Abstract
Eyewitnesses are among the most important sources of information for criminology specialists. However, eyewitnesses are not a reliable source of information, and in the United States, approximately 70% of cases where eyewitnesses were involved were deemed false after the review of DNA evidence. The misplaced claims were linked to the eyewitness testimony, which means that the eyewitness practice requires enhancement, and professionals and researchers should develop techniques that would allow utilizing eyewitness testimony effectively. Moreover, from a Christian perspective, eye witnessing is an important factor, as Jesus’s followers were his eyewitnesses. Only later on did they begin to transfer Jesus’s teachings into writing. As a result, the use of eyewitness testimony remains essential for the modern criminal justice system. However, due to many errors that occur during eyewitness testimony, there is a need to study the psychological and behavioral factors that might affect the witnesses to ensure that criminology specialists can receive accurate data from the former. This paper will review the current practices that are used with eyewitnesses and will recommend ways of enhancing the procedures employed when working with eyewitnesses.
Introduction
Eyewitness testimony is an important part of the criminal investigation process that allows experts to identify suspects. However, this type of evidence is affected by the psychological and behavioral factors that impact the ability of eyewitnesses to correctly identify criminals. According to APA (2020), over 70% of all DNA exoneration cases involved erroneous eyewitness identification. Moreover, since DNA and other types of decisive evidence are still exceedingly rare in criminal cases, enhancing the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence is an essential aim for preventing miscarriages of justice. Hence, there is a need to improve the practices and approaches used to identify eyewitnesses and collect evidence from them to resolve crimes more effectively. The purpose of this paper is to describe the process of eyewitness identification and procedures that allow for improving the detection of witnesses and assignment of testimony.
Eyewitness Identification
Eyewitnesses are individuals who have seen a crime and can provide criminal justice professionals with testimony. According to Wells et al. (2020), eyewitness identification of criminal suspects remains a common sort of evidence utilized by the legal system to establish the identity of crime perpetrators. However, major questions have been raised in recent decades concerning the possible dependability of eyewitness identification testimony. Although eyewitnesses have seen a crime, there is a question of their ability to correctly retain the memory of this event and be able to describe or determine the suspects who have committed this crime.
The human memory is flawed, and a traumatic or stressful event such as a crime makes it difficult for eyewitnesses to remember the details of the occurrence. There have been two major reasons that have contributed to this worry regarding the credibility of eyewitness identifications (Smith et al., 2021; Wells et al., 2020). As with any important question, a scientific approach had to be applied to determine if eyewitness testimony is a reliable information source for criminologists. Beginning in the mid to late 1970s, psychology scientists began establishing systematic laboratory-based experimental research focusing on eyewitness identification (Wells et al., 2020). Thus, psychology specialists have long worked to improve the methods of working with eyewitnesses to ensure that their testimony is more accurate.
It is clear that some characteristics under the control of the criminal justice system might significantly increase the chance of wrong identification of a suspect. These variables were dubbed system variables, and researchers such as Wells et al. (2020) have worked on studying these variables. A system variable is an instruction given to eyewitnesses before watching a lineup. This approach is necessary because the variables affect the reliability of eyewitness identification, and they are controlled by the legal system’s regulations and procedures for conducting lineups (Wells et al., 2020; Semmler et al., 2018). Hence, policy changes targeting lineup practices can enhance the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.
By the mid-1990s, psychological scientists had published hundreds of laboratory-based experiments in peer-reviewed journals, demonstrating that mistaken identification rates can be very high under certain conditions (Wells et al., 2020). Moreover, these researchers pointed out some of the more problematic sets of conditions that can lead to such errors in real-world situations (Wells et al., 2020). The application of forensic DNA testing to claims of innocence was the second key driver affecting a high awareness of the inherent fallibilities of eyewitness identification.
Although forensic DNA testing was first envisaged as a tool to accuse the guilty, its exonerating qualities swiftly became apparent. Beginning in the 1990s, DNA was utilized to evaluate claims of innocence in selected postconviction cases, resulting in a cascade of innocent persons being exonerated (Wells et al., 2020). Thus, many of the convicts that were sentenced as a result of eyewitness testimony were later found not guilty after the DNA samples of the cases were studied by experts. Research commissioned by the United States Department of Justice that examined the first 30 exonerations found that the great majority of these instances had incorrect eyewitness identifications (Wells et al., 2020). These investigations were the first efforts to show that eyewitness testimony is not a reliable tool for the criminal justice system and should be used with caution. Still, in some cases, eyewitnesses are the only source of information for the investigator team, which results in a pressing need for the enhancement of the existing techniques for working with eyewitnesses.
