Jimmy Wong
Prof. Dysart
PSY 370
Eyewitness Identification
The overall aspect of eyewitness identification is questionable and has been argued over whether or not it’s plausible and accurate when brought into trials or experiments. Often time’s witnesses are under extreme conditions when their testimonies of events are needed. One question that comes to mind is, due to wrongful convictions found after DNA testing; will eyewitness identification be accurate enough to overturn a wrongful conviction? In a high stressful situation like a crime, witnesses analyze what appears around them and in their surroundings at a shorter time. In addition induced stress, instead of stopping and observing their surroundings, the body to goes into survival mode; …show more content…
law enforcement officers about factors of eyewitness identification and the procedures of conducting interviews and the identification process. 83 officers from departments had implemented eyewitness reforms and 449 officers have not. This data was collected across the country in different regions between the years of 2007 and 2009. In which jurisdiction 1-4 did not implement reform and 5-7 did. Samples 1-3 and 5-6 were requested to complete a brief online questionnaire on eyewitness issues. Over a period of three weeks an initial request and two follow up requests were presented. The samples 4 and 7 completed a paper version of this questionnaire. The purpose of this study was to expand the knowledge of what law officers know and believe about eyewitness testimony. The study revealed that these law officers have limited knowledge of eyewitness procedures and how memory works across the different regions. Their responses indicated that they fail to follow empirical based procedures for conducting fair eyewitness interviews and line ups. Officers from both samples had limited knowledge of eyewitness factors. Reports show that the protocol law enforcements used to conduct interviews and identification procedures violated many provisions of the National Institute of Justice’s Guide and Training Manual. Although one group made eyewitness reforms the difference in knowledge of eyewitness factors or in the use of proper …show more content…
The aim of this study is to investigate the usefulness of an explicit don’t know option in an identification task across variations in memory performance. The study’s participants consisted of 420 students of Flinders University in exchange of payment. Their average age was 25 years old and they all had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. They were presented a staged video clip in which they watch a staged attempted car theft of 15 seconds. It was shot in the perspective of the witness who sees the offender approaching the car and attempting to force the door open. The witness then shouted, alerting the offender of their presences and causing them to flee. In this clip the offenders face was visible for about 6 second and two thirds of that time is a full frontal shot. Two photos were used to identify the offender, one of the offender and one of an innocent that looks like the offender both dressed differently than the offender in the video originally presented. The experiment was completed on the computer with each participant in his or her own cubicle. They were either tested immediately of given a 3 week delay with the options of: making a choice in their own words (spontaneous free-report), choosing between identifying and rejecting the show up (forced report) or don’t know (explicit free report). The
Prof. Dysart
PSY 370
Eyewitness Identification
The overall aspect of eyewitness identification is questionable and has been argued over whether or not it’s plausible and accurate when brought into trials or experiments. Often time’s witnesses are under extreme conditions when their testimonies of events are needed. One question that comes to mind is, due to wrongful convictions found after DNA testing; will eyewitness identification be accurate enough to overturn a wrongful conviction? In a high stressful situation like a crime, witnesses analyze what appears around them and in their surroundings at a shorter time. In addition induced stress, instead of stopping and observing their surroundings, the body to goes into survival mode; …show more content…
law enforcement officers about factors of eyewitness identification and the procedures of conducting interviews and the identification process. 83 officers from departments had implemented eyewitness reforms and 449 officers have not. This data was collected across the country in different regions between the years of 2007 and 2009. In which jurisdiction 1-4 did not implement reform and 5-7 did. Samples 1-3 and 5-6 were requested to complete a brief online questionnaire on eyewitness issues. Over a period of three weeks an initial request and two follow up requests were presented. The samples 4 and 7 completed a paper version of this questionnaire. The purpose of this study was to expand the knowledge of what law officers know and believe about eyewitness testimony. The study revealed that these law officers have limited knowledge of eyewitness procedures and how memory works across the different regions. Their responses indicated that they fail to follow empirical based procedures for conducting fair eyewitness interviews and line ups. Officers from both samples had limited knowledge of eyewitness factors. Reports show that the protocol law enforcements used to conduct interviews and identification procedures violated many provisions of the National Institute of Justice’s Guide and Training Manual. Although one group made eyewitness reforms the difference in knowledge of eyewitness factors or in the use of proper …show more content…
The aim of this study is to investigate the usefulness of an explicit don’t know option in an identification task across variations in memory performance. The study’s participants consisted of 420 students of Flinders University in exchange of payment. Their average age was 25 years old and they all had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. They were presented a staged video clip in which they watch a staged attempted car theft of 15 seconds. It was shot in the perspective of the witness who sees the offender approaching the car and attempting to force the door open. The witness then shouted, alerting the offender of their presences and causing them to flee. In this clip the offenders face was visible for about 6 second and two thirds of that time is a full frontal shot. Two photos were used to identify the offender, one of the offender and one of an innocent that looks like the offender both dressed differently than the offender in the video originally presented. The experiment was completed on the computer with each participant in his or her own cubicle. They were either tested immediately of given a 3 week delay with the options of: making a choice in their own words (spontaneous free-report), choosing between identifying and rejecting the show up (forced report) or don’t know (explicit free report). The