Simultaneous and Sequential Line-up Procedures - Case Study Example

Literature Review: Simultaneous and sequential line-up procedures Institution Name Introduction Eyewitness identification is a critical cause of spirited research efforts due to concerns on the likelihood of mistaken identification of the real criminals. The concerns have been directed to the investigative tools such as sequential and simultaneous line-up procedures used by the law enforcement (Lindsay et al., 2014). Overall, the two eyewitness line-up methods are universal investigative tools the police force uses to establish whether a suspect is guilty of a particular crime. Wells et al. (2011) defines sequential line-up as a police procedure of identifying perpetrators of a crime, where individuals are lined up to the witness one at a time. Afterwards, a witness has to view each individual before he is showed the next face. On the other hand, simultaneous line-up is where all individuals are showed at once to the witness (Wells et al., 2011). This paper presents a comprehensive review of literature exploring simultaneous and sequential line-up criminal identification procedures. The objective of the review is to examine the effectiveness of the two procedures. Literature Review Rationale for review of simultaneous and sequential line-up literature During the identification, witnesses to a crime are provided with a range of faces in person or using photographs, from which they have to identify the perpetrator (Weber et al., 2004). Accordingly, identification of the suspects from the line-ups is critical in criminal identification. According to Wells et al. (1998), usually, the selections from these line-ups are interpreted as evidence of the suspect’s guilt and will, in most cases, leads to indictment and conviction of those identified. However, the reliability of eyewitness identifications has often been questioned. The impacts of mistaken eyewitness identifications on the conviction of the of the individuals who are not actually guilty has contributed significantly to the growing interest in researching on ways to reduce the identification errors. Psychological theorists and scientists have, over the last 3 decades, engaged empirical studies to propose reforms to the procedures employed in conducting line-ups (Malpass & Devine 1981; Lindsay et al., 2014; 2013). Rodriquez and Berry (2012) however argues that much of the proposed reforms such as the critical requirements of double-blind administration have been adopted by many jurisdictions, such as the United States. At any rate, the use of sequential instead of simultaneous line-up procedures has generated controversies that have hindered the massive adoption of non-controversial procedures. To this end, several researches have explored the effectiveness of simultaneous and sequential line-up procedures. Effectiveness of sequential and simultaneous line-up methods Several researchers have reviewed the likely explanations of eyewitness errors (Steblay 2010; Wells et al. 1998). Among the more outstanding descriptions of the procedures the law enforcement uses to perform the line-up procedures is that provided by Steblay (2010) in his review of the Evanston Illinois Field Line-ups. Steblay (2010) argued that the strategy used for assigning line-ups to the procedures may be ineffective because a non-random method is often used in assigning them. This may lead to priori situations. This also means that the two methods are not reliable. Basing on the same vein, Wells (1984) stated that many of these errors were because of line-up procedures where all the suspects in the line-up were displayed simultaneously. Wells and Quinlivan (2009) and Wells (1998) clarified that witnesses who were asked to make decisions based on simultaneous line-up method were given to make relative judgements once they compared those in the line-up to one another before they could finally select the one that mostly resembled their memory of the perpetrator. Rodriquez and Berry (2012) pointed to the idea that providing the witnesses with line-up members increased the potential for relative judgements and that the method tended to be ineffective especially when the real perpetrators are not present.. In Dillon’s et al. (2009) supported this view, adding that this is because the real perpetrators were most likely to resemble the witness' memory. Still, when the real perpetrator is not included in the line-up, the eyewitness may still select someone who resembles their memory of the real offender. Wells et al. (2011) concurred with the perspective that reliance on relative judgement can be reduced when line-up members are presented one at ago. In a case study to test simultaneous and sequential line-up methods at the Austin (TX) Police Department in the United States, Wells et al. (2011) found that sequential line-up method results to significant reduction of mistaken identifications, and less reduction in correct identification. From this, it could be reasoned that sequential line-up procedures result to a better fraction of the accurate identification the wrong identification relative to the simultaneous line-up. There is however no evidence from Wells’ at al. (2011) study that sequential line-up generated fewer identification of suspects, particularly when the sequential procedure is used in a way that allows the witnesses to view all the photos or suspects even after identification has been made. The findings also indicate that sequential line-up is not a ‘silver bullet’ for errors in identification. In a related study that echo Wells’ et al. (2011) findings, Malpass (2006) conducted a policy evaluation of sequential and simultaneous line-ups. The study was motivated by ongoing practices where many states in the United States are reforming their witness identification policies. Malpass (2006) used policy analysis model to evaluate the application of sequential and simultaneous line-up. Basing his analysis on the Decision-Theory, Malpass (2006) established that the use of sequential and simultaneous line-ups is responds to two factors that are outside of their actual performance. These include the priori probability that the police place the real culprit in the identification procedure and the values assigned to the different outcomes of the witness identification processes. Without a change in the real performance of sequential and simultaneous line-ups, Malpass (2006) suggests that there appears to be many