The Qisas or equivalence verse in Quran is, O ye who believe! Questions and Answers About Ellen G. White's Life and Ministry Ellen G. White's Writings Ellen G. White's Teachings The Ellen G. WHITE'S LIFE AND MINISTRY. Early Life And Family. Kip McKean was born in Indianapolis, Indiana on May 31, 1954. Like many young men of the 1960’s, he was inspired by those who refused to compromise and were willing to sacrifice everything for a worthy. Eye for an Eye or Love Thy Neighbor? Are the Messages of the Old and New Testaments Different? Errors in Eyewitness Identification Procedures. Marc Green. Abstract. Eyewitness testimony may be questioned on three scientific grounds. First, visibility conditions may be poor - low light, poor weather, etc. Second, many research studies report that even under good visibility, humans are poor at facial identification. Third, the procedures used to obtain the identification may be biased. This article addresses the requirements of a proper and unbiased eyewitness identification procedure rather than the ability of individuals to perform face recognition. Introduction. Jurors treat eyewitness identification as compelling evidence in both civil and criminal trials. The strength of eyewitness testimony is demonstrated by a study (cited in Loftus and Doyle, 1. With no eyewitness, only 1. Addition of an eyewitness identification increased the proportion of guilty verdicts to 7. Moreover, even when the identification was impeached, the guilty rate was still 6. Several other studies have similarly found that juries tend to base their decision on a confident eyewitness identification even when other factors (such as poor visibility or bias) question its validity. Here are just a few examples. You may be able to get rid of your glasses and improve your vision problems such as nearsightedness, farsightedness, astigmatism, and light sensitivity with these eye exercises. Escorting someone with a price on their head from Arizona to Washington, D.C., isn't the easiest job Clint Adams has ever taken on. But when that head is covered with flaming red hair and the curvaceous body underneath belongs. A recent study (Wells, et al, 1. DNA exonerated wrongfully convicted people. In 9. 0% of the cases, mistaken eyewitness identification played a major role. In one case, 5 separate witnesses identified the defendant. This is an amazingly high number since eyewitness identification is an important factor in only 5% of all trials (Loh, 1. Later the clerk views a photospread and identifies the . It is hard to know how far to generalize such studies, but they suggest that eyewitnesses are almost as likely to wrong as to be correct when identifying strangers. One reason is poor encoding at time of initial perception. This could be due to poor visibility (bad lighting, brief duration, long distance, etc.) or to the tricks played by human perception. A second reason is faulty memory. Memory has several quirks which affect reliability, including 1) low resolution (a remembered face is not as clear as one actually viewed), 2) the tendency for memories to be constructed so that missing information is supplied from expectations/biases or from an external source (TV, newspaper, other witnesses, the police, etc.) or from other memories and 3) systematic perceptual distortions in memory (small sizes grow and large sizes shrink, colors are remembered as brighter, etc.). A third reason for error lies in the procedures used during photo- identifications and lineups. Below, I briefly review the mistakes commonly found in identification procedures. Moreover, each observation should be independent and unrelated to any other. Photospreads and lineups generally fail to meet these criteria because they offer many opportunities for a biased result. The witness is often not told explicitly that the culprit's. That is, the witness does not simply compare each picture to memory, making a series of independent yes- no decisions. Instead, the eyewitness looks at all the pictures and then picks the one most likely to be the culprit. One is that the witness is highly likely to make a . First, an eyewitness probably starts with the assumption that the culprit must be among the alternatives. Why else would the police bother with the photospread/lineup? Then, likelihood of false identification increases when the police put pressure on the witness to make an identification. Moreover, anything which causes a witness to expect that the culprit is present in the array (e. The result is much higher overall accuracy. Therefore, the identification examiner should always inform the eyewitness that the culprit might not be present. In fact, the person calling the eyewitness to setup the lineup/photo- identification should also say that the culprit might not be present. In photospreads, there are numerous ways that one picture can be subtly different: lighting, color tone, brightness, sharpness, viewing angle, background, location of face in the frame, etc. The only real way to be sure is to test . In a photospread, for example, na. In a fair test, they should pick pictures at random, since they cannot use memory to select. However, if there is something innately suggestive or distinctive about a suspect's picture, it may be chosen at a rate above chance. Such a result would seriously question the photospread's validity. Attorneys who have any doubts about the fairness of distractors in a photospread (and this is hard to know a priori because even subtle differences can be critical), should have an experimental psychologist design and conduct an unbiased test. In addition, there is no guarantee that they will behave the same way as during the identification. It should be remembered, however, that a lineup following a photo- identification is not an independent event. If someone identifies a suspect in the photospread, the witness will almost certainly identify the same person in the lineup - for consistency's sake. Who would want to appear a fool by picking a different person from photo and from a live group? Moreover, the lineup would be, at best, not a comparison of people vs. Therefore calling a photo- identification into question automatically raises doubts about any subsequent lineup. The person conducting the photospread/lineup knew who the suspect was. First, there is a possibility that he/she will intentionally or unintentionally signal this expectation. The signal need not be blatant (. For example, a slight lean forward while the eyewitness views a picture can be enough to draw a big red circle around it. Similarly, courts now generally require that surveys conducted to support litigation in intellectual property cases be performed by questioners who have no knowledge of the desired outcome or even of the issues in dispute. It is ironic that criminal courts, where there can be much more at stake, freely permit introduction of such potentially biased evidence as identifications conducted without double blind procedures. Otherwise, the eyewitness might look for a sign of confirmation, real or imagined. Some personality types constantly seek approval from authority figures, such as the police. They are likely to seek affirmation in feedback from the examiner. If the examiner says . This can be crucial because juries look at not just the identification, but also at the witness's certainty. In fact, one study found that witness confidence is about the only aspect of an identification that jurors consider (Cutler, et al, 1. This is probably one of the reasons the correlation between eyewitness confidence and accuracy is low (Bothwell, et. There are some situations where identification is more likely accurate. For example, if the suspect is someone previously known to the victim, then high accuracy is more probable. When it comes to strangers, however, identifications are frequently in error. Lastly, eyewitness confidence provides only modest assurance that the identification is correct. The best chance of challenging the identification may be scientific evidence obtained by testing the photospread with na. They may or may not be the same person. Cambridge. University Press: Cambridge UK. Law and Human Behavior, 1. Michigan. Law Review, 7. Wells, G., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R., Fulero, SD., and Brimacombe. C. Law and Human Behavior, 2.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |