Sequential and Simultaneous Line up Procedures - Assignment Example

Sequential and Simultaneous Line up Procedures Institution Name Date Course Sequential and Simultaneous Line up Procedures Introduction Sequential line up procedure is a method that is used to identify suspects at the police station by eyewitnesses. This method involves producing the suspects or their photos one by one for the purposes of identification by the eyewitnesses (Steblay, 2011). Through the use of this method, the eye witness is supposed to make a decision when the suspect or the photos are presented. The eyewitness is not in a position to know how many suspects will be presented during the procedure. The sequential line up procedure was introduced after the other methods led too the prosecution of innocent people after being wrongfully identified by the eyewitnesses. The simultaneous method is other method that is used for the purposes of identifying the suspects at the police station. Unlike the sequential line up method, all the suspects or their photos are usually presented at once to the eyewitness (Wells, 2011). The eyewitness will then be required to identify the suspect from those who have been presented. In this method the eyewitness is in a position to know the actual number of suspects. This method also has its strengths and weaknesses. The paper thus discusses the effectiveness of simultaneous and sequential line up. Discussion Sequential line-up procedure has proved to be effective in most cases during the identification of suspects. The accuracy rate of sequential line up procedure is about 70%. This is an indication that it is effective and it can lead to the identification of the real suspects (Horry, 2012). The chances of picking the wrong suspects during the sequential line up procedure are low. This is because the eyewitness does not know the number of suspects that will be presented which may influence their decision. On the other hand, it is also important to note that this method is effective as it eliminates bias because the person conducting the lineup also has no idea who the suspect is. Absolute judgment is usually made by the eyewitness when the suspects are presented one by one and hence its efficiency. The most familiar person is usually chosen by the witness when the sequential line up procedure is made. The eyewitness does not have to rely on comparisons but strictly on their memory of the culprits and hence reducing the chances of misidentification. The decision of the eyewitness is usually based on the appearance of each suspect in the line up in relation to their memory (Tilz, 2012). This therefore plays an essential role in increasing the effectiveness of the method during the process of identifying the suspects. Evidence from empirical studies also show that the outcome of the method is useful in protecting the innocent people and ensuring that the guilty are identified. The chance of false identification which leads to the wrongful prosecution of the innocent people is reduced by 50% through the use of sequential lineup. Wrongful identification of the suspects contributes to the wrongful conviction of 53 to 63% of the suspects (Koehnken, 2012). The use of sequential line up procedure reduces the chances of misidentification and hence its effectiveness. Most of the countries in the developed world usually prefer using the sequential line up procedure which is an indication that it is effective. The courts in most of the jurisdictions in the United States of America usually offer for line ups due to the effectiveness of the method. Empirical studies have also shown that the use of sequential line ups has the potential of reducing false identifications which may lead to the miscarriage of justice (Lindsay, 2014). The rights of the defendants are not violated through the use of the line up method. Thos is because presenting the suspects one by one does not mean that the eyewitness should select a specific person. On the other hand the process is only for the purpose of identification and hence reducing the risk of any violations. Viewing the same suspects repeatedly may impact negatively ob the identification of the suspect (Wells, 2014). This is because it causes distortive memory on the eyewitness and hence affecting the identification process. However, since the suspects are presented one by one, the chances of their memory being distorted is low and hence increasing the effectiveness of the method. Although the use of sequential line up procedure is highly recommended, it has some weaknesses. About 30% of the eyewitnesses still make mistakes when it comes to the identification of suspects (Clark, 2012). Lining the suspects one by one may lead to misidentification since the eyewitness may choose the suspect who closely resembles their own description. On the other hand, an eye witness may want to see another suspect in order to be sure of their identification after making third choice. This is not possible as the method dose not allow for the continuous line up of the suspects once a choice has been made. The sequential line up does not present adequate considerations to both the eyewitnesses and the police who are conduction the procedure. On the other hand, it is also important to note that the eyewitness may end up making the wrong decision with regards to the identification of the suspects incase the actual culprit is to be the last in the line up. Empirical studies have shown that the chances of misidentification are increased once the real suspect is among the last to be produced (Dysart, 2012). Although the sequential line up method has some weaknesses, it is considered effective and