incidences where simultaneous line-ups have the utility advantage, provided that the likelihood that the real perpetrator is among the individuals line up is greater than .50. However, the research has limitation as Malpass (2006) did not undertake follow up quantitative studies to validate the results. Steblay et al (2001) used meta-analysis method to investigate the two police line-up procured and found that when the real perpetrator is not included in the sequential line-up methods, the line-up is appropriately eliminated as not having the criminal 72 percent of the times and 49 percent for the simultaneous line-up method. Steblay et al (2001) also found that when the real perpetrator is included in the sequential line-up and simultaneous line-ups, he is likely to be identified accurately by almost 35 percent. It should however be reasoned that when the sequential line-ups are linked to the fewer mistaken identifications, they also become linked to the fewer correct identifications. A possible justification that explains the situation is that the sequential line-ups trigger greater decision criteria in the witnesses. This minimises the choices for the witnesses, when the real culprit is included or excluded from the line-up. Meissner et al. (2005) and Lindsay and Wells (1985) share this perspective. In a study to justify the call for double-blind line-up administration, Rodriguez and Berry (2012) reviewed classic research on the expectancy effects underlying sequential and simultaneous line-ups. Rodriguez and Berry (2012) found that social science research indicates that the expectations of the law enforcement personnel influence choices made by the witnesses in three key routes. These include steering witnesses towards identification of the suspect, single-blind method increases the risk of mistaken identification, while the double-blind method helps mitigate the chances of mistaken identification. Rodriguez and Berry (2012) concluded that single-blind line-up administration increases the risk of mistaken identification. On the other hand, double-blind line-up administration helps to mitigate the risks of mistaken identification. However, the findings have limited application since no follow up quantitative studies were conducted. The effectiveness of sequential and simultaneous line-ups is also affected by age of the witnesses. An earlier research by Lindsay et al. (1997) conducted two experiments to compare the identification accuracies of undergraduates and children aged between 3 and 15 years, using target-absent and target-present sequential and simultaneous line-ups. Findings showed that correct identification rates differed depending on age of the witnesses. Children showed the tendency to make false positive selections. They also tended to depend on guesses on making decision. From this, it could be argued that sequential line-up procedures that are effective in increasing correct rejections with adults tend to be ineffective in identifying performance of the children. However, the limited sample size of 307 children and 384 undergraduates in Ontario, Canada means that the findings have limited gerenalisability. The findings are however consistent to earlier researches by Parker and Carranza (1989) who established that children are given to identify innocent persons compared to adults. Hence, children are likely to make mistaken identification when sequential and simultaneous line-ups procedures are used (Parker and Ryan, 1993). Conclusion From the literature review, it is shown that simultaneous line-ups do not substantially influence the correct identification rates, although they substantially lessen the rates of mistaken identification as they increase the likelihood that the lined up members will be rejected accurately. Further, the rise in the target-absent line-up rejects is reasoned to be due to the tendency of the witnesses to compare the line-up members to their recollection of the real culprits. Psychologically, this is since the witnesses have a propensity for using absolute judgment. References Dillon, J., McAllister, H. Vernon, L. (2009). The Hybrid Lineup Combining Sequential and Simultltaneous Features: A First Test. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 5(1), 90-108 Lindsay, R., & Wells, G. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556-564. Lindsay, R., Ross, D., Read, D. & Toglia. (2013). The Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology: Volume II: Memory for People, Volume 2. East Sussex: Psychology Press Lindsay, R., Ross, D., Read, D. & Toglia, M. (2014). Handbook Of Eyewitness Psychology 2 Volume Set. East Sussex: Psychology Press Lindsay, R., Pozzulo, J., Craig, W., Lee, K. & Corber, S. (1997). Simultaneous Lineups, Sequential Lineups, and Showups: Eyewitness Identification Decisions of Adults and Children. Law and Human Behavior 21(4), 391-404 Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482-489. Malpass, R. (2006). A Policy Evaluation Of Simultaneous And Sequential Lineups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 12(4), 394-418 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. Parker, J. F., & Carranza, L. E. (1989). Eyewitness testimony of children in target-present and target-absent lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 133-149. Parker, J. F., & Ryan, V. (1993). An attempt to reduce guessing behavior in children's and adults' eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 11-26. Rodriquez, D. & Berry, M. (2012). Eyewitness Science and the Call for Double-Blind Lineup Administration. Journal of Criminology, 1-10 Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 459–473. Steblay, N. (2010). What We Know Now: The Evanston Illinois Field Lineups. Law Hum Behav, 1-16 Weber, N., Brewer, N. & Wells, G. (2004). Eyewitness identification Accuracy and Response Latency: The Unruly 10-12-Second Rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology 10(3), 139-147 Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89-103. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603-647. Wells, G., & Quinlivan, D. (2009). Suggestive eyewitness identification procedures and the Supreme Court’s reliability test in light of eyewitness science: 30 Years later. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 1–24. Wells, G., Steblay, N. & Dysart, J. (2011). An Initial Report of the AJS National Eyewitness Identification Field Studies. Iowa: American Judicature Society Read More