Abstract
Eyewitness identification is a potent evidentiary tool that is often fraught with problems. Eyewitnesses are often mistaken in their identifications, and these mistaken identifications can lead to wrongful convictions. The problem of mistaken eyewitness identifications has recently received much attention, and researchers have identified several factors contributing to these mistakes. This paper reviews the research on eyewitness identification, focusing on the factors that contribute to wrong identifications. The paper discusses the role of eyewitnesses in the law and order system, the problems with eyewitness identifications, and the steps that have been taken to improve the accuracy of these identifications.
Introduction
As our society becomes increasingly violent, the accuracy of eyewitness identification becomes increasingly essential. Eyewitness identification is a topic of great importance in the field of criminology. It is when a person identifies a criminal suspect from a lineup or photo array. The problem with eyewitness identification is that it is often inaccurate. Many factors can affect the accuracy of eyewitness identification, including stress, distance, lighting, and weapon presence. The accuracy of eyewitness identification is further complicated because memories are not always reliable. Memories can be influenced by many factors, such as emotions, stress, fatigue, and the passage of time. Because of these factors, it is essential to ensure that eyewitnesses are allowed to give their testimony in a calm and relaxed setting. This research aims to explore the factors that can impact the accuracy of eyewitness identification to improve the reliability of this type of evidence. The following sections will discuss the different types of eyewitness identification, the factors affecting its accuracy, and how its reliability can be improved.
Problems of Eyewitness
Over 75% of wrongful convictions in the United States are estimated to result from eyewitness misidentification (Albright & Garrett, 2020). Given the weight often placed on eyewitness testimony in the courtroom, we must understand the factors that can impact the accuracy of identification in eyewitnesses. In this paper, we will review eyewitness identification and discuss the implications for improving the reliability of this type of evidence. Eyewitness identification is notoriously unreliable. Research has shown that several factors can impact the accuracy of eyewitness identification, including the level of stress undergone by the witness at the time of the event, the race of the witness and the suspect, the amount of time that has elapsed between the event and the identification, and the type of lineup procedure used (Głomb, 2021). One of the most critical factors impacting the accuracy of eyewitness identification is the level of stress experienced by the witness during the event season.
Studies have shown that witnesses under high levels of stress are more likely to make errors in their identification (Albright & Garrett, 2020). It is likely because stress can impact memory encoding and retrieval, as well as attention and focus (Albright & Garrett, 2020). In addition, stress can also impact how a witness perceives an event. For example, witnesses who are under stress are more likely to focus on the robbery’s weapon rather than the robber’s face (Albright & Garrett, 2020). It can lead to an inaccurate identification if the witness is shown a lineup that includes the wrong person. The race of the witness and the suspect can also impact the accuracy of eyewitness identification. Studies have shown that witnesses are more likely to misidentify suspects of a different race than they are (Głomb, 2021). It is likely because people are more likely to encode and remember faces that are similar to their own
In addition, the race of the witness can also impact the type of lineup procedure used. For example, if a witness is shown a lineup that includes only suspects of the same race as the witness, they are more likely to misidentify a suspect than if the lineup includes suspects of different races (Albright & Garrett, 2020). The amount of time that has elapsed between the event and the identification can also impact the accuracy of eyewitness identification. Studies have shown that witnesses are more likely to misidentify suspects when there is a delay between the event and the identification (Głomb, 2021). It is likely because memory is more likely to fade over time, making it more difficult for witnesses to accurately remember the event’s details (Albright & Garrett, 2020). In addition, the type of lineup procedure used can also impact the accuracy of eyewitness identification. Studies have shown that witnesses are more likely to misidentify suspects when shown a lineup that includes only one suspect (Głomb, 2021). It is likely because witnesses are more likely to choose the suspect most similar to the person they saw, even if the person is not the perpetrator (Albright & Garrett, 2020). There are several ways in which the accuracy of eyewitness identification can be improved.
