Simultaneous And Sequential Line-up Procedures - Literature review Example

Simultaneous and sequential line-up procedures Name Institution Date Introduction Mistaken eyewitness can have a significant role in the conviction of the innocent. This has necessitated the need of finding ways of reducing eyewitness identification errors. Most of the reforms proposed, including the double-blind administration, have not been viewed as controversial in principle and many states have adopted them. However, the use of double-blind sequential approach instead of DB simultaneous lineup approach has stirred controversy. This literature review looks into empirical research carried out by different scholars in regard to the effectiveness of simultaneous and sequential line-up procedures. Scholarly review of simultaneous and sequential lineup procedures In the sequential lineup procedure, the witness is shown suspects one at a time and is required to make a decision on each one of them before the next member is shown. Conversely, the simultaneous approach requires that all individuals lineup at once. The witness then is supposed to make a decision from the huge lineup. Wells et. Al. (2011) claims that there is a substantial decrease in mistaken identity when the sequential approach is used than when the simultaneous lineup procedure is used. Wells, G., et.al further acknowledges that the ratio of accurate identifications in DB sequential lineup procedure is better compared to simultaneous lineups. According to Wells, 1998, eyewitness identification can be regarded as a science and as an art. He states that the recommendations made by social scientists have helped law enforcement in identification procedures. These recommendations demand that the individual conducting the lineups should not know the member of the lineup who is a suspect. The photo arrays should be shown sequentially rather than simultaneously and, for better accuracy, clear instruction should be given to the eyewitness including mentioning that the offender may not be in the lineup. Clark, Erickson,& Breneman, in Press and 2001 meta-analysis Steblay et al, both agree to these recommendation, and in addition state that witnesses should not be compelled to make decisions. Fillers should match the description but the suspect must not be easy to pick out, and, taking of clear statement at the time of identification as to confidence level on the identification A research done in Illinois (2006), have produced less false negative results when the sequential approach was adopted. This finding is attributed to the decreased rate associated to the sequential procedure to relative judgment, described as a comparison among photos rather than to the witness’s memory and picking the one closest to offender. However, other group of researchers postulated that it is the high standard of judgment employed by witnesses that led to the reduction, more recent studies states that both factors are contributory. On the other hand, The Seventy-Two Tests of the Sequential Lineup Superiority Effect. The law enforcement official presents photographs of suspect together with fillers or foils; those who are not suspected of committing the crime in question. The eyewitness is then supposed to make identification or reject after viewing the lineup. While many studies, for example the 2001 meta-analysis Steblay et al and The Seventy-Two Tests of the Sequential Lineup Superiority Effect, show that several variables may affect the results of the lineup method used, the Illinois Pilot program on Sequential Double-Blind identification Procedures explores these factors to include the age of the witness; child and elderly witness may not be able to accurately identify the perpetrator, cross-racial identifications, in the event of multiple perpetrators, and lastly, suspects who have changed their physical appearance and therefore do not match the description. Lineup superiority, as stated by Blank, H., & Krahe, J. (2000), also called diagnosticity, is simply an indication of how likely a witness can identify the culprit as opposed to an innocent suspect. It is usually given as a ratio. This has enabled the calculation of individual lineup performance. In the legal field, this ratio is known as the index of probative value which reflects the tendency to approve or disprove the truth of allegation. The Illinois Pilot program on Sequential Double-Blind identification Procedures notes the assumption that conditions between lineups are matched. Another function that diagnostic ratio serve is in enhancing the calculation of posterior probabilities. The posterior probability, that the identified individual is the culprit, highly depends on the diagnostic ratio. A lineup procedure with a high diagnostic ratio is therefore assumed to be more superior and effective than the one with a lower ratio. Even though many studies, including Wells, G. L. (2008, February 1) defined the original theory that governed sequential procedure through a comparison of each lineup member to a decision criterion, i.e. it must be able to make an absolute judgment regarding each suspect a Test of the Simultaneous Vs. Sequential Lineup Methods Compares relative judgment