The criminologists’ understanding of eyewitness identification has advanced significantly since the previous decade. Clearly, the quantity and scope of experimental laboratory research have increased dramatically over the last decade, allowing criminology experts to have more tools and psychology-based methods (Smith et al., 2019Wells et al., 2020). The overall approach of laboratory eyewitness identification research, on the other hand, has essentially stayed the same, as marked by Wells et al. (2020). This may create issues since the unchanged approach means that there are the same biases and errors. Typically, people are subjected to a simulated crime, sometimes live, sometimes on film, and the researchers know who the perpetrator is (Starn et al., 2021; Wells et al., 2020). These participant-witnesses are then presented an identification technique, generally a photo lineup, in which the culprit’s photo is interspersed among filler photographs or the culprit’s photo is missing from the array and substituted with an innocent person’s photo. The goal of such an approach is to simulate the real-life crime and culprit identification, ensuring that the experiment is close to the conditions in which actual eyewitnesses are.
One scientific method for the enhancement of eyewitness identification and testimony is the double-blind procedure. According to Pike et al. (2020), a double-blind procedure can help ensure that the identification of eyewitnesses is made correctly and more accurately. Many of the suggestions resulting from eyewitness research have been directed at decreasing misidentifications and hence subsequent miscarriages of justice. The goal of this approach stems from findings that eyewitness testimony is connected with more miscarriages of justice than any other cause. Thus, misidentifications are the primary cause of errors in criminology that makes the process of crime processing more challenging. Pike et al. (2020) state that the double-blind approach, in which the identity of the suspect is undisclosed to the person conducting the identification procedure, is perhaps the most important proposal emerging from research that has not been extensively implemented by policing practitioners throughout the world. The use of a double-blind method precludes the police from either overtly telling the witness or offering unintentional verbal and nonverbal signals as to the suspect’s identification.
Another issue with eyewitness identification is that there is a difference in the way adults and children perceive and cope with crime, making it challenging to work with children eyewitnesses. When compared to adults, children are also more inclined to pick from a lineup (Pike et al., 2020). This can result in equal percentages of right identifications made by children and adults for target-present lineups when the offender is visible, but when confronted with a target-absent lineup where the perpetrator is not visible, children are more likely to misidentify (Gepstein et al., 2020; Pike et al., 2020). Currently, several strategies are being used that have been proven to lower the number of erroneous choices made by youngsters while not diminishing right identifications. For example, an elimination lineup instructs the witness to remove any lineup members who are unquestionably not the perpetrator and then, if any remain, to determine if they are the culprit. This approach can be applied in real-life conditions and can help enhance the reliability of the testimony.
Testimony Assignment
The main issue with testimonies of eyewitnesses is the inability to check the reliability of the testimony and ensure that the information obtained by law enforcement is correct. According to APA (2020), law enforcement officers can limit errors made by eyewitnesses to crimes by following a set of suggestions, which include questioning witnesses as soon as possible after a crime and videotaping the sessions. These recommendations are based on the understanding of human psychology and the behavior of individuals during stressful events. The APA (2020) has provided several recommendations to improve the accuracy of eyewitness testimony; for example, the organization advises using a lineup with many suspects rather than a show up with only one suspect. Additionally, a lineup with the same suspect and witnesses should not be repeated. The person responsible for the process should record the whole procedure on camera, from the witness’s instructions before the lineup to the witness’s confidence statement after the lineup is over (APA, 2020). These recommendations should ensure that the testimony of the witnesses is recorded correctly, considering the general reliability characteristics of the eyewitness testimony.
Christian Perspective
Eyewitness testimony has been the only source of information for investigators before more advanced criminology techniques emerged, and many examples of this are recorded in the Bible. Moreover, the teachings of Jesus were recorded based on the witnesses, such as his followers, showing that this approach to collecting information is among the oldest ones. According to Perkins (1990), while Jesus was on earth, His disciples observed and learned from His acts and teachings. What they saw and heard frequently captivated, perplexed, and challenged them. Despite this, Jesus instructed them and sometimes sent them out on their own (Perkins, 1990). When they were not with Him, they memorized His instruction and depended on His knowledge. Unfortunately, it is not known how many of these eyewitnesses recorded His teachings throughout this time period. Moreover, as with any eyewitness testimony, there is no way to ensure that their records are true; for example, the disciples could jot down something. The disciples most likely felt no need to record Jesus’ remarks while he was still alive (Perkins, 1994). During these amazing days, men and women stood in awe of the Master, witnessing Him perform miracles and listening intently.
