Study Weighs In On the Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony

sciencehabit writes The victim peers across the courtroom, points at a man sitting next to a defense lawyer, and confidently says, "That's him!" Such moments have a powerful sway on jurors who decide the fate of thousands of people every day in criminal cases. But how reliable is eyewitness testimony? A new report concludes that the use of eyewitness accounts need tighter control, and among its recommendations is a call for a more scientific approach to how eyewitnesses identify suspects during the classic police lineup.

Comments

Humans are suspectible to tricks.

[gurps_npc]

Lots of little tricks affect the human mind.

You can watch a man in an ape suit dance and never see him. http://www.theinvisiblegorilla...

That's why cops are supposed to do mug shots/line ups sequentially instead of simultaneously (i.e. "Is this the guy? No. How about this guy? No." Rather than "Pick the guy from these people.")

It's also why so many people confess to crimes they did not do.

Their is no such thing as indisputable proof. Just our best guess.

Re:Humans are suspectible to tricks.

[Anubis IV]

That's why cops are supposed to do mug shots/line ups sequentially instead of simultaneously

I actually read the article, and I noticed this tidbit:

For some of the scientific controversies surrounding eyewitness accounts, the new report withholds judgment. For example, the traditional police lineup can be performed in one of two ways: The witness can be shown people sequentially, or all of them at once. The goal is to minimize bias, but scientists disagree on which approach is better—or if it matters at all. The report calls this debate "unresolved."

So, it doesn't disprove what you said, but it does suggest that it's not quite so black-and-white as you put it. They did point out that there is clear evidence in favor of conducting the police lineup in a double-blind fashion, which should be a "no duh" sort of thing for any of us, but apparently is a novel idea for many police departments.

Re:Humans are unreliable

[JeffAtl]

Defense attorneys and the justice system may know that, but juries don't. Other than DNA evidence, eyewitness testimony (especially from victims) is considered gold standard evidence by juries.

It's unfortunate because eyewitness identification of strangers (especially strangers of a differing race) are very unreliable.

It's not accident that prosecutors and cops have been very upset about the "CSI effect" since it has partly educated juries to expect some physical evidence.

Re: The whole juror system needs to be abandoned

[Anonymous Coward]

My psych research specifically investigated the impact of warning a jury about the impact of social contagion on eyewitness statements. It found if you warned jurors they actually take this on board and shift their judgment of the testimony appropriately. This suggests that jurors specifically aren't the problem as such it is more about education - it is a very commonly held belief that eyewitness testimony is strong because people themselves don't question the accuracy of their own memories and tend to apply this in assessing the memory of others.

Re:Recommended documentary on eyewitness testamony

[internerdj]

I read a very interesting piece just this morning where a man who was not talking to police without a lawyer ended up having his silence used to prove that he was lacked basic human empathy in a fatal hit and run. Of course, now I can't find the article.

Re:Recommended documentary on eyewitness testamony

[Whatsisname]

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. - H. L. Mencken