Importance of Eyewitness Identification - Research Paper Example

Eyewitness Identification One of the most important moments in a criminal investigation comes when an eyewitness comes forward you can identify a perpetrator in a crime. Unfortunately, eyewitness identification has been proven to be inaccurate many times and DNA has shown that eyewitness accounts have been false in the conviction of a number of defendants. The problem of eyewitness memory is one that have been researched through psychological studies throughout the last three decades. The following paper examines the way in which psychological research has impacted the processes for eyewitness identification as well as those ways in which eyewitness identification is impacted by the psychology of memory. Through developing a background of current research, the discussion of eyewitness identification is examined for its importance as well as its accuracy. Eyewitness Identification Memory is one of the most important parts of the brain most human beings. In memory to store everything that has occurred in the past which has become part of their identity. Human beings want to believe that what they remember is accurate and true. It is the truth that they remember that support what they believe in life. Unfortunately, psychology research has shown that the memory is very fallible. This is never more important than when one individual is testifying in a court of law that the actions of another. Eyewitness testimony can make or break conclusions drawn by a jury or judge about the innocence or guilt of the defendant. The following review examines previous literature that exists on the topic of eyewitness testimony in order to understand the phenomenon of false memory and inaccurate testimony. The field of eyewitness research encompasses a number of different aspects of psychological research. Brewer, Weber, and Semmler (2013) make the point that while research has shown that eyewitness fallibility can be understood to assert greedy and that there are practical guidelines for helping to increase identification accuracy, there has been little to refine the theories of identification decision processes and that further research is still needed to diminish the number of false witnesses that affect justice. The researchers stressed that it is possible that an approach that is made from a purely practical point would create a structure that could provide a more useful conclusion. Their hope is that theoretically motivated research can support a better process for the legal system. Confrontation Clause According to Penrod (2014) eyewitness testimony has been study at length in the past several decades. In an effort to increase the amount of justice that is seen within the United States, eyewitness testimony has been manipulated in terms of the Confrontation Clause of the Constitution on many levels. As an example, in Craig v. Maryland (110 S. Ct. 3157) a decision of 5-4 made it clear that the defendants may not necessarily have the right of confrontation when the well-being of the witness, in this case a child, outweighed the interests of the defendants rights. In his dissenting arguments, Justice Scalia suggested that eliminating the issue of competency in terms of being able to testify in court was part of a larger problem in which the tide of public opinion was overruling the Constitution. Justice Scalia has long been writing opinions about the confrontation clause. As an example, he wrote in his opinion for Giles v. California that it was not the role of the courts to determine the values behind the sixth amendment, but to respect the fact that it seeks fairness in very specific terms (Jonakait, 2011). Therefore, eyewitness testimony and the ability of the defendants to face accusers are intrinsically linked. The dependence upon eyewitness testimony means that the psychology of this phenomenon could affect the way in which justice is viewed. Epstein (2013) writes that the reliability of eyewitness testimony as established in Neil v. Biggers was based on the concept of an ultimate measure in which there was “not a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentifications”. The problem is that the factors that were set down in this court case were not based on scientific research. Epstein (2013) suggests that reliability is not necessarily the same as accuracy and correctness and that under the structures of reliability the court is depending on the belief in truth rather than actual truths. Psychology of Eyewitness Memory The psychology of eyewitness testimony has become an increasingly important perspective on which public policy is being shaped. Reform for the procedures that are used in order to create eyewitness identification evidence has led to empirical studies that recommend procedures to law enforcement. False identification is a problem and psychological studies provide some insight. However, Clark (2012) suggests that one of the problems discovered in an empirical search of literature found that although certain changes in procedures were beginning to prevent the risk of false identification of the innocent, it was also leading to a reduction in the number of correct identifications of the guilty. In a study conducted to determine how feedback affected the evaluators’ abilities to determine whether or not information was accurate, Smalarz and Wells (2014) found that when instructed to give positive feedback to both accurate and inaccurate eyewitness accounts, evaluators were more likely to support all accounts of the event. Therefore, it was concluded that the participation of law enforcement during eyewitness evidence collection had a significant impact on how evidence was treated as true, regardless of its accuracy. This can further be examined in the concept of cross-examination because in many ways cross-examination is a form of feedback. Valentine and Maras (2011) conducted a study in which individuals watched videos in order to act as witnesses