Case Study
With production of documentaries such as Making
a Murderer, it’s no wonder there has been public attention paid to high-profile
cases of wrongful convictions. If you
are unfamiliar, Making a Murderer follows the criminal case of Stephen Avery of Manitowoc County,
Wisconsin. Avery was convicted of rape
and attempted murder in 1985 following a witness identifying him from a lineup. Avery
served 18 years in prison before DNA tests revealed that he was not the
terrible man who committed this crime. Cases
such as these are not as uncommon as you make think. In fact, the number of wrongful convictions
of innocent people is staggering enough that two law students created a project
that exonerates the innocent and prevent future injustices.
The Innocence Project is a team of passionate
individuals, from lawyers to researchers, who help the wrongfully convicted be
freed from prison through DNA exoneration.
To this day they have helped over
300 individuals be released from prison, who have unfairly served an
average of 14 years before their
release.
Eyewitness Testimonies & the Role of Research
Although thousands
of people are grateful for the services of the Innocence Project, action can be taken prior to wrongful conviction so that
their caring efforts are not needed.
There are SO many areas of the legal system that can benefit from
psychological research and SO many areas are underutilizing scientific
findings. To better paint this picture,
let me walk you through a possible scenario of wrongful conviction…
You are
serving on a jury for a terribly sad case of rape and murder, such as jurors
that sat in on the Stephen Avery case.
There is little evidence that points to one suspect; a few alibis, some
conflicting information, and overall no solid proof. The victim stands trial and confidently
points out X as the man who assaulted her.
It is now an easy decision for you, the juror, as you convict X as
guilty.
In the courtroom, and eyewitness identification
serves as very strong evidence as to who committed a crime, especially when
coming from the victim. This isn’t to say that the juror,
or the victim in the case of a false identification, should be blamed for
this. At the time, they have no idea
that they are putting away someone who did not commit the crime; they are
voting guilty because it has been proved to them in court that the person did
it. But, imagine the pain you and the
falsely accused feel 15-odd years later when a DNA proves it wasn’t who you
thought it was.
So, how do
we overcome the possibility of innocent people being put in jail due to false
identifications? There are thousands of
psychological research papers dedicated to a variety of courtroom elements. The research ranges from juror deliberation,
qualification of the judge and other officials, and eye witness
testimonies. Psychological research can be utilized to evaluate current procedures,
and most importantly, present likelihood of how legitimate a piece of evidence
presented in the courtroom is. In
the case of eyewitness testimony, lineup
procedures are often investigated for their accuracy. Lineup procedures receive so much attention
because they are the means to which witnesses are able to identify
perpetrators. Therefore, decisions made
in lineups carry a lot of weight in court. It is important that research in lineups are
utilized because they bring to reality the fact that sometimes, witness
identifications can be wrong. Research
suggests that witnesses typically like
to make a selection, whether they are sure the person they identify is the
perpetrator or not. Additionally, research
of lineups is also useful as they investigate how closely the procedures that ensure accuracy of the witnesses selection
are actually followed.
Lineup Procedures
Currently,
there are 5 recommendations that lineup procedures, by law, should follow
(Wells & Quigley-McBride, 2016):
1) The suspect should not stand out.
2) Only ONE suspect should be present, with the other individuals known innocent.
3) Both the witness, and the officer, should be blind to who is the suspect.
4) The witness should be explicitly told that the perpetrator may not be present in the lineup.
5) Witness should report their certainty
following an identification.
Adherence to these
recommendations ensures that lineups are executed effectively, and false
identifications are minimized. According to Wells and Quigley-McBride
(2016), on paper, these procedures are supported by many law enforcement
agencies across the United States. However, it is hard to determine how
closely each step is followed; although the recommendations are widely received,
we still have hundreds of people wrongfully convicted, many of these people
being falsely identified through lineups. From a citizen's
standpoint, we can do our part by educating ourselves on the dangers of
false identifications. You can get involved in the Innocence Project
yourself, or, if you are ever selected to stand on a jury, you can do your part
in ensuring that the evidence provided is scientific and fair. Always take an objective, scientific
standpoint, and seek the truth!
For more information on the Stephen avery case, see:
http://stevenaverytrial.com
For more information on the Innocence Project, see:
http://www.innocenceproject.org
For more information on lineup procedures and how they are followed in American, see:
Wells, G. L., & Quigley-McBride, A. (2016). Applying Eyewitness Identification Research to the Legal System: A Glance at Where We Have Been and Where We Could Go. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(3), 290-294.
No comments:
Post a Comment