Bending Toward Justice in Eyewitness Identification Research

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 346-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Bradfield Douglass
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-28
Author(s):  
Graham Pike ◽  
Catriona Havard ◽  
Gini Harrison ◽  
Hayley Ness

Research has undoubtedly led to a number of important changes to the way police obtain eyewitness identification evidence in a number of countries. However, despite these successes and the significant effort made by researchers to communicate key findings to public agencies, policy-makers and influential law enforcement personnel using a broad range of evidence, relevant policy and practice have either been very slow to respond or have not changed to incorporate the suggestions at all. In this article we employed an online survey to explore the knowledge and opinions of front-line policing practitioners in the UK regarding eyewitness research and practice. This was undertaken to determine how familiar less-senior, operational staff were with key research findings, what their opinions of current practice were and crucially, their views on how identification procedures should be improved compared with the recommendations made by researchers. The results revealed a fundamental mismatch between research and practice, with practitioners indicating a need to increase the rate of positive identifications and research tending to focus on methods of reducing false identifications. This result suggests that an approach driven by the need for the police to produce convictions may be an important factor that is blocking the translation of eyewitness identification research into practice.


Author(s):  
Timothy J. Hollins ◽  
Nathan Weber

Eyewitness metacognition has been studied in two broad areas, event memory and identification decisions. Event memory research has focused primarily on metacognitive control over what is reported, while identification research has focused primarily on metacognitive monitoring. Event memory studies show that witnesses can control the accuracy and precision of answers that they choose to report but control is limited by social factors such as perceived informativeness or concerns with self-presentation. Contrary to prior claims, recent eyewitness identification research shows that confidence is predictive of the likely accuracy of a selection from a lineup, but is not informative about the accuracy of lineup rejections. The few studies to examine the control in identification suggest that the option to respond don’t know offers a practical method to improve the quality of identification evidence with minimal impact on the amount of trustworthy evidence obtained.


1989 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 385-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. O'Rourke ◽  
Steven D. Penrod ◽  
Brian L. Cutler ◽  
Thomas E. Stuve

1980 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 347-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy S. Malpass ◽  
Patricia G. Devine

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document