Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Our Dangerous Devotion to Eyewitness Testimony
http://www.thenation.com/article/165725/our-dangerous-devotion-eyewitness-testimonyWe see what we want to see, my grandmother used to say. This insight visited me recently after I ran across the mall chasing a woman I thought was my cousin. It wasnt, as it turned out, but I didnt realize that until after I had puffed up behind her, bopped her amiably on the shoulder and cried out, Boo!
How was it possible, I thought in retrospective embarrassment, to so wrongly misidentify someone I know so well? Empirically my experience was all too common. Id been thinking about my cousin a few moments before and saw the woman through the lens of those thoughts. We often project our lifes associations onto the faces of strangers. Constantlyif mostly unconsciouslywe familiarize them with learned stereotypes. If we are wise, we learn to take caution with our assumptions. We recognize this innate fallibility, and most of the time it doesnt matter very much.
Oddly enough, however, we reverse that supposition in the one context where fallibility matters most: in criminal cases, eyewitness testimony is viewed as the ne plus ultra for the prosecution, despite a centurys worth of psychological and sociological studies revealing that, from Sacco and Vanzetti to Troy Davis, witnesses misperceive a startling percentage of the time. Human beings are not very good at identifying people they saw only once for a relatively short period of time, writes Cornell law professor Michael Dorf. The studies reveal error rates of as high as fifty percenta frightening statistic given that many convictions may be based largely or solely on such testimony. These studies show further that the ability to identify a stranger is diminished by stress (and what crime situation is not intensely stressful?), that cross-racial identifications are especially unreliable, and that contrary to what one might think, those witnesses who claim to be certain of their identifications are no better at it than everyone else, just more confident.
The costs of this phenomenon are perhaps best revealed in data compiled by the Innocence Project, which has concluded that out of 281 postconviction exonerations secured through DNA in the United States, eyewitness misidentification was a factor in 75 percent making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions. Luckily, there are substantiated ways to guard against such error. Experts have cited two main types of variables that can adversely affect eyewitness identification: estimator variables, the hardest to control for, which include things like the degree of lighting, distance or speed within a given crime scene, as well as the level of trauma to the witness; and system variables, defined as those that the criminal justice system can and should control, which include law enforcement tools like lineups and photo arrays. A number of reforms involving the latter have the proven capacity to boost the accuracy of witness IDs. These include blind administration, where an officer conducting a lineup is not aware of who the suspect is (and thus not capable of revealing his or her identity via gestures, vocal inflections or body language); non-suggestive lineups, made up of people who generally resemble a witnesss description, so that the suspect does not stand out; allowing witnesses to sign a statement indicating their level of confidence in their choice; and presenting members of a lineup sequentially rather than simultaneously (to mitigate the pressure to choose any kind of close-looking one when we are presented with a bunch of faces at once). Such remedial safeguards have so reduced the error rateand so indisputablythat a number of local jurisdictions and eleven states thus far have adopted some or all of them as standard operating procedure.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 588 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post