under the duress of cross-examination four weeks later. The students who acted as participants were divided into groups of pairs and individuals. The pairs were allowed to discuss the information that they witnessed. The study revealed that although the pairs have less accurate memories of the events, they did display conformity with each other during cross-examination. However, the level of accuracy was diminished in both individuals and in the co-witness pairs under the pressure of cross-examination. Essentially, cross-examination creates an influence which diminishes the accuracy and has a negative effect on eyewitness testimony. Accuracy in Identification One of the first places that an eyewitness may present their ability to remember the events of the crime will occur during a lineup. Two different types of lineups are possible. It is possible to create a sequential lineup or a simultaneously lineup. The sequential lineup is one in which people come in one at a time and the witness determines whether or not they are the individual that they saw during the events in question. The simultaneous lineup allows for several people to be in a room at one time and the witnessed choose which individual is the one that they saw. In a study done by Wixted, Gronlund and Mickes (2014) as well as Steblay, Dysart, and Wells (2011) determined that the results of the sequential lineup were more conservative where a simultaneous lineup resulted in less conservative results. Although it may appear that one lineup is working towards accuracy while the other one is not, that is not the point of study. The study recommends that a cost-benefit analysis needs to be made by law enforcement whether or not it is of a higher benefit to reduce incorrect identifications if it also means a reduction in correct identifications. This suggests that the justice system is being approached from a perspective that does not reflect total accuracy, but a lower level of inaccuracy or a higher percentage of convictions. However, there is a clear problem with eyewitness identification and the possibility of injustice as a result of inaccurate memory. Wells (2014) found that 75% of all exonerations due to DNA involved the problem of misidentification during the trial process. Improvement in accuracy was determined during the sequential procedure, but once again the question posed by the researcher is whether it is better to have accuracy or to have an identification that may or may not be accurate. Anderson, Carlson, Carlson, and Gronlund (2014) conducted a study to determine how individual characteristics affected accuracy in the outcome of a lineup. This study found that individual cognitive differences influenced the outcomes of identification in a line-up through the ability to use facial recognition skills, working memory capacity, and the levels of autistic traits. The overall results of the study found that it was a combination of which lineup style was used in terms of presentation and the traits of the individual eye-witness that determined whether or not accuracy could be achieved. Theory of Recognition Memory Rather than definitively seeking the truth, the development of a percentile approach to justice has affected the way in which eye witness research has developed. Clark (2012, Eyewitness) suggests that there may be a necessity for trade-off. However, the utility model is not specified and there is a loss of correct identifications because of reformed procedures which has become irrelevant to policy making. In many cases, identification is made through illegitimate products of guesses that were produced through suggestion. This occurs because of the theory of recognition memory that has been disproved in recent history. The theory of recognition memory has undergone a great deal of research in the past decades. One study conducted by Berry et al (2012) looks at identifying new modeling framework in terms of recognition memory and repetition priming which was defined through signal detection theory. However, the study showed a critical problem with memory in terms of eyewitness processes. The most effective means of recognition memory came from a single system model in which a single continuous signal drove recognition and the priming process for recognition. In the legal system, the eyewitness is inundated with signals that are trying to ensure the accuracy of the witness process – which according to this study is the opposite of how memory best works. Ratcliff and Barnes (2013) conducted a study in which decision-making was examined under conditions of evidence and multiple choices. The study looked at how confidence judgments were affected by recognition memory tasks where evidence was provided from multiple approaches to the problem. In general, boundaries that were created for the decision-making process were instrumental in how recognition memory affected the overall decision. Therefore, it can be concluded that the influences of how the investigators, prosecutors, and cross-examination defined the problem of identification might have a significant impact on the accuracy of the decision to place gilts are suspect. Witnessing is a decision making process. The witness must decide whether or not that their memory of the event is providing them with evidence to support their own conclusions. This is influenced by those who are stakeholders in the process, which can affect confidence in the decisions of the witness, or change their conceptualization of what they remember (Leippe & Eisenstadt, 2014). Eyewitness Choosing Behavior One of the ways in which to create a focused theory is by looking at eyewitness choosing behavior. Brewer, Weber and Semmler (2013) look at the process of choosing as a critical theoretical foundation on which to look at instructional bias, sequential versus simultaneous lineups, and the verbal overshadowing effect. Instructional bias comes when the influence of law enforcement and legal representations affect the way in which