Simultaneous and Sequential Line-up Procedures - Coursework Example

Simultaneous and Sequential Line-Up Procedures Name Institution Simultaneous and Sequential Line-Up Procedures The most important stage in a potential criminal trial of an individual is the juncture where an eyewitness scrutinizes a lineup and recognizes a suspect. Psychologists have dedicated significant effort to study identification of eyewitnesses and have also shown concerns regarding the recognition precision of eyewitnesses under particular conditions (Carlson, Gronlund, and Clark, 2008). They have developed an extensive understanding of how lineup processes can possess a huge deal of impact on identifications’ accuracy by relying on controlled experiments, such as staged crimes. The expression Lineup Procedures refers to various methodological elements of lineups, including both technical features of lineups (instructions provided to witnesses before viewing) and the structural features of lineups, such as the appearance features of the members in the lineup (Campbell and Ohm, 2007). This paper will present the effectiveness of simultaneous and sequential line-up procedures Scientific psychology has used the scientific study of eyewitness testimony for the past two decades. Both Zimmerman, Malpass, and MacLin (2006) and Clark and Davey (2005) showed that eyewitness testimony research present issues, such as how jurors review eyewitness testimony, the efficiency of official safeguards, the capacities of children and adults to remember witnessed events, the degree of agreement amongst eyewitness experts about different findings, the development of falsified autobiographical memories, the re-constructive features of eyewitness reminiscences, stress effects, and the methods of interviewing bystanders. The study on eyewitness identification remains a robust focus for eyewitnesses’ investigators since a witness who provide falsified information could implicate an innocent person. A bystander may provide information such as “I saw that person pull a weapon’ meaning that he is giving direct proof of guilt. In such a situation, the defendant and the crime are closely linked. On the contrary, evidence presented in the courtroom like footprints may indicate that the suspect handled a particular surface at one point maybe for causes not related to the crime making the evidence circumstantial. Researchers in scientific eyewitness have indicated that some techniques for performing lineups may promote bogus eyewitness identifications of innocent suspects (Ebbesen and Flowe, 2002). Research has presented cases with erroneous eyewitness identification against innocent individuals leading to wrongful convictions. Simultaneous lineup (SIML) and Sequential Lineup (SEQL) are the most common lineup procedures in most criminal cases. Gronlund (2005) states SIML as a conventional type of identification process whereby a witness is provided with several individuals and is required to identify the presence of the suspected criminal. Most scientific psychologists have criticized the procedure because it allegedly encourages witnesses to create relative judgments while analyzing the members in the lineup. Scientists like Haw and Fisher (2004) in their study argue that witnesses compare the perpetrators image in the memory with members in the lineup relative to the other members and then select the lineup members resembling the perpetrator. This technique remains unjust toward suspects if they are innocent, although they resemble the perpetrators. This mostly happens if a witness has an imperfect recollection. Klobuchar, Steblay, and Caligiuri (2006) affirm that Sequential lineup (SEQL) eliminates the reliance of witnesses on comparative judgments and allows them to come up with absolute contrasts between their reminiscence image of the suspect and every member in the lineup. This process introduces lineup photographs whereby the witness is required to identify whether the perpetrator is amongst the photographed individuals. Several procedural SEQL features differ from SIML features. For instance, SEQL does not inform witnesses about the number of photographs under scrutiny unlike in SIML whereby witnesses view photographs six times. Witnesses are shown several photographs to view. Witnesses are told that they would view every choice just one time, thus they are not allowed to go back to a previously rejected choice. That is witnesses are not allowed to view any photograph twice in SEQL. Decisions are final in that a witness is not allowed to change his or her yes/no decision after making it. This process is only carried out in a double-blind way. Additionally, the real instructions regarding the procedure are diverse due to