Simultaneous vs Sequential Lineup Procedures - Assignment Example

Simultaneous vs. sequential lineup procedures Name Institution Simultaneous vs. sequential lineup procedures The fundamental role that wrong eyewitness identifications play in convictions of innocent people have prompted a great interest in establishing proper ways to minimize eyewitness identification errors. For over 30 years, psychological scientists have conducted a number of laboratory researches and have proposed a number of reforms to the currently used procedures. The two procedures often used in identifications are sequential and simultaneous lineups. The difference between the two is in the basis that the victims are presented. In simultaneous lineups, the photos of the suspects or real suspects are presented in a group. Here, people are engaged in relative judgment. Many victims are presented at a time and the witness is asked to pick one who closely resembles the real criminal in relation to others (Wells, 1978). In sequential lineups, different persons engage in absolute judgment. For every suspect, people are asked if they know the person. As such witnesses have to rely on their memory to judge. Early research indicates that there has been a higher rate of mistaken identity while using simultaneous lineups as compared to sequential lineups (Wells, 1993). Even though it is not clear when studies about sequential lineups started, the notion that simultaneous lineups mistakenly convicted suspects has been long in existence (Lindsay & Wells, 1985). The move for popularization of sequential lineups can be traced back to the Innocent project. The previous studies on sequential lineups indicated that there is a great difference in mistaken convictions of innocent people. The early studies thereby prompted efforts to improve accuracy in eyewitnesses particularly in memory (Wells, 1998). To achieve this, the studies proposed double-blind sequential lineups rather than just sequential lineups (Scheck, Neufeld & Dwyer, 2000). Double sequential lineups are conducted by ensuring that neither the person conducting the process nor the witness has any idea of the real suspect. This serves to eliminate the bias that the person in charge of the process may have over the witness. Research on double-blind sequential lineups indicated that the witnesses are more likely to pick the suspect and less likely to make a mistake (Scheck, Neufeld & Dwyer, 2000). However, the study on sequential lineups is not over as there is still much to prove. According to the New York Times, Dr. Well shall continue with his study on sequential lineups through analyzing the data to determine the surety of witnesses and the impact of factors such as cross identification on accuracy. While most states concur that sequential lineups do much better during identification, there is a notion that there are many chances where the guilty is overlooked and the innocent convicted for their crimes (Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence, 1999). As such, most states have been hesitant to implement laws that mandate that the sequential lineup approach should be used exclusively. Even though the states are willing to enjoy the benefits of sequential lineups, they are hesitant to take it as the only option (Malpass & Devine, 1981). There are different feelings over the advantages and disadvantages of this approach, which incidentally raise different feelings. According to Goodsell, Carlson and Gronlund (Wells & Penrod, 2011), sequential lineups do not augment accuracy but rather prompt conservatives in eyewitnesses’ willingness to select. This may be desirable when the police are in procession of an innocent suspect, but more problematic when they have a guilty one. However, Lindsay, Bertrand,Leach Mansour and Beaundry (1985) advance the advantage of sequential lineups claiming that between 570-1425 of innocent persons that would be convicted with simultaneous would be avoid with sequential. Penrod and Cutler (2011), conducted a research to examine a number of variables that influence the accuracy of eyewitnesses during a lineup. The study included 175 college undergraduate participants. The participants were initially offered a questionnaire and a video of a store robbery. They were then requested to identify the robber in a lineup on a photo. They were then offered different other videos, lineups and given different instructions. According to the result, there were 80% percent correct identification for sequential lineups and a 76% correct identification for simultaneous lineups. There was also 80% for simultaneous lineups and 78% for sequential lineups when the provided cues were strong and 58% for simultaneous and 84% sequential when the cues were weak. In conditions when the target was absent, mistaken rates were 19 percent for sequential and 39% for simultaneous. The study showed that the rates of correct identification were high in all situations. Additionally, the results did not show any fundamental correct identification rates between sequential and simultaneous lineups when the targeted individual was present (Wells & Penrod, 2011). Dystart, Wells and Steblay (2011) tried to respond to the debate that has existed since the concept. In an effort to confirm the results produced in the earlier studies to respond establish the strongest between simultaneous and sequential approaches; they combined data from 72 tests in 23 distinct labs across the world. The results included 13,143 participants’ as witnesses in the studies. The outcomes were much similar to those in earlier studies. They established that simultaneous lineups are more likely to identify any suspect than the sequential lineups. However, the sequential lineup approach was more likely to be correct when the identification was made. The study showed that there is an 8% difference in identification of suspects between simultaneous and sequential approaches (Steblay & Wells, 2011). This was in favor of the simultaneous lineup, approach implying that in overall, the simultaneous lineup approach was effective in identifying the guilty suspects as compared to the sequential lineup approach. The also shows decrease in the difference since 2001 when the difference was 15% against sequential lineup approaches. The results in Dystart et al study also indicated that there is a 22% difference regarding errors between simultaneous and sequential lineups. This implies that the sequential lineups are more likely to identify the correct suspect. Controlled laboratory studies have consistently shown that DB sequential lineups result a significant