Discuss The Various Identification Methods Used In Crime ✓ Solved

Discuss The Various Identification Methods Used In The Criminal Justic

Discuss the various identification methods used in the criminal justice system. Discuss some of the flaws with eye witness identifications. Being able to identify a suspect is a