hence its continuous use. The simultaneous method is less effective as compared to the sequential method of identifying the suspects. The percentage of accuracy in the use of the simultaneous method is about 60% according to empirical studies (Brewer, 2014). The use of this method in the past contributed to about 50% of wrongful convictions as innocent people were misidentified. The use of simultaneous method always leads to relative judgment which encourages the eyewitnesses to make comparison among the suspects who have been presented in the line up. Comparing the suspect contributes to the misidentification and hence the wrongful conviction of the innocent people. The empirical study also indicates that most of the eyewitnesses will always look for the most familiar face when they are presented multiple photos or suspects. They will then make a choice after they see the most familiar face which may contribute to the misidentification as an innocent person may resemble the real culprits (Thompson, 2014). This therefore reduces the effectiveness of the method and hence its contribution to the wrongful convictions. The comparison of the suspects is usually made by the witnesses during the process of identification and this lowers the effectiveness of the method. On the other hand, it is also important to note that the eyewitness may also fail to pick any suspect when the simultaneous method of identification is used. This is because the eyewitnesses may end up being confused in the process of making comparisons and hence making no choice. Some empirical studies also indicate that the use of the simultaneous line up is the leading cause of conviction of innocent people with some ending up in death row. This is an indication that the method is not effective. A study indicated that 39% of the eyewitnesses will choose an innocent person when they are presented with a simultaneous line up (Clark, 2012). As compared to sequential line up procedure, the use of simultaneous procedure us less effective in identifying the suspects. In a study that was carries out without the actual culprit being present in the line up, the false identification rate was 72% using the simultaneous line up method. This is an indication that the simultaneous method is not effective and it can contribute to wrongful convictions considering that the courts rely on the identification of the eyewitness. About 63% of the people who were wrongful convicted and exonerated later were due to wrongful identification through the use of the simultaneous method (Weber, 2013). Most of the courts do not prefer the use of simultaneous identification method in most of the developed countries due to its ineffectiveness. This is also and indication that the use of the simultaneous method id less effective as compared with the sequential line up procedure. Conclusion In conclusion, it is evident that the sequential line up procedure is more effective as compared to the simultaneous method of identification. Relative judgment is used in the simultaneous judgment while absolute judgment is used in the sequential line up. It is also evident that the percentage of accuracy in the sequential line up identification method is higher than the simultaneous method. A high number of people have been convicted wrongfully through misidentification. It is evident that the use of simultaneous method has contributed to a higher percentage of wrongful conviction as compared to the sequential line up. The effectiveness of the sequential line up method is thus high which impacts positively on the procedure of identifying the suspects and hence preventing wrongful conviction. References Steblay, N. (2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(1), 99. Horry, R. (2012). Backloading in the sequential lineup prevents within-lineup criterion shifts that undermine eyewitness identification performance. Journal of experimental psychology: applied, 18(4), 346. Tilz, R. (2012). Catheter ablation of long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation: 5-year outcomes of the Hamburg Sequential Ablation Strategy. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 60(19), 1921-1929. Wells, G. L. (2011). Eyewitness identification. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 24-27. Koehnken, G. (2014). Psychological issues in eyewitness identification. Psychology Press. Wells, G. L. (2014). Eyewitness Identification Probative Value, Criterion Shifts, and Policy Regarding the Sequential Lineup. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 11-16. Clark, S. E. (2012). Costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform psychological science and public policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(3), 238-259. Dysart, J. E. (2012). Eyewitness Identification Reforms Are Suggestiveness-Induced Hits and Guesses True Hits?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(3), 264-271. Brewer, N. (2014). Archival analyses of eyewitness identification test outcomes: What can they tell us about eyewitness memory?. Law and human behavior, 38(1), 94. Thompson, C. (2014). Eyewitness memory: Theoretical and applied perspectives. Psychology Press. Clark, S. E. (2012). Eyewitness Identification Reform Data, Theory, and Due Process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(3), 279-283. Weber, N.(2013). A role for theory in eyewitness identification research. The Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology: Volume II: Memory for People, 2, 201. Lindsay, R. C. L. (2014). The effects of delay on eyewitness identification accuracy: Should we be concerned?. Handbook Of Eyewitness Psychology 2 Volume Set, 361. Read More