How to Improve Eyewitness Reliability
One way is to ensure that witnesses are shown a lineup that includes suspects of different races. It will help to prevent witnesses from making errors in their identification due to the similarity between the suspects and the witness. To ensure that witnesses are shown a lineup that includes suspects of different races, police departments and prosecutors must have policies that require such lineups(Nayak & Khajuria, 2019). These policies should mandate that all lineups include suspects of different races whenever possible and that witnesses be made aware that the suspect may or may not be of the same race as the perpetrator. Additionally, these policies should require lineup administrators to refrain from giving any cues or suggestions regarding the suspect’s identity. Having these procedures in place will help ensure that witnesses are not unduly influenced by the race of the suspects in the lineup.
In addition, the use of photographic lineups rather than live lineups has improved the accuracy of eyewitness identification. It is likely since photographs are less likely to be influenced by the race of the witness or the suspect. There are a few reasons why photographic lineups may be more accurate than live lineups(Nayak & Khajuria, 2019). First, live lineups can be influenced by the behavior of the person conducting the lineup (e.g., if they give subtle cues as to who the suspect is). Second, the person being identified may be wearing different clothes or have a different hairstyle than they did at the time of the crime, making them less recognizable. Third, live lineups can be more stressful for eyewitnesses, which may impact their ability to make an accurate identification. Overall, photographic lineups have several advantages that make them more likely to produce an accurate identification than live lineups. However, it is essential to note that both lineup types can be susceptible to bias and human error.
Nevertheless, the use of double-blind lineups, in which the person conducting the lineup is unaware of the suspect’s identity, has also improved the accuracy of eyewitness identification. It is because the person conducting the lineup is less likely to inadvertently give cues to the witness about who the suspect is. In a double-blind lineup, the individual administering the lineup does not know which individual in the lineup the suspect is and, therefore, cannot give any cues to the witness that would potentially influence their decision(Nayak & Khajuria, 2019). This type of lineup is considered fairer, as the administrator cannot inadvertently give clues to the witness that could lead to an incorrect identification (Rubínová et al., 2020). Several studies have shown that double-blind lineups are more accurate than lineups in which the administrator knows the suspect’s identity. In one study, witnesses were shown lineups containing the suspect and five fillers and were asked to identify the suspect. The lineups were either administered by an officer who knew the suspect’s identity or by an officer who did not know the suspect’s identity. The results showed that witnesses were more accurate in identifying the suspect when the lineup was administered by an officer who did not know the identity of the suspect. Other studies have found similar results, showing that double-blind lineups are more accurate than lineups in which the administrator knows the suspect’s identity. The use of double-blind lineups is therefore thought to be a more effective way of conducting eyewitness identification.
Types of Eyewitness Identification
The most common type of eyewitness identification is visual identification. It is when a witness sees someone commit a crime and identifies that person in a lineup or photo array. The problem with visual identification is that the human brain is not very good at remembering details. Studies have shown that people can only remember about 50% of what they see (Holdstock et al., 2022). And, even if a witness does remember something, they are often only able to remember a few details. For example, a witness might remember that the perpetrator had a beard, but they would not be able to remember what color the beard was. The second type of eyewitness identification is verbal identification. It is when a witness hears someone commit a crime and then identifies that person in a lineup or photo array. The problem with verbal identification is that the human brain is very good at filling in gaps in memory with information that is not accurate.
Studies have shown that people can often remember details they did not actually hear. For example, a witness might remember that the perpetrator said, “I’m going to kill you,” even though the perpetrator said, “I’m going to kill myself.”The third type of eyewitness identification is scent identification. It is when a witness smells someone committing a crime and identifies that person in a lineup or photo array. The problem with scent identification is that the human brain is not very good at remembering details. Studies have shown that people can only remember about 50% of what they smell (Rubínová et al., 2020). And, even if a witness does remember something, they are often only able to remember a few details. For example, a witness might remember that the perpetrator smelled like cigarettes, but they would not be able to remember what brand of cigarettes the perpetrator smoked.