to absolute judgment and shows that the former has better accuracy. However, Clark, et al. (n.d), questions this as there is no distinct clarity on absolute and relative judgments and instead explains that computational modeling provides clarification. No evidence has been collected to show that absolute judgments produce lower incidences of mistaken identity. Many studies, however, have shown that absolute judgment is more accurate. The Illinois Pilot program on Sequential Double-Blind identification Procedures and A Test of the Simultaneous Vs. Sequential Lineup Methods outline a package of procedural components that facilitate the sequential format. These components include the lack of knowledge on how many photos the witness will be shown and restriction on the witness to turning the photo side to side. The core as defined by other studies, however, still remains to be one-at-a-time presentation and no repeat of lineup. These guidelines ensure that simultaneous and sequential lineups differ in more than one feature of lineup format. On the other hand, the Police Chiefs’ Association of Santa Clara County, (2005) criticizes this lineup as it demands precise information on the cause and effect correlation between every component of the procedure and the witness’s performance. Seventy two tests were performed as outlined by The Seventy-Two Tests of the Sequential Lineup Superiority Effect to determine the superiority between the sequential and the simultaneous procedures. The results used two phrases, target-present and target-absent, to indicate the presence or absence of the culprit in the test. Obtained results direction is shown by the signed value as r and z. Positive r and Zma would therefore mean that the sequential procedure has an advantage in that the witness had more positive identification. Negative r and z indicates that witnesses in the simultaneous procedure performed better if compared to those in simultaneous. However, in the culprit –present setting, three outcomes are possible. These include positive identification of the culprit, a wrong choice as the witness may pick on a filler and rejection, where no choice is made. Research has shown that culprit identification in culprit present setting is more than when the simultaneous procedure is used with a 14% performance advantage compared to the sequential method. However, filler pick rate does not show any difference between the two methods. The probability that a witness can pick on filler in both methods is approximately 24%. Filler percentage cannot therefore be used to distinguish superiority; instead, superiority identification is determined by culprit identification rates. The other model used is the culprit absent method. If a witness looks at culprit absent lineups, only two responses are possible. The witness will either reject the lineup or will pick on a filler, i.e. mistaken identity. Correct rejections tend to be higher by 21% with sequential lineup compared to simultaneous procedure, Zma = 16.45, p < .0001, k = 64, r = .22, Nfs = 6339, (sequential M = .64, CI.95 [.58, .70]; simultaneous M = .43, CI.95 [.37, .49]). Steblay et. al. (2011) explains that in this dichotomous accuracy measure, mistaken identifications (and choosing rate) in the two conditions are the reciprocal percentages: 36% and 57%. In another scenario, eyewitnesses were given lineups in which a designated innocent but similar-appearing suspect was planted in a culprit-absent lineup. It was observed that the percentage of false identification was significantly increased in the simultaneous lineup compared to sequential ones. To summarize the results of these three scenarios; The Seventy-Two Tests of the Sequential Lineup Superiority Effect affirms that witnesses tend to make more positive identifications when in the culprit-present scenario in the simultaneous procedure than sequential method. In culprit-absent situations, individuals in sequential lineup condition make fewer mistaken identifications. The Illinois Pilot program on Sequential Double-Blind identification Procedures and Wells, (1984); Lindsay & Wells, (1985) discuss the factors that may affect outcomes and the moderator variables may show boundaries in format effects. The format impact may be affected by moderators such as features of the original study or procedural aspects in the lineup. Different analyses have explored the moderator variable to describe conditions which may result in larger or smaller differences between the two sets of lineups. However, moderator variable offers different and often limited evidence. The major variable considered in The Seventy-Two Tests of the Sequential Lineup Superiority Effect study was the age of the witness. Indicated that use of sequential lineup when the witness is a child is of no benefit. Recent research has shown that elderly individuals have significant increased difficulties in lineup decision making with resultant high mistaken identification. It has been, however, discerned that tests using the elderly and young in culprit-present simultaneous lineup condition have an advantage compared to sequential methods. Sequential method in older witnesses show significantly increased advantage