diverse procedures. The arrangement classification of choices and the target or suspect’s position might possess a huge effect on choice patterns when compared to the targets/suspects position in simultaneous lineups (Lindsay, Mansour, Beaudry, Leach, and Bertrand, 2009). In sequential lineup, a witness is likely to select the suspect put in the first line than the suspect placed in fifth or seventh position as that witness may decide to view other photos prior to making his/her mind. Finally, sequential lineups do not allow witnesses to pick an individual and continue watching the lineup remainder. Simultaneous lineups allow witnesses to tentatively select an individual and continue examining the other photos. Both Mecklenburg, 2006 and Meissner, Tredoux, Parker, and MacLin (2005) demonstrate that SEQLs decrease false identification and augment accurate lineups’ rejections that lack the perpetrator without considerably decreasing the level of accurate identification from lineups that lack the perpetrator. The two studies also affirm that SEQLs are superior to SIMLs for complete accurate decisions; 56 percent vs. 48 percent. Notably, SEQLs remain superior if a perpetrator is not present. They minimize bogus identifications of chosen innocent suspects and increase accurate lineup rejections. SIMLs remain superior to SEQL when perpetrators are present and reduce forged lineup rejections. Steblay, Dysart, and Wells (2011) dismissed those findings and stated that the whole pattern of lineup precision maintains the hypothesis of sequential superiority. Nevertheless, it is notable that SEQLs remains better than SIMLs. A discussion about the prospective effects of serial position in sequential lineups of the suspect remains a procedural uncertainty that is practically overlooked in the law enforcement guide as affirmed by MacLin, Zimmerman, and Malpass (2005). This may be because published researches have failed to thoroughly review, theoretically or empirically, the importance of serial position in response levels. In sequential lineup, serial position is very important in the possibility that a witness can select a suspect/target. Another prospective diversity between simultaneous and sequential lineups is that a complete decision decisive factor might change as the witness continues to examine additional faces in SEQL (Scheck, Neufeld, and Dwyer, 2010). Particularly, a witness can set a higher standard for the original face in order to guarantee that the face that has not been viewed does not represent the suspect. Additionally, the witness might lower his/her standards when they run out of prospective options as they view other faces. Ebbesen and Flowe (2002) acknowledge sequential and simultaneous lineups in a signal detection structure and forecast that sequential partakers use a more conservative decision criteria compared to simultaneous partakers. Meissner, Tredoux, Parker, and MacLin (2005) affirms that prediction after finding out that while bias accuracy failed to vary between sequentially and simultaneous procedures, a conservative criterion change occur when faces are provided sequentially instead of simultaneously. Furthermore, witnesses can adopt a more conservative principle than sequential and simultaneous lineups when provided with a show-up identification task that entails providing one face to an eyewitness who identifies the target or culprit. Verbal study literature has information that extra support that lineup resemblance influences criterion placement. New studies indicate that distracters plausibility provided on an absolute identification examination influences criterion placement. These researches indicate that augmenting the level of semantic overlap between the distracters and the earlier studies material augments the decision criterion of participants, as the false alarms and hits on the identification rest are decreased. These results imply that participants assess mnemonic evidence from the examination items to measure how effortlessly they can categorize the lures from the targets and then set their judgment criterion. Using this finding to sequential and simultaneous lineups results to the prediction that, the possibility of the witness identifying the culprit reduces in both techniques as the similarity of the foils to the criminal augments. Certainly, simultaneous bystanders are directly capable of gauging task difficulty since all of the examination faces are in full-view, while sequential partakers should allow the lineup to develop. Nevertheless, the similarity framework must affect the decision of sequential witnesses if they make meta-comparisons while reacting to a particular face of the analysis. Clark and Davey (2005) discovered