reduction wrong identities but little reduction in accurate identifications (Lempert, Roediger & Rosenthal, 2007). Generally, this approach produces a better rate of accurate identifications than wrong identifications compared to double blind simultaneous approach. In 2006, a greatly publicized field research in Illinois conducted by the police department of Chicago brought into questions the findings on sequential and simultaneous findings. However, it still raised concerns on whether eyewitnesses in scientifically controlled experiments are reliable approximations in relation to actual eyewitnesses in serious crime situations where a bigger number of witnesses are victims (Lempert, Roediger & Rosenthal, 2007). The study indicated that the existing methods had less filler picks and higher criminal identification rates compared to the double blind sequential lineups. Fillers are not necessarily suspects but are placed in the lineup merely to fill it out and form a much fair process for the suspect. The study was later rejected as psychological scientists claimed that it confounded DB testing versus non-blind testing. Additionally, the cases were not assigned randomly and the Evanston site later provided evidence that the more serious cases were less likely to be assigned to the simultaneous procedure than to the sequential one (Lempert, Roediger & Rosenthal, 2007). Due to this, the American Judicature Society convened a meeting for prosecutors, eyewitness scientists, lawyers, and police in 2006, in Greensboro and developed what is now referred to as the ‘Greensboro protocol”. The protocol was set out guidelines for conducting an appropriate field research to test the sequential versus the simultaneous approaches and gather enough and reliable data on event and witness variables. In the meeting, there was a unanimous agreement that the field research should have a direct comparison between DB simultaneous and DB sequential lineup processes, use of laptops and random assignment (Steblay, 1997). The use of laptops in conducting the lineups and recording responses from witnesses was considered a fundamental tool as it could ensure that the processes were carried out according to protocol, record responses reliably and store the photos in the lineups as part of electronic records. Additionally, laptop computers can randomly assign witnesses to specific situations and confirm the sequence of photos in lineups. More so the use of laptop computers provide evidence to the jury, defense, police and the judge that the eyewitness process was conducted fairly and according to best practices (Wells & Penrod, 2011). After this, another field research was conducted under the guidance of American Judicature Society, managed by Danielle Mitchell. Dr. Nancy Steblay, Dr. Gray Wells and Dr. Jennifer Dystart, all psychological scientists were involved intimately in the design and the implementation of the research. Most other scientists, defense, prosecutors, and police officers were involved incorporating the Greensboro protocol (Steblay, 2011). In this study, the general analysis of the data established that simultaneous procedure identified correct suspects for the 25.5% of the lineups while the sequential procedure yielded 27.3%. Statistical analysis indicated that the rates for identification for sequential versus simultaneous were not significant statistically. The little difference in correct identifications between the two fell within the error margin. The data on filler identification rates on the other hand established that sequential procedures produced 12.2 % while the simultaneous procedures produced 18.1% filler identification. Statistical analyses show that the difference is significant statistically through the use of conventional probability levels (Steblay, 2011). Non-identification rates were 60.5% for the sequential and 56.4 % for simultaneous approach. The data indicated that 80.8% of non-identifications were pure rejections and 19.2% “not sure” for the simultaneous procedure. On the other hand, in the sequential procedures, 53.5 percent were pure rejections while 46.5% responded as not sure. This result was consistent with other earlier lab reports that showed that sequential lineups reduce mistaken identification with no or little reduction in correct identifications. Deeper analysis is yet to be conducted on other aspects of the collected data including the audio recorded statements of eyewitnesses. This could provide more information on whether mistaken identities in one procedure are associated more with surety. There shall also be analyses on whether the witness was a by-stander or a victim witness, same-race versus another-race. Numerous journal articles will then be published to define the reliability of simultaneous versus sequential approaches in suspect identification. More so, even though filler identifications are outright errors, suspect identification may or may not be correct identifications. The second phase of this study is also being conducted the police foundation. References Steblay, N. et al, (2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 99- 139. Wells, G. L. et al (1993). On the selection of distracters for eyewitness lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 835-844. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement.Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Steblay, N. M. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283-298. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482- Steblay, N. K. (2011). What we now know: The Evanston Illinois field lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 1-12 Lempert, R., Roediger, H. L. & Rosenthal, R. (2007). Studying eyewitness investigations in the field. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 3-5.] Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89-103. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553-571 Wells, G. L., & Penrod, S. D. (2011). Eyewitness identification research: Strengths and weaknesses of alternative methods. In B. Rosenfeld, & S. D. Penrod (Eds.), Research methods in forensic psychology.John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ. Wells, G. L. et al(1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22,603-647 Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546-1557. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identification from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556564. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P. & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence. New York: Random House. Read More