in culprit-absent scenarios than simultaneous ones. In general, older individuals and young children make a lot of mistaken identification regardless of the approach taken. When the culprit is absent, sequential format tends to display inhibited choice making in the elderly. However, the overall filler pick rate is high in both formats: at 50% with sequential and 74% in simultaneous lineups. Children on other hand choose from both approaches at a higher rate at 84% for culprit-present and 75% when the culprit is absent. In summary, individuals in the extreme age bracket display poor eyewitness performance than adult witnesses regardless of the system used. The other variable used to determine the superiority between these two tests is publication status. It has been shown that both published and unpublished display a common pattern. There is a benefit with simultaneous approach when the culprit is present and sequential benefit with culprit absent models. However, there is a significant difference between published and unpublished studies with regard to the size effect for a culprit-present model with a smaller effect in published work. Unpublished studies tend to include small sample size, lack of experimental controls and methodological details that may be forgotten thus unavailable for peer review. These challenges may contribute to the effects that are encountered in unpublished work. The full diagnostic dataset can also be used to determine which of the two lineup procedures is more efficient. This subset of study is called the full diagnostic dataset because the randomized design used enables drawing of cause-and-effect conclusions on the effect of the witness decisions between the culprit-absent and culprit-present models. This subset study also allows the protection of other diagnosticity calculations from uneven research models and in the determination of diagnosticity ratios with scientific basis of published work. The overall results from both the full dataset analysis and the 72-test dataset display similar results. Conclusion Generally, many studies and experiments for example The Seventy-Two Tests of the Sequential Lineup Superiority Effect, Clark, Erickson,& Breneman, in Press and Wells,(1984); Lindsay & Wells, (1985)show that the sequential lineup is superior than the simultaneous one. However, The Illinois Pilot program on Sequential Double-Blind identification Procedures, dismisses this claim and rates the simultaneous procedures as the most effective method. References Wells, g. W., Steblay, N. K., & Dysart, J. E. (2011). Initial Report of the AJS National EWID Studies. A Test of the Simultaneous vs. Sequential Lineup Methods. American Judicature Society Center for Forensic Science & Public Policy EWID Studies. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. F., & Brimacombe, C. A. (1998). Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22(6), 1-39. Mecklenburg, S. H. (2006). Report to the legislature of the state of Illinois: the Illinois pilot program on sequential double-blind identification procedures. The Illinois State Police, 0, 3. Wells, G. L. (2008, February 1). Field Experiments on Eyewitness Identification: Towards a Better Understanding of Pitfalls and Prospects - Springer. Field Experiments on Eyewitness Identification. Retrieved August 28, 2014, from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10979-007-9098-4#page-1 Blank, H., & Krahe, J. (2000). The influence of an outstanding similarity between two persons in a lineup on target identification in sequential and simultaneous lineups. Unpublished manuscript. University of Leipzig, Germany. Clark, S. E., Erickson, M. A., & Breneman, J. S. (in press). Probative value of absolute and relative judgments in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior. Gaertner , S., & Harrington, J. (2009). Successful eyewitness identification reform: Ramsey County’s blind sequential lineup protocol. The Police Chief, 76, 130-141. Office of the Attorney General, Department of Law and Public Safety. (2001). Attorney general guidelines for preparing and conducting photo and live lineup identification procedures. Retrieved December 26, 2005, from http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/ agguide/photoid.pdf Pike, G., Brace, N., & Kynan, S. (2002, March). The visual identification of suspects: Procedures and practice (Briefing Note No. 2/02). London: Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate. Police Chiefs’ Association of Santa Clara County. (2005). Line-up protocol for law enforcement. Retrieved December 26, 2005, from http://www.innocenceproject.org/ docs/Santa_Clara_Lineup_Protocols.pdf Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Accuracy. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Vanderwal, A. (1996). The effects of the sequential presentation of lineups with multiple perpetrators on eyewitness identification. Unpublished undergraduate thesis,Queen’s University. Penrod, S. D. (2003). Eyewitness identification evidence: How well are witnesses and police Performing Criminal Justice Magazine, 54, 36-47. Steblay, N., Dysart, J. & Wells, G. L. (2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, Read More