proof implying that sequential bystanders are perceptive to the similarity features of the lineup. They used the removal without replacement technique to examine if sequential participants create relative decisions from lineups. Schwartz (2011) asserts that the removal without replacement technique entails the comparison of various choices made to famous foils in a lineup when the suspect is there, to the various choices created to a similar foil when the suspect is absent. Both Wells and Penrod (2011) and Clark and Davey (2005) demonstrated that removing the suspect from the lineup shifts sequential and simultaneous witnesses to a similar degree, their selection to the suspect who resembles the culprit. Clark and Davey (2005) also propose that this implies that a general decision procedure underlies identification faces in sequential and simultaneous lineups. In conclusion, witnesses are given the role of identifying suspects in case of a crime. Some witnesses, however, conduct false identification that results to the incarceration of innocent individuals. Scientific psychologists introduced two major procedures to help eyewitnesses identify suspects accurately. These lineup procedures are sequential and simultaneous lineups. Simultaneous lineup (SIML) and Sequential Lineup (SEQL) remain the most applied lineup procedures. SIML refers to a conventional kind of identification procedure where witnesses are issues several individuals and are needed to identify a suspect. On the contrary, scientific psychologists believe that SIML motivate witnesses to make relative judgments whilst analyzing the lineup members. The difference between SEQL and SIML is that SEQL eradicates witnesses’ reliance on comparative judgments and permits them to present absolute assessments between suspect’s image in their memory and all members in the lineup. Psychologists believe that in SEQL, complete decision principle might adjust as the eyewitness continues to scrutinize other faces. Therefore, the most effective lineup procedure is SEQL. References Carlson, C. A., Gronlund, S. D., & Clark, S. E. (2008). Lineup Composition, Suspect Position, and the Sequential Lineup Advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 14: 118-128. Campbell, A. & Ohm, R. (2007). Legal Ease: A Guide to Criminal Law, Evidence, and Procedure (2nd ed.). Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas Publisher. Clark, S. E., & Davey, S. L. (2005). The Target-To-Foils Shift in Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups. Law &Human Behavior, 29(2), 151-172. Ebbesen, E. B., & Flowe, H. D. (2002). Simultaneous v. Sequential Lineups: What Do We Really Know? Retrieved September 04, 2014, from http://wwwpsy.ucsd.edu/%7eeebbesen/SimSeq.htm. Gronlund, S. D. (2005). Sequential Lineup Advantage: Contributions of Distinctiveness and Recollection. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 19(1): 23-37. Haw, R.M. & Fisher, R.P. (2004). Effects of Administrator-Witness Contact on Eyewitness Identification  Accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6): 1106–1112. Klobuchar, A., Steblay, C. & Caligiuri, H. (2006). Improving Eyewitness Identifications: Hennepin County's Blind Sequential Lineup Pilot Project. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, and Ethics Journal 6:45-90. Lindsay, R. L., Mansour, J. K., Beaudry, J. L., Leach, A., & Bertrand, M. I. (2009). Beyond Sequential Presentation: Misconceptions and Misrepresentations of Sequential Lineups. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14(1), 31–34. MacLin, O. H., Zimmerman, L. A., & Malpass, R. S. (2005). PC_Eyewitness and the Sequential Superiority Effect: Computer-Based Lineup Administration. Law & Human Behavior, 29: 303-321. Mecklenburg, S. H. (2006). Report to the Legislature of the State of Illinois: The Illinois Pilot Program on Sequential Double-Blind Identification Procedures. Springfield, IL: Illinois State Police. Meissner, C. A., Tredoux, C. G., Parker, J. F., & MacLin, O. H. (2005). Eyewitness Decisions in Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups: A Dual-Process Signal Detection Theory Analysis. Memory & Cognition, 33: 783–792. 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: 99-139. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P. & Dwyer, J. (2010). Actual innocence. (eds.). New York: Random House. Schwartz, J. (2011). Changes to Police Lineup Procedures Cut Eyewitness Mistakes, Study Says. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com 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. Zimmerman, L. A., Malpass, R. S., & MacLin, O. H. (2006). Unconfounding the simultaneous vs. sequential lineup comparison. Manuscript submitted for publication. Read More