an eyewitness makes the choice. Sequential lineups have been shown to be more accurate opportunities for eyewitnesses then simultaneous lineups. In addition, the verbal overshadowing effect comes when a verbal description comes into conflict with the choices made during a lineup. What this boils down to is that choosing during the witnessing process is influenced by multiple factors during the law enforcement and legal process (Carlson & Gronlund, 2011). One of the concepts of witness identification is the ‘show up’ procedure. In this procedure, the eyewitness is shown one individual directly after an event and this identification becomes admissible because the preservation of memory has been established through the reduction in time. The courts have determined (Commonwealth v. Bumpus, 1968; Wright v. United states, 1968) that they show up was valid if it was done within 24 hours of the crime. Dysart and Lindsay (2014) conclude that show ups can be accurate, but the influence of the suggestion that the suspect is guilty has an effect. This can be related to a study done by Megreya, Memon, and Havard (2011) in which 10 women of Egyptian descent and 10 of British descent wear headscarves during a mock crime. The British women were not easily identified by British subjects when they wore head scarves, but the Egyptian women were more easily identified by Egyptians when they were headscarves. In contrast, the Egyptians also more easily identified British mock criminals when they were headscarves. The influence of culture also had an influence on identification. This can also be associated with a study done by Dunlevy and Cherryman (2013) who found that choosing behavior in children was more likely to be accurate than an adults. Children more often could identify a lineup without the intended target as well as identify the target when present. This could be an indication that children have not been influenced by social standards in terms of expectations on choice. Conclusion It is clear that the sequential lineup is superior to the simultaneous lineup. This suggests that the memory of an eyewitness is both malleable and fallible because if this was not true then it would not matter how the lineup was formed. This inability for an eyewitness to have a purely accurate memory has been studied for decades and requires further study if to justice is ever going to be the goal. Memory theory is still being examined and many of the old theories are no longer accepted. Therefore, the study of eyewitness recollection must be increased in order to look for accuracy over the cost/benefit factors of a false identification. References Anderson, S. M., Carlson, C. A., Carlson, M. A., & Gronlund, S. D. (2014). Individual differences predict eyewitness identification performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 60, 36-40. Berry, C. J., Shanks, D. R., Speekenbrink, M., & Henson, R. N. (2012). Models of recognition, repetition priming, and fluency: exploring a new framework. Psychological review, 119(1), 40. Brewer, N., Weber, N., & Semmler, C. (2013). A role for theory in eyewitness identification research. The Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology: Volume II: Memory for People, 2, 201. Carlson, C. A., & Gronlund, S. D. (2011). Searching for the sequential line-up advantage: A distinctiveness explanation. Memory, 19(8), 916-929. Clark, S. E. (2012). Costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform psychological science and public policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(3), 238-259. Clark, S. E. (2012). Eyewitness Identification Reform Data, Theory, and Due Process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(3), 279-283. Dunlevy, J. R., & Cherryman, J. (2013). Target-absent eyewitness identification line-ups: Why do children like to choose. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20(2), 284-293. Dysart, J. E., & 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. Epstein, J. (2013). Irreparable misidentifications and reliability: Reassessing the threshold for admissibility of eyewitness identification. Villanova Law Review 58, 69. Gronlund, S. D., Wixted, J. T., & Mickes, L. (2014). Evaluating eyewitness identification procedures using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 3-10. Jonakait, R. N. (2011). Confrontation clause curiosities: When logic and proportion have Fallen sloppy dead. JL & Poly, 20, 485. Leippe, M. R., & Eisenstadt, D. (2014). Eyewitness confidence and the confidence-accuracy relationship in memory for people. The handbook of eyewitness psychology, Memory for people, 2, 377-425. Megreya, A. M., Memon, A., & Havard, C. (2012). The headscarf effect: Direct evidence from the eyewitness identification paradigm. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(2), 308-315. Penrod, S. (February 2014). The child witness, the courts, and psychological. In Memory and affect in development: The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 26, p. 159). Psychology Press. Ratcliff, R., & Starns, J. J. (2013). Modeling confidence judgments, response times, and multiple choices in decision making: Recognition memory and motion discrimination. Psychological review, 120(3), 697. Smalarz, L., & Wells, G. L. (2014). Post-identification feedback to eyewitnesses impairs evaluators’ abilities to discriminate between accurate and mistaken testimony. Law and human behavior, 38(2), 194. Steblay, N. K., Dysart, J. E., & 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(1), 99. Valentine, T., & Maras, K. (2011). The effect of cross‐examination on the accuracy of adult eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 554-561. 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. Wixted, J. T., Gronlund, S. D., & Mickes, L. (2014). Policy regarding the subsequent lineup is not informed by probative value that is informed by receiver operating characteristic analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 17-18. Read More