Research Paper On Eyewitness

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 false convictions but rather the system itself. A study, co-authored by the FBI, noted that the facial recognition software is less accurate when 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). This presents yet another reason regulations should be put in place solely to limit the use of this technology to cases where its use is essential to solving a crime.

Identifying who the guilty are is much easier said than done. Identification of the guilty has been an issue for a long time. Often such identifications consisted of using discriminatory categories in order to identify suspects. The police have been discriminating individuals based on their gender, skin color, race, eye color, height and weight (Ingram, 2009). However, these descriptive characteristics are not the only ones the police were using, in fact, blood typing, fingerprinting, and DNA matching, have been added to the list (Ingram, 2009). These types of identification methods cannot be disputed as easily. Of course, DNA can be tainted and people can be framed, but for the most part, it was better

crime scene could be analyzed and compared with a sample from a suspect. A match could place

However, the effectiveness of context reinstatement in cognitive interviewing must consider the extent to which mental reinstatement of context may be effective (Bull & Memon, 1991). A study conducted by Bekerian, Dennett, Hill and Hitchcock (1990) classified imaged details into two types: molar details which include the placement of people, environmental factors and physical appearances; and molecular details which include the specificity of the information being imagined. The results indicated a significant increase in recall following imagery instructions, also reporting a proportional increase in errors. In summation, the picture that one obtains from an overview of the context is not reliable, and the combination of different context reinstatement procedures do not aid in the context of the recognition of suspects from photographs (Bekerian et al., 1990). This method, too, does not necessarily improve the credibility of eyewitness accounts, nor does it even decrease memory error and confabulations.

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

508). It’s not uncommon for a witness to go through photos than spend time going through lineups where a witness or victim has to actually see the suspect to make a positive identification. It’s hard to correctly recognize suspects in photographs that were taken at the time of their incarceration; therefore, these photographs will not be included in the photograph identification session. Although the pictures of the suspects should be similar in nature, but the arrangement of the photos should be presented in such a way that an offender could be identifiable out amongst the other photos (Hall, 2015). Officers can arrange the photographs in different ways. One way is to arrange them at the same time to where as a “two by three matrix” which has been given the

Eyewitnesses are critical to the criminal justice system, but there have been issues involving eyewitness testimonies, which occasionally cause them to be seen as unreliable. According to innocenceproject.org, 72% of DNA exoneration cases in the United States have resulted from eyewitness misidentification. This is concerning because in a study by Benton, Ross, Bradshaw, Thomas, and Bradshaw (2005), they examined jurors, judges and law enforcement’s knowledge about eyewitness issues. They found that those involved in the legal system are still very unaware of eyewitness memory research, and the reasons behind why eyewitnesses may or may not be considered reliable. There needs to be a way to increase reliability so that eyewitnesses are able to accurately recognize perpetrators and other important information to put the guilty people away, and to keep the innocent people free.

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

First, the human memory does not record all information like a video recorder. Mistaken eyewitness testimony is one of the major causes of wrong conviction. Events of crimes, will have so much stress or focus on a weapon, than the face of criminal (Wrongful Convictions , n.d.). The victim’s or eyewitness’s memory can be changed with an easy simple suggestion. Police procedure dealing with key witnesses by a “show up”. This is showing the suspect in a physical or a picture line up. The confidence of accuracy of identification and exhibited by the witness is a “crucial determinant of believability” by jurors (Furman, 2003). The best result of eyewitness testimony is taken identification immediately. The

The traditional procedure in identifying criminals involve a simultaneous (SIM) lineup procedure whereby all the suspects are presented simultaneously to the eyewitness and asked to identify which one closely resembles the perpetrator (Steblay, Dysart, Fulero & Lindsay, 2001). This type of procedure however has led to many wrongfully convicted innocent suspects (McQuiston-Surrett, Malpass & Tredoux, 2006), suggesting that an alternative procedure is needed. In 1985, Lindsay and Wells devised the sequential (SEQ) lineup

The article, When I Witnesses Talk, covers the issue of eyewitness testimonies and their reliability with memory conformity. Often when two people experience the same event they both have very different recollections of the occurrence. One event within the journal article incorporates the murder of Jill Dando, within this investigation there was a lineup where 16 witnesses were asked to identify the suspect, where only 1 of the 16 witnesses recognized him. The police conducted a second lineup where for example one witness stated that they were 95% sure that the suspect that they identified was at the scene of the crime, yet in the original lineup that person was unable to identify anyone from the lineup. One key piece of information was discovered,

There are investigative techniques used in an investigation, including the way witnesses choose the suspect in a lineup. A lineup is a course of action performed by law enforcement personnel designed to give the witness an opportunity to identify the suspect. Identified are three different types of lineups used in identifying the person committing the crime. Physical, field and photographic are identified as the types of lineups used by law enforcement to identify the criminal.

Vishal Singh Professor Lynch 10/20/15 Outline Specific purpose: To inform the class about how unreliable eyewitness identification can be. Central idea:

Although physical lineups were once the standard eyewitness identification process, today, agencies use photographic lineups. Photographic lineups typically consists of four or six photos. This involves presenting several photos to the eyewitness, with the suspect being one of them, as the witness tries to identify the offender(s) of the crime. Like physical lineups, photo lineups should have comparable traits, such as race, height, age, mustaches, and beards. Furthermore, avoiding reasonable challenges due to suggestive measures.

Convictions prior to the advancement of DNA testing in the criminal justice system were commonly found to be later wrongful and due to eyewitness misidentification (Scheck & Neufeld, 2001). Hence, there has been increasing research by psychologists in eyewitness memory and particularly in line up practices. In criminal identification, a simultaneous line up (SIM) is typically used and involves presenting the witness with all line-up suspects at once with the offender (target) placed amongst other innocent suspects (foils) that resemble the offender (Wells & Olsen, 2003). With these conditions, witnesses have a tendency to compare suspects with each other in order to determine the one that have the closest resemblance with the offender, a process called relative judgement (Steblay, Dysart, Fulero & Lindsay, 2001). In the simultaneous line-ups with target present, there are more hits as the closest resemblance is the perpetrator but while in target absent conditions, the closest matching foil is often picked and resulting in more false alarms (Steblay, Dysart, Fulero & Lindsay, 2001). Therefore, to prevent the potential of misidentification, alternative line-up presentations have been developed to inhibit relative judgement processes such as sequential line-up in Lindsay and Wells (1985).