WHAT CAN WE DO?
Given the evidence and research presented thus far, these authors have several recommendations for law enforcement and accused suspects.
Jessica Erwin
As research grows in this field, it is important that the information is brought, not only to the academic and professional world, but spread throughout the public as well, in hopes that these concepts can become more common knowledge throughout the population. Juries one day might have a higher rate of confident jurors who feel better equipped to serve the justice system and make more stable verdicts in the court cases to come. As the world advances by the second it is crucial that we always value the power of knowledge and how it can offer the best kinds of change.
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." - Nelson Mandela
As research grows in this field, it is important that the information is brought, not only to the academic and professional world, but spread throughout the public as well, in hopes that these concepts can become more common knowledge throughout the population. Juries one day might have a higher rate of confident jurors who feel better equipped to serve the justice system and make more stable verdicts in the court cases to come. As the world advances by the second it is crucial that we always value the power of knowledge and how it can offer the best kinds of change.
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." - Nelson Mandela
Carl Patterson
One of the keys to improving eyewitness memory is in the handling of lineups. Specifically in whether the police should present the eyewitness with a simultaneous lineup (all members are presented to the eyewitness at once) or a sequential lineup (members are presented to the eyewitness one at a time). My recommendation would be to utilize the sequential lineup over the standard simultaneous lineup. Data shows that with either procedure the identification rates are virtually identical when the perpetrator is present otherwise known as target present (TA) (Wells, et al., 2000). However, in a target absent (TA) lineup the number of mistaken identifications changes drastically. The simultaneous procedure has a mistaken identification rate of 43%, whereas the sequential procedure is only 17% (Wells, et al., 2000). In the sequential procedure, the eyewitness must decide for each person whether that person is the perpetrator prior to being allowed to view the next person (Wells, et al., 2000). This procedure discourages eyewitnesses from deciding who looks the most like the perpetrator and randomly making a selection which is unlike the process associated with the simultaneous procedure (Wells, et al., 2000). This eliminates relative judgment. Utilizing the sequential lineup in the double-blind (neither the eyewitness nor the administrator is aware of the target in the lineup) format will also prevent the administrator of the lineup from creating errors whether on purpose or by mistake which cause concerns moving forward in the process such as wrongfully enhancing the eyewitnesses’ confidence. Law enforcement has voiced concerns over the financial aspects and the falsification of the idea that police are not to be trusted to conduct their own investigation when it comes to adding the double-blind element to the process (Wells, et al., 2000). A simple fix for this process is to provide each police station with a computer program that is standard issued for each department to use. If this process is part of the protocol it will eliminate anyone thinking that a particular officer or officers are inept at doing their investigation properly. Also, this program will cut cost on having a separate individual administer this process each time it is necessary.
Reference
Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P., Turtle, J. W., & Fulero, S. M. (2000). From the Lab to the Police Station: A Successful Application of Eyewitness Research. American Psychologist, 55(6), 581-598.
One of the keys to improving eyewitness memory is in the handling of lineups. Specifically in whether the police should present the eyewitness with a simultaneous lineup (all members are presented to the eyewitness at once) or a sequential lineup (members are presented to the eyewitness one at a time). My recommendation would be to utilize the sequential lineup over the standard simultaneous lineup. Data shows that with either procedure the identification rates are virtually identical when the perpetrator is present otherwise known as target present (TA) (Wells, et al., 2000). However, in a target absent (TA) lineup the number of mistaken identifications changes drastically. The simultaneous procedure has a mistaken identification rate of 43%, whereas the sequential procedure is only 17% (Wells, et al., 2000). In the sequential procedure, the eyewitness must decide for each person whether that person is the perpetrator prior to being allowed to view the next person (Wells, et al., 2000). This procedure discourages eyewitnesses from deciding who looks the most like the perpetrator and randomly making a selection which is unlike the process associated with the simultaneous procedure (Wells, et al., 2000). This eliminates relative judgment. Utilizing the sequential lineup in the double-blind (neither the eyewitness nor the administrator is aware of the target in the lineup) format will also prevent the administrator of the lineup from creating errors whether on purpose or by mistake which cause concerns moving forward in the process such as wrongfully enhancing the eyewitnesses’ confidence. Law enforcement has voiced concerns over the financial aspects and the falsification of the idea that police are not to be trusted to conduct their own investigation when it comes to adding the double-blind element to the process (Wells, et al., 2000). A simple fix for this process is to provide each police station with a computer program that is standard issued for each department to use. If this process is part of the protocol it will eliminate anyone thinking that a particular officer or officers are inept at doing their investigation properly. Also, this program will cut cost on having a separate individual administer this process each time it is necessary.
Reference
Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P., Turtle, J. W., & Fulero, S. M. (2000). From the Lab to the Police Station: A Successful Application of Eyewitness Research. American Psychologist, 55(6), 581-598.
Allison Ward
The more you know, the more you grow, the more you grow, the more potential you have to change what you think you know. That is exactly what we can and need to do, question the things we commonly believe to be true. There are an unreasonable amount of people acquitted each year due to falsity in the memory of an eyewitness. This is not only due to the witnesses themselves, but how they were questioned and handled by law enforcement. Those in the judicial system (judges, police, and jurors) need to be properly informed of how the eyewitness memory works according to the psychologists who have spent decades testing and analyzing it. The science is there, we need to find a way to make it known.
Summer Hill
For law enforcement, a strict adherence to guidelines should be met and interviews and lineups should be conducted in effective manners. This includes the idea of using sequential photo lineups. During the lineup, the administrator can be an officer who is involved so the witness is more comfortable. But, the officer must not be able to tell which person the witness is viewing. Further, no feedback ("good job" or "we thought that was him") should be given. Something like a simple thank you can be included. People who believe they have been wrongly accused should make sure their lawyers are having all of these things done. Jurors need some sort of training in eyewitness testimony, proper procedures, terminology, system variables, and estimator variables.
Ryan Garner
The research has shown that Judges, law enforcement, and juries are not familiar with the real facts of eye witness memory (Benton et al., 2006). Many judges and police officers tend to go by tradition and gut feelings instead of real, evidence-based training (Benton et al., 2006). Naturally, people are very resilient to change, so how to we stop this? The science is out there, and so are the methods to make things better. The best way to make a change and mandate training is through your local legislator. Contact your local lawmakers and let them know that you want to see a change in the way eye witness memory is viewed. Make them aware of the information you have learned here and demand change. We live in a democracy, and we have a voice in the laws that are made. Get your legislator's attention, push for a bill to be made, and vote in state questions if it comes to that. You can help prevent innocent people form being falsely convicted. You can make a difference.
"As a citizen, you need to know how to be a part of it, how to express yourself - and not just by voting." - Sandra Day O'Connor
References
Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E., Thomas, W. N., & Bradshaw, G. S. (2006). Eyewitness Memory is Still Not Common Sense: Comparing Jurors and Law Enforcement to Eyewitness Experts. Applies Cognitive Psychology, 20, 115-129.