Discussion 5
Introduction
The primary goal of every investigating officer is to apprehend the perpetrator before he/she strikes again. Hence, the police will look to push for swift solving of cases. However, while the attitude of police should receive commendation, their motives can wrongfully convict innocent people. Zealous crime fighting often leads to the suffering of innocent people. From the time a crime happens, police officers will be under pressure to solve the crime. The pressure from office bearers and superiors will increase depending on the nature of the crime. This pressure often translates into police misconduct during eyewitness identification lineups (Lyman, 2013).
Identification lineups are investigation techniques aimed at generating leads for the case. However, it is not uncommon for police departments to use this procedure to build their case against the suspect. The procedure is highly controversial especially since the advent of DNA technology. Police departments still use this procedure for several types of criminal activity since there may not be much of forensic evidence or to close high profile cases quickly. Police lineups are unreliable almost seventy-five percent of the time. Nonetheless, it is necessary for the victim or an eyewitness to identify the suspect positively for a case to hold its own in court (Swanson, Chamelin, Territo, and Taylor, 2012).
Eyewitnesses or victims have first-hand exposure to criminal activity and they will be under severe duress at the time of identification lineups. In addition, at present the crime rate for certain criminal actions is very high and the conviction rate significantly low. This creates an empathetic situation for the eyewitnesses and inculcates a desire to please the police officers. The eyewitnesses offer false identifications as an emotional reward for the police officers investigating the case. Moreover, lineup rigging is common in several parts of the country. There are laws against improper presentation and provisions to exclude such tainted evidence from the case. While these provisions serve to protect the innocent, they also inadvertently allow the real criminals to exploit the situation. Police lineups cannot become redundant since it is the only way for the police and prosecution to know before DNA testing (if DNA evidence is available). Since there are no avenues in the law to procure a blood sample, only an arrest or a warrant will permit law enforcement such collections. These warrants are possible only if the victim can be positive about the identity of the perpetrator.
Police lineups can become effective by adhering to the proper recommendations. Presentation, administration, and analysis must become integral parts of a police lineup to reduce the number of errors. The presentation must include individuals with uniform physical features. There should not be any proxy suspects lined up. If the police use photos, they should have the same dimensions, color features, facial features, and avoiding the use of mug shots. The next step is to allow a different officer who does not have any information of the crime to conduct the lineup. Finally, the police must analyze the initial description provided by the eyewitness or victims to the person picked from the lineup. If there are more than two discrepancies, they should void the lineup outcome and wait for additional evidence to surface (Lyman, 2013).
Misuse of lineups
Lineups have a high rate for manipulation by police. Suspect identification based on clues given by police officers or the undue provision of information before the lineup are common practices. The police, on occasion also use a lineup where the suspect will stand out. The 1970s case of James Bain is a classic example on how not to conduct a lineup. The victim, a child, was given a lineup of men where only James Bain vaguely resembled the suspect. The child mistakenly identified James Bain after his uncle told a police officer that the victim’s description matched Bain. It would take thirty-five years and DNA evidence to exonerate James Bain in 2013 (Sterbenz, 2013). Using the same individual in different lineups, passing comments about the suspect to the eyewitness or the victim, nudging the witness to pick the suspect, making the suspect speak certain phrases, improper lineup presentations, and providing the suspect’s photo as a mug shot are some of the ways to misuse photo lineups (Lyman, 2013).
References
Lyman, M. D. (2013). Criminal Investigation. Pearsons. Upper Saddle River: NJ. Pp. 56–73.
Swanson, C. R., Chamelin, N. C., Territo, L., and Taylor, R. W. (2012). Criminal Investigation. McGraw-Hill. New York: NY. Pp. 81–118.
Sterbenz, C. (2013). This Innocent Man Spent 35 Years In Prison Before DNA Evidence Proved He Didn't Rape A 9-Year-Old Boy. Retrieved from: www.businessinsider.com/james-bain-exonerated-after-35-years-in-prison-2013-10
