to doubts the details of the incident resulting in a wrongful conviction. To prevent misidentification, the Innocence Project is partnering with law enforcement to come up with list of policies to follow.

Another report, according to Turman, stories about the use of DNA evidence to convict offenders or exonerate defendants in criminal cases have appeared in the media with increasing frequency over the last few years. Criminal justice professionals and the public realize that forensic DNA technology is revolutionizing the way law enforcement officers investigate violent crimes, including crime scene investigation, counseling rape victims to not wash away critical evidence, accurate conviction of offenders, and connecting offenders to other brutal crimes. Their bulletin seeks to strengthen crime victims' confidence in the judicial process by showing how DNA technology can empower the search for truth"(Turman,

The significance of the part scientific DNA proof plays in explaining rape and crime cases can't be exaggerated. DNA proof is a pivotal device utilized as a part of compelling police work to understand vicious violations. For the individuals who have been wrongly blamed, sentenced, and detained at times for a long time—for a wrongdoing they didn't submit, DNA confirmation absolves the honest and alarms law implementation to seek after the genuine wrongdoer. By sentencing the liable and liberating the blameless, DNA prove genuinely serves the interest of

The ability of the human visual system to integrate facial features into a gestalt whole is one of the processes that seems to contribute the most to human face perception (referred to as holistic face processing; Taubert et al.; 2006). A large number of behavioral studies provide evidence that demonstrate that faces are processed holistically. Two examples that provide evidences for holistic processing are the composite effect and the part-whole effect. In composite effect tasks, participants are required to decide whether two identical top halves are the same (Goffaux & Rossion, 2006; Le Grand, Mondloch, Maurer, & Brent, 2004; McKone, 2008). Evidences suggest this task is more difficult when the two top halves are paired with different bottom halves, indicating that perception of the identity of features in one half of a face is changed by a whole-face

DNA testing like many other tools in forensics to identify suspects has been through various evaluations to uncover its validity. These evaluations are necessary because the results of DNA testing can help to exclude, include, and can even be used to convict suspects. The weight of DNA testing is heavy in that can be used to alter a person’s life forever,hence, the legal movements for it to be validated. Some believed that the admissibility of DNA testing into the courts would violate privacy rights or could alert criminals to the evidence that could be left behind when they commit a crime. The arguments that

However, DNA profiling and DNA analysis are not always adequately understood by the legal fraternity. The perception that DNA evidence is infallible obscures many potential problems raised by the methodology and interpretation of such evidence. It should, however, be made clear that the techniques

Forensic science has come a long way to solving crimes as they occur each day, from stealing, killings, burglary and kidnappings. People that commit these crimes need to be caught so that they pay the consequence for their actions. While catching a criminal is not an easy task, however some of the most effective ways to do so come from the effectiveness of DNA analysis. Forensic scientist play a vital role in helping catch criminals, using different devices so as DNA markers and DNA testing along with many more different types to help catch a criminal. It is possible for DNA analysis to have unfounded results that can lead to an unjust conviction, with most of the time, resulting from human error. Although there remains diverse thoughts on the issues of DNA analysis being the most effective tool for the law enforcement, most researchers agree that DNA analysis is highly effective and helps law enforcement cracking down on the criminals that committed the crimes.