Eyewitness identification evidence plays a great role in a trial and in deciding whether a suspect is a culprit or an innocent person. Mistaken identifications can lead to accusing innocent people or releasing a guilty person. That is why it is extremely important to take the eyewitness identification procedure seriously and to create the appropriate conditions for the witness to make the right choice. One of the ways to obtain eyewitness identification evidence is a lineup. In this paper, I am going to provide some recommendations for the procedure described in the task. My arguments will be based on the works of two prominent psychologists Garry L. Wells and Elizabeth A. Olson.
A lineup is a procedure when an eyewitness is shown a number of people and he or she has to identify a suspect among them. A suspect may not necessarily be the culprit. A traditional lineup includes six people, one of them is a suspect and the others are called fillers. There are two types of lineups. They are culprit-present and culprit-absent. The latter may cause many problems in identifying the suspect, that is why the first type is usually used (Wells & Olson, 2002). Moreover, only one suspect per lineup should be present, as it was mentioned in the task.
The method of the lineup described in the task is called a simultaneous lineup because the eyewitness is able to see all six people at once. The advantage of this method is that the eyewitness can compare the people and identify that person who resembles the suspect the most. In case when the eyewitness does not remember the suspect well, this kind of the lineup makes it easier for the witness to make the right choice. However, it is recommended to use the sequential procedure more often. In this case, only one person is shown to the witness at a time. The witness is unaware of the number of people being shown. It is not allowed to show the same person more than once. This method is considered to provide less mistaken identifications, as the witness has to concentrate heavily and makes it impossible to point at a person who simply resembles the suspect more than the others (Wells, 2006).
What concerns the choice of the fillers, it is correct that they are of the same ethnicity as the suspect. Nevertheless, I would recommend choosing fillers who resemble the suspect more. The psychologists state that there is a tendency to apply a relative-judgment decision process by the witnesses when identifying the suspect in the lineup. It means that they commonly point at an individual who bears the most resemblance to the suspect (Wells, 2006). It is proven that when the fillers do not resemble each other, have different weight, height, hair color and facial hair, the suspect will more likely attract the attention of the witness, though it may not be the culprit.
It is also mentioned in the suggested procedure that the police officers that have been conducting the investigation also handle lineups. But it has become a common practice to apply double-blind testing. It means that the person who administers the lineup does not know who the suspect is. The police officers may involuntarily influence the results of the witness identification, as they already know who is suspected (Wells, 2006).
Some other recommendations for improving the lineup procedure include cautioning the eyewitness that there is a chance that the suspect may not necessarily be present in the lineup. It reduces the possibility of accusing the innocent person when the witness cannot recognize the suspect but still has to point at someone. The advantage of this method is that it has only a little impact on the procedure when the lineup includes the suspect (Wells, 2006).
The witness has the right to know the results of the identification, especially when the witness is a victim. However, a confidence statement should be made at the time of the identification to show how sure the witness was in his or her evidence during the procedure. Indicating the real suspect to the witness before making the confidence statement will influence the results (Wells & Olson, 2002).
References
Wells, G. (2006). Eyewitness identification: Systemic reforms. Wisconsin Law Review, 2, 615-643 [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://wells.socialpsychology.org/publications
Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277-295 [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://wells.socialpsychology.org/publications