The other type of eyewitness identification is touch identification. It is when a witness touches someone to commit a crime and then identifies that person in a lineup or photo array. The problem with touch identification is that the human brain is not very good at remembering details. Studies have shown that people can only remember about 50% of what they1 touch (Holdstock et al., 2022). And, even if a witness does remember something, they are often only able to remember a few details. For example, a witness might remember that the perpetrator had a tattoo on their arm but would not be able to remember what the tattoo was of. The fifth and final type of eyewitness identification is taste identification. It is when a witness tastes someone commits a crime and then identifies that person in a lineup or photo array. The problem with taste identification is that the human brain is not very good at remembering details. Studies have shown that people can only remember about 50% of their tastes (Rubínová et al., 2020). And, even if a witness does remember something, they are often only able to remember a few details. For example, a witness might remember that the perpetrator had a strong taste of alcohol on their breath. Still, they would not be able to remember what type of alcohol the perpetrator was drinking.
In about one out of every four cases, eyewitnesses incorrectly identify innocent people as the perpetrator of a crime. In many cases, eyewitness testimony is the only evidence against the accused, and the jury must decide whether to believe the witness or the accused. The eyewitness reliability testimony is essential in the criminal system. Some factors can interfere with the reliability of eyewitness testimony. For example, witnesses may be influenced by their own biases or by the biases of others (Holdstock et al., 2022). Witnesses may also be influenced by how police or prosecutors question them. In addition, witnesses may forget what they have seen or mistakenly believe they have seen something they have not seen.
One way to improve eyewitness identification reliability is to use a fair and representative lineup. Lineups should only include people who fit the description of the suspect given by the eyewitness. The lineup should also include people of different races if the eyewitness is unaware of the suspect’s race. For example, witnesses can be asked to view a lineup of potential suspects rather than showing a single photo of the suspect (Wixted et al., 2018). Another way to improve eyewitness identification’s reliability is to ensure that the eyewitness is not influenced by anything during the identification process. The eyewitness should not be shown a photo of the suspect before the identification process. The eyewitness should also not be asked leading questions during the identification process. The reliability of eyewitness identification can also be improved by using a double-blind identification procedure. In this type of procedure, the person conducting the identification process does not know who the suspect is (Wixted et al., 2018). It helps to prevent any bias against the person conducting the identification process.
Biblical Worldview
The Bible contains many accounts of people being identified by eyewitnesses, including the identification of Jesus by his disciples after his resurrection. In the book of Acts, Paul is also identified by eyewitnesses on several occasions. These accounts provide valuable insights into the reliability of eyewitness identification. Critical analysis of Scripture on eyewitness identification reveals that there are some potential problems with this type of evidence. For example, eyewitnesses can sometimes be mistaken, or they may be influenced by factors such as stress or fear. However, the Bible also teaches that God is able to use even imperfect evidence to accomplish his purposes. In the end, we can trust that God will ensure that the truth is revealed and that justice will be done.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the accuracy of eyewitness identification can be impacted by several factors, including the level of stress experienced by the witness, the race of the witness and the suspect, the amount of time that has elapsed between the event and the identification, and the type of lineup procedure used. The use of double-blind lineups, in which the individual conducting the lineup is not aware of the origin of the suspect, is the most effective method for improving the accuracy of eyewitness identification. Several factors can affect the reliability of eyewitness testimony. One way to improve the eyewitness reliability of identification is to use a fair and representative lineup. Another way to improve eyewitness identification’s reliability is to ensure that the eyewitness is not influenced by anything during the identification process.
References
Albright, T., & Garrett, B. L. (2020). The Law and Science of Eyewitness Evidence. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3675055
Głomb, K. (2021). How to improve eyewitness testimony research: theoretical and methodological concerns about experiments on the impact of emotions on memory performance. Psychological Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01488-4
Holdstock, J. S., Dalton, P., May, K. A., Boogert, S., & Mickes, L. (2022). Lineup identification in young and older witnesses: does describe the criminal help or hinder? Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-022-00399-1
Nayak, B. P., & Khajuria, H. (2019). Eyewitness testimony: probative value in the criminal justice system. Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41935-018-0109-z
Rubínová, E., Fitzgerald, R. J., Juncu, S., Ribbers, E., Hope, L., & Sauer, J. D. (2020). Live Presentation for Eyewitness Identification Is Not Superior to Photo or Video Presentation. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.08.009
Wixted, J. T., Mickes, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2018). Rethinking the Reliability of Eyewitness Memory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(3), 324–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617734878
write