Psychological and Law Points of View on Eyewitness Evidence - Research Paper Example

? Psych/Law Analysis Psychological and Law point of view on eyewitness evidence This paper aims to compare and contrast the issue of eyewitness evidence from the psychological research and law point of view. To help in this comparison are two different articles to be considered. One article by Duffy, “Using an Expert to Evaluate Eyewitness Identification Evidence” is about a guide from the U.S department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice and it discusses some of the issues that affect eyewitness evidence. The guide is aimed at bridging the gap of social science research and actual law enforcement practices which has existed for a long period of time. The other article by Rose Rosenthal, R., Clark, S. E., & Marshall, T. E. (2009). Lineup Administrator Influences on Eyewitness Identification Decisions nthal, Clark, & Marshall; “Lineup Administrator Influences on Eyewitness Identification Decisions” is a psychological article, which focuses on the administrator of the line-up and their behavior or techniques used to influence the eyewitness evidence. In both articles, there is an emphasis on the weaknesses and other factors of the eyewitness evidence. I intend to summarize the main factors affecting eyewitness evidence and the recommendation made to resolve the issues. Main factors affecting eyewitness evidence The eyewitness serves as an important function in the delivery of justice and, if the proper procedures are used, they can correctly confirm the identity of a criminal. Articles in both case studies show that, in most cases, eyewitness evidence is the largest source of wrongful convictions. The reliability of the eyewitness evidence is largely affected by the techniques used by the systems. The techniques include live line-ups, photo spreads and show ups. In live line-ups, a witness can be required to identify a suspect from a group of eight people while they are behind a one way mirror. In photo spreads, a witness is asked to identify a suspect from a set of photos usually six to twelve in a room. The show up is a more suggestive technique since the suspect is brought in and the witness is asked if he or she is the perpetrator. There are safeguards that are used to counter inaccurate eyewitness testimony. They include suppression hearing, cross-examination and closing statements. However, the use of these safeguards is no guarantee that they will effectively alleviate misidentification. The suppression hearing is used to access procedural errors and is ineffective in uncovering any underlying bias from the witness. Cross- examination has been a traditional way of accessing the credibility of the witness (Chambliss, 2011) and the cross examination of the witness is a tool meant to protect against inaccurate or unreliable identifications. Review of both articles indicates that, the main reason as to why eyewitness evidence is not reliable is because of the techniques used to carry out the procedure. Some of the techniques used in both the articles include, live line ups, photo spreads, and show ups. The guide issued by the U. S. department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice gives several recommendations to improve the reliability of eyewitness evidence. The guide recommends that the interviewer should not contaminate with re-collection of post-event information. Another key recommendation is the selection of fillers who fit the description of the suspect if the suspect’s appearance differs from the witness description, the filler should resemble the suspect with regards to prominent features. For clarity purposes, fillers should be equally valid alternatives to the suspect. The guide does not recommend separate line-ups for the multiple witnesses. Instead, it recommends different placement only. A quick approach is used wherein the investigators view the spread once the process is complete to ensure that the suspect does not stand out. It is also noted that the number of suspects used in the line-ups (i.e. five) is not appropriate. The size of the suspects also may lead to a 10% probability of false identification by a witness. In the psychology article, there is the recommendation of the double-blind line-up which the law guide lacks. The double blind line up method is significant as shown by the judges acknowledging that the U.S. department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice does not endorse it; according to the psychology article, the main principle of the blind lineup is that one cannot leak up what he or she does not know. A trend, identified with regard to the eyewitness identification procedure that has recently received much attention from researchers, is the effect of a line-up administrator’s behavior towards the witness. Although the psychology article endorses the use of the blind line up, it recognizes that the line-up administrator can still influence the outcome of the procedure even when unbiased instructions are given (Rosenthal, Clark, & Marshall, 2009). The interviewer should ask open ended questions such as “What can you tell the court about the door.” The open ended questions should be followed by close ended questions such as “What color was the door?” The interviewer should be cautious about not asking suggestive questions such as, “Was the door closed?” In both articles there is a recommendation for the documentation of the identification procedure. The 1999 Guide in question reco mmends that, a statement of the witness’ certainty, with regards to the identification and non-identification, should be obtained and documented (Duffy, 2011). Furthermore, there should be collection and use of “mug books”. As much as the two documents recommend the documentation of the identification procedure, there is a slight difference in the method of documentation. While the 1999 guide suggests the use of “mug books”, the psychology article focused on the witness of crime not being reliable due to the influence used on the witness at the time they are making identification decisions. The psychology article recommends the use of audio and video recording during the identification procedure (Rosenthal, Clark, & Marshall, 2009). Eyewitness testimony has been inaccurate in so many cases, but it is a staple of the Justice system (Chambliss 2011). Expert opinion should be allowed to inform the jury of the limitations of the eyewitness evidence. If the jury is able to get adequate instructions, as well as, adequate information on this evidence, then they could use it correctly to come up with an acceptable verdict. All in all, eyewitness evidence is a significant factor in the criminal justice system, and it should seconded by other supporting evidence to ensure proper justice. Conclusion In conclusion, the comparison of the two documents has brought forth different approaches of psychology and law, as far as eyewitness evidence is concerned. According to the articles in question, the difference is not that significant but can still result in differing practical applications. The recommendations made by the psychology article could assist law enforcement if they wanted to perfect their procedure of eyewitness identification. Having the judges criticize the 1999 guide for not endorsing the blind line-up, law enforcement could use the idea from the psychology research and put it into practice (Rosenthal, Clark, & Marshall, 2009). Both articles emphasize on the weaknesses, and therefore, unreliability of eyewitness evidence. References Chambliss, W. J. (2011). Courts, Law, and Justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Duffy, S. K. (2011). Using an Expert to Evaluate Eyewitness Identification Evidence. New York State Bar Journal , 1-13. Rosenthal, R., Clark, S. E., & Marshall, T. E. (2009). Lineup Administrator Influences on Eyewitness Identification Decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, vol 15(1) , 63-75. Toglia, M. P., Ross, D. F., Read., J. D., & Lindsay, R. C. (2007). Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology (Vol 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Read More