Project 3 Photo Spread Analysis Essay

An eyewitness testimony is unreliable because of many different things. Sometimes when witnesses see something they don’t see the whole crime, but only parts which could cause the wrong people to be in trouble. When it’s a serious crime the trial could take years and when asked to stand trial against the perpetrator the witness’s memory could not be fully correct anymore. You could forget important things or get mixed up with things you’ve seen somewhere else, like in a movie. Another reason they are unreliable is Because individuals with certain psychological disorders, like antisocial personality disorder and substance dependence, are at high risk for criminal involvement, they are also at high risk for false identifications by eyewitnesses.

There are a lot of incidents that happen between police, and criminals. Always a mix up, confusion, miscommunication, and sadly, police brutality, but police always get the benefit of the doubt because of lack of evidence. A incident happened way back in around 2009, it was actually on January 1st. A twenty-two year old young man named Oscar Grant was shot at Fruitvale Station, by an officer that “thought” he was using a taser, but actually used a gun. If that officer would have had a body camera on, he would’ve been more aware of what he was doing, and he would have been caught sooner because they would have been able to see, and tell that Grant wasn’t being defiant.

In effect, people are unknowingly being put in suspect lineups without their awareness or consent. This can lead to false accusations against innocent citizens. Most police departments still rely on officers to verify that the suspect chosen by the face recognition software actually matches the camera footage. However, humans shockingly make an error in this process once in every two cases (Bedoya, Alvaro, et al 2016). In some instances, it is not only this human error that is leading to their conviction but rather the system itself. A study, co-authored by the FBI, said that the facial recognition software is actually less accurate when it comes to identifying African Americans. Systems relying on mugshot databases have a disproportionate number of African Americans due to their high arrest rates in America. This creates “racial biased error rates,” that perpetuate implicit and systemic racism in our society (Bedoya, Alvaro, et al 2016). But for American citizens in general, in any crime being solved by using face databases, anyone is a potential suspect. Because of this, regulations should be put in place to limit the use of this technology to cases where its use is relevant and vital to solving the issue.

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.

In the past decade, eyewitness testimonies have cast a shadow on what is wrong with the justice system in today’s society. Before we had the advanced technology, we have today, eyewitness testimonies were solid cold-hard facts when it came to proving the defendant was guilty. However, time has changed and eyewitness testimonies have proven to be the leading causes of wrongful convictions due to misidentification. The Thompson and Cotton case is a perfect example of how eyewitness testimonies can put an innocent man behind bars.

Eyewitness misidentification can pose a serious threat in forensic evidence. Eye witness testimony can easily be tampered with due to words or phrases used. Bias is a major issue in identification especially if the police officer uses suggestive tones to portray whom they believe is the suspect. Some witnesses will change their opinion when they hear new information of the suspect. A study has shown that words can play a major impact in the witness' mind and cause them to recall false information. False information can also stem from human memory, age, distance, and how long it took before a witness could recall the information. It has been shown that due to the confidence that a witness may have, it could impact the court systems' reliability on the witness; however, there are several solutions that can be done to prevent misidentification in the court of law. Some examples that can be done are blind administration, lineup composition, instructions, confidence statements, and

To explain the crime, the criminal involved in the crime tricked the woman into getting in her car by impersonating a parking attendant. He stole the woman’s purse and car keys and drove off with the woman’s vehicle. During the carjacking, the man tried to attack the woman with a screwdriver which resulted in the criminal being stabbed. (“Antonio Beaver”). The victim gave a very vague description of the criminal, mentioning that he was african american, was wearing a baseball cap, was 5’10, had crooked teeth, and had facial hair.

Eyewitness identification are considered to be the most powerful evidence against a suspect. There are numerous reasons for this to occur which includes stress, human memory, and the focus on weapons which leads for the eyewitness to focus less on the perpetrator. When an individual is in a position with high stress, their ability of remembering what actually occurred won't be easy to prove. It leaves the eyewitness unable to recall what occurred at the tie of the scene. This has been a huge problem over the years. According to “Carla Stenzel” eyewitness misidentification will occur because our memory is dynamic. It is very impossible for our brains to perform everything we see. Our memories take in pieces of information and processes the most important information. When a witness is asked by a police officer to give certain details of a suspect, they won't be able to remember how exactly they looked like but will be able to give out certain details like their height, race, and hair color. When a crime is being committed witnesses usually testify that there focus was more on the perpetrator's weapon. All they can focus on would be the size and shape of the weapon and focus less on the actual suspect. Another contribution would be the way the investigator presents the operator to the witness. The investigator prepares a lineup which includes a six pack of people. The use of a six pack lineup has

Eyewitness identification, for the most part, is considered reliable eyewitness identification by the courts as excellent evidence to proof crimes at trial. Yet, Bennett Barbour’s arrest revealed these inaccuracies as he was wrongly arrested due to an over-reliance on eyewitness identification. Barbour’s physique, specifically his

Photograph identifications sessions are used in identifying a suspect. A defendant does not have a right to legal counsel when photos are being viewed by witnesses or victims. This decision was determined by the Supreme Court. The photographs are arranged in a professional manner to where a suspect isn’t pointed out when they are viewed.

•details of the photograph, such as which person you chose, what they are wearing, and what belongings they have with them

However, if identification evidence has been admitted, the trial judge is required to give an identification warning to the jury, that there is a special need for caution before accepting identification evidence; and of the reasons for that need for caution. Section 114 also sets out a general rule, that visual identification evidence adduced by the prosecution is inadmissible, unless the

Identification responses, such as correct identifications and false or incorrect identifications, vary depending on whether the line-up is sequential or simultaneous (Flowe, 2011). Simultaneous line-ups are widely used and considered the norm. However, there has been an increased use of sequential line-ups (Wright, 2007). In sequential line-ups, eyewitnesses view the line-up one at a time; the procedure ends once the eyewitness has identified someone (Wright, 2007). According to Flowe, people spend longer analysing faces in a sequential line-up than in a simultaneous one, suggesting that participants are more thorough. Furthermore, Lindsay and Wells (1985) suggest that the sequential presentation of a line-up would encourage the use of absolute judgements. Absolute judgements refer to when witness make positive identifications by contrasting the present line-up to their memory. In contrast, in a simultaneous line-up, people tend to use relative judgements (Wells, 1984). The eyewitness views, and is asked to identify, the suspect amongst non-suspects simultaneously. In this line-up procedure, participants tend to compare the people present in the line-up against each other to determine which resembles the suspect the most in relation to other members of the line-up; which is making a relative judgement (Wells, 1984). According to Wells et al. (1998) certain line-up procedures

The Baltimore Police Department has chosen to utilize the double-blind process Kimberly, to limit the misidentifications in line-ups. This eliminates the police being able to coerce the witness to select a certain suspect. Neither the law enforcement personnel nor the witness knows which photo is the actual suspect (CBS Baltimore,

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.