Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Eyewitness Identification Procedures: The Fifth Rule

Eyewitness Identification Procedures: The Fifth Rule Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 6, 1998 Saul M. Kassin1 The National Institute of Justice recently published a report of the first 28 cases in which convicted felons were exonerated by DNA evidence after varying numbers of years in prison. Remarkably, all of these cases contained one or more false eye- witness identifications (Connors, Lundregan, Miller, & McEwan, 1996). To those unfamiliar with the hundreds of published studies on the subject, this disclosure may come as something of a shock. To members of the scientific community, how- ever, it suggests the humbling possibility that our research has underachieved in its impact on the criminal justice system. The time has come for eyewitness researchers and experts to move out of the laboratory and courtroom—and into the police station. The time has come to use all that we know to improve the procedures used to conduct the lineups and photoarrays that too often give rise to mistaken identifications. In this light, the guidelines put forth by Wells, Small, Penrod, Mai- pass, Fulero, and Brimcombe (1998) represent a most important, insightful, and necessary step. The four recommendations—for double-blind lineup testing, nonbiased in- structions, the matching of distractors to the witness's http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Law and Human Behavior Springer Journals

Eyewitness Identification Procedures: The Fifth Rule

Kassin, Saul
Law and Human Behavior , Volume 22 (6) – Oct 2, 2004
Download PDF
5 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/eyewitness-identification-procedures-the-fifth-rule-mCm4UxPZ1b

References (20)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 by Plenum Publishing Corporation
Subject
Psychology; Law and Psychology; Criminology and Criminal Justice, general; Personality and Social Psychology; Community and Environmental Psychology
ISSN
0147-7307
eISSN
1573-661X
DOI
10.1023/A:1025702722645
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 6, 1998 Saul M. Kassin1 The National Institute of Justice recently published a report of the first 28 cases in which convicted felons were exonerated by DNA evidence after varying numbers of years in prison. Remarkably, all of these cases contained one or more false eye- witness identifications (Connors, Lundregan, Miller, & McEwan, 1996). To those unfamiliar with the hundreds of published studies on the subject, this disclosure may come as something of a shock. To members of the scientific community, how- ever, it suggests the humbling possibility that our research has underachieved in its impact on the criminal justice system. The time has come for eyewitness researchers and experts to move out of the laboratory and courtroom—and into the police station. The time has come to use all that we know to improve the procedures used to conduct the lineups and photoarrays that too often give rise to mistaken identifications. In this light, the guidelines put forth by Wells, Small, Penrod, Mai- pass, Fulero, and Brimcombe (1998) represent a most important, insightful, and necessary step. The four recommendations—for double-blind lineup testing, nonbiased in- structions, the matching of distractors to the witness's

Journal

Law and Human Behavior – Springer Journals

Published: Oct 2, 2004

There are no references for this article.