The apostles may not have written about Jesus immediately after his ascension in the first years of his ascension. A close study of the Scriptures will uncover a similar theme: many of the New Testament’s early authors expected Jesus to return before there was ever a need for a multi-generational eyewitness record (Perkins, 1994). They labored tirelessly to spread the word about Jesus, convinced that He would come to judge the living and the dead within their lifetime. The Word was heard in the days of the Apostles when the apostles preached to the world around them. However, when the Apostles were killed, and those who remained knew Jesus might not return in their lifetime, the necessity for a written narrative became apparent. James, John’s brother, was assassinated in 44AD, and the gospels began to emerge not long after (Perkins, 1994). The eyewitness gospel authors recorded what they saw for the rest of the world to see. Hence, even from a Christian perspective, the eyewitness testimony is an unreliable technique, requiring a more advanced method, especially if the testimony has to be used in court.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of this paper, some recommendations can be provided to the policymakers to improve the current state of eyewitness identification. Notably, there have been multiple recommendations developed by professional organizations, such as APA, that target the improvement of the accuracy of eyewitness identification. However, these recommendations were not widely adopted, nor are they studied at colleges. According to Pike et al. (2020), this is “a result of poor communication between researchers and practitioners, a situation that could be made worse if the police do not think that there are significant problems with current eyewitness identification procedures that need to be addressed” (p. 17). Thus, more efforts should be dedicated to making the scientific findings available to the practitioners.
The primary body of recommendation concerns the accuracy of the testimony presented by eyewitnesses. For example, as APA (2020) suggests, it is vital to collect the testimony right after the crime occurs. This approach helps ensure that the testimony is correct and reliable, as opposed to collecting the evidence hours or days after the crime occurs. Considering the Christian perspective described above, there is a need to record the process of collecting eyewitness testimony, and other criminology methods should be used to support the findings.
Conclusion
In summary, this paper concerns the issue of eyewitness testimony and the accuracy of eyewitnesses’ reports. Eyewitness testimony is a critical component of the criminal investigation process because it helps professionals to identify suspects. However, this form of evidence is influenced by psychological and behavioral characteristics that hinder eyewitnesses’ capacity to properly identify culprits. According to APA (2020), erroneous eyewitness identification was implicated in more than 70% of all DNA exoneration cases. Furthermore, because DNA and other forms of definitive evidence are relatively uncommon in criminal cases, improving the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence is an important goal for minimizing miscarriages of justice. As a result, there is a need to enhance the techniques and approaches used to locate eyewitnesses and gather evidence from them in order to resolve crimes more successfully.
References
American Psychological Association [APA]. (2020).Improving eyewitness identification key to protecting innocent people. APA. Web.
Gepshtein, S., Wang, Y., He, F., Diep, D., & Albright, T. (2020). A perceptual scaling approach to eyewitness identification. Nature Communications, 11(1).
Perkins, P. (1990). The gospel according to John. In R. E. Brown, J. A. Firzmyer, & R. E. Murphy (Eds.), The new Jerome biblical commentary (pp. 942-85). Prentice-Hall.
Perkins, P. (1994). Mark. In L. E. Keck (Ed.), The New interpreter’s Bible (vol. 8, pp. 507-734). Abingdon Press.
Pike, G., Havard, C., Harrison, G., & Ness, H. (2021). Eyewitness identification procedures: Do researchers and practitioners share the same goals?International Journal of Police Science & Management, 23(1), 17–28. Web.
Semmler, C., Dunn, J., Mickes, L., & Wixted, J. T. (2018). The role of estimator variables in eyewitness identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24(3), 400–415.
Smith, A. M., Smalarz, L., Ditchfield, R., & Ayala, N. T. (2021). Evaluating the claim that high confidence implies high accuracy in eyewitness identification. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27(4), 479–491.
Smith, A. M., Wilford, M. M., Quigley-McBride, A., & Wells, G. L. (2019). Mistaken eyewitness identification rates increase when either witnessing or testing conditions get worse.Law and Human Behavior, 43(4), 358–368. Web.
Starns, J. J., Cohen, A. L., & Rotello, C. M. (2021). A complete method for assessing the effectiveness of eyewitness identification procedures: Expected information gain. Psychological Review, 10-15.
Wells, G. L., Kovera, M. B., Douglass, A. B., Brewer, N., Meissner, C. A., & Wixted, J. T. (2020). Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 44(1), 3-36.