TODAY'S ARTICLE: Eyewitness Identification

Eyewitness Identification

Eyewitness identification is critical to the apprehension and prosecution of criminals. Eyewitness evidence can also be an important tool for exonerating innocent suspects. Groundbreaking research on eyewitness memory over the past three decades, as well as increasing attention to the problems in the cases of wrongfully convicted individuals, has brought the fallibility of eyewitness memory to the fore.

Eyewitness misidentification is widely recognized as the leading cause of wrongful conviction in the United States, accounting for more wrongful convictions than all other causes combined.1 Since 1989, DNA evidence has been used to exonerate nearly 200 individuals who were wrongfully convicted. Of those, approximately 75 percent were convicted on evidence that included inaccurate and faulty eyewitness identifications.2 In some cases, these innocent individuals were misidentified by more than one eyewitness. 

In the vast majority of criminal cases, however, DNA or other biological evidence is not available to establish guilt or innocence. Given the persuasive nature of eyewitness evidence, as well as the inherent danger of misidentifications—both in convicting the innocent and allowing the true perpetrator to go free—it becomes imperative that we take stock of the procedures within the control of the criminal justice system that contribute to these problems in order to ensure that the most reliable evidence possible makes it into a courtroom and before a jury. 

A number of challenges emerge in pursuit of a more accurate protocol, none more prevalent than an historical lack of communication between scientists and law enforcement.3 Decades of empirical research have proven that a number of small changes to identification procedures can help improve the accuracy and reliability of eyewitness identifications, and help ensure that the highest quality of eyewitness evidence is collected. 

What’s more, when put to the test in numerous jurisdictions throughout the country, these reforms have met with real-life success. Thus, it may seem surprising that these reforms have not been implemented in police districts across the board. 

While much of the research has been extensively documented and peer-reviewed within the scientific community, and the recommendations for reform are widely accepted by experts in the field, these reforms were initially discussed and developed outside the realm of law enforcement. 

Starting in the late nineties, however, leading researchers joined with law enforcement and legal practitioners to bridge the gap and comprehensively address eyewitness identification issues at the intersection of the two fields. As a result, guidelines and best practices for law enforcement were developed with the science in mind. 

In October 1999, the Department of Justice released a comprehensive guide for law enforcement on procedures for obtaining more accurate eyewitness evidence.However, there is no current national program or federal agency responsible for educating local departments about these reforms—or in assisting with their practical implementation. Moreover, as reforms are implemented on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis in some states, there continues to be little opportunity for sharing information and perhaps even less incentive, given the already overloaded criminal caseloads of police, prosecutors and defenders, and the lack of leadership from the courts or legislature on the issue. 

This policy review has been designed to facilitate communication among local law enforcement agencies, policymakers, and others regarding the best practices and methods for enhancing the evidentiary value of correct identifications and at the same time reducing the risk of erroneous identifications. By presenting many of the successful methods employed in local jurisdictions, as well as the science behind them, we hope to create a dialogue around recommendations that will enhance the quality of evidence relied upon in criminal trials, as well as confidence in our system of justice.

YDSFORUM GRUBUMUZA ÜYE OLMAK İÇİN TIKLAYINIZ.