As we have often seen in movies and television shows depicting the criminal justice system, an eyewitness is shown picking a culprit out of a police lineup. However, what movies and television shows do not address is how often mistakes are made with eyewitness identifications. In actual police lineups, eyewitness accounts are relied upon in our criminal justice system as a key tool to identify, convict, and charge individuals. The hope is that these identifications are accurate. Eyewitness identifications have been shown to sometimes be inaccurate (Ross, Read, & Togolia, 1994). As the use of DNA evidence has progressed, studies have shown that eyewitness identifications are often incorrect, thus innocent people have been wrongfully convicted
…show more content…
More specifically, many of these studies reflected the concept of time and its relationship to eyewitness identification and accuracy. Four of the studies examined response latency, which is the duration between the delivery of a stimulus and the response. In relation to this eyewitness issue, response latency is the duration between the delivery of the lineup and the decision that the eyewitness makes. Dunning & Peretta (2002) concluded that accurate decisions were made within 10-12 seconds. This response latency finding is referred to as “10-12 second rule.” In another study, however, Sauer, Brewer, and Wells (2008) tested the generality of this theory and have disproved the “10-12 second rule” as a reliable theory in predicting accurate decisions. What Sauer, Brewer and Wells (2008) did find was that a high level of confidence, combined with a time boundary, but not necessarily 10-12 seconds, yielded more accurate …show more content…
Finally, Brewer, Caon, Todd, & Weber (2006) found that many accurate decisions are actually made before the hypothesized optimum time boundary of 10-12 seconds. In Sauer, Brewer, and Wells’ study (2008), a sequential lineup was used and the computer timed the duration between the stimulus, police lineup, and the response, yes or no. Brewer, Caon, Todd, and Weber (2006) used a similar method in which response latency was recorded by the
More specifically, many of these studies reflected the concept of time and its relationship to eyewitness identification and accuracy. Four of the studies examined response latency, which is the duration between the delivery of a stimulus and the response. In relation to this eyewitness issue, response latency is the duration between the delivery of the lineup and the decision that the eyewitness makes. Dunning & Peretta (2002) concluded that accurate decisions were made within 10-12 seconds. This response latency finding is referred to as “10-12 second rule.” In another study, however, Sauer, Brewer, and Wells (2008) tested the generality of this theory and have disproved the “10-12 second rule” as a reliable theory in predicting accurate decisions. What Sauer, Brewer and Wells (2008) did find was that a high level of confidence, combined with a time boundary, but not necessarily 10-12 seconds, yielded more accurate …show more content…
Finally, Brewer, Caon, Todd, & Weber (2006) found that many accurate decisions are actually made before the hypothesized optimum time boundary of 10-12 seconds. In Sauer, Brewer, and Wells’ study (2008), a sequential lineup was used and the computer timed the duration between the stimulus, police lineup, and the response, yes or no. Brewer, Caon, Todd, and Weber (2006) used a similar method in which response latency was recorded by the