This article is about the misconceptions of eyewitness testimony and some cases exemplifying its inaccuracy. False eyewitness testimonies have put innocent people behind bars, but with the growth of DNA testing and its use as evidence in criminal cases, eyewitness testimony has been found to be highly inaccurate. This article also describes a few cases and studies researching the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. According to a study published earlier this year in the journal Law and Human Behavior, false eyewitness testimony contributed to 77 percent of the 230 wrongful convictions exposed by DNA evidence over the last decade (the number of exonerations has grown since the study was conducted). These of course are only those cases for which DNA testing was available, which are usually murder and rape cases. In crimes where investigators are more likely to rely only on eyewitnesses, robberies or muggings, for example, it's likely that the problem is even more pronounced. Studies have also found that subtle, unintentional feedback from police or prosecutors can lead to false identifications.
Psychologists suggest some ways of improving the validity of eyewitness testimony, which include making witness and photo lineups double-blind, where neither the officer conducting the lineup nor the witness knows which person is the suspect. Lineups should also include people that the police know are innocent. If a witness selects a known innocent, police and prosecutors will then know that particular witness's memory isn't reliable enough to be used as evidence. However, it seems as though the police and prosecutors have yet to change their procedures.
http://reason.com/archives/2009/04/08/eyewitness-testimony-on-trial
I think this article is beneficial in increasing awareness about the inaccuracy of eyewitness testimonies. The suggestions that were offered should be implicated to see their effect as opposed to traditional methods. I think we have come a long way by discovering techniques to obtain DNA and use them to exonerate wrongfully convicted prisoners, however, I still feel that we have a long way to go in increasing awareness about the epidemic of putting innocent people behind bars and how to curb that trend.
I agree that eye witness identification can be wrong. I know for a fact that i am bad at recalling faces of people i have just seen. I don't think a case should go to trail based solely on eyewitness identification, because of the facts that so many people pick the wrong person in a line up. I found that recent study done at ISU very interesting. I couldn't believe the number of people who said that the guy was in the photos. I never knew that positive feedback gives people more confidence about who they piced. That study just goes to show a person how wrong and how bad people's memories can be.
This is a very well written and thought provoking article. It is amazing to think with those statistics presented, that with cases lacking DNA evidence, more than 77% of eyewitness accounts may be inaccurate.
It was especially troubling when reading about wrongfully convicted Ronald Cotton who served 10.5 years due to an error in the accuser's lineup choice.
Clearly some reform is needed in the area, but what and how are very complicated questions.
In a simple sense...
If eyewitness identification is the majority of evidence in many cases, how can reform be done without letting more guilty people off the hook?
Also the difficulty of introducing change into processes have been in the same place forever would be rather difficult. The article sites resistance from both police and prosecutors. Even though the evidence is in place to show otherwise, they still believe the way they are used to is the best way. In what way's can these attitudes be changed?
I would also like to see some information from the other side of the arguement to make sure that the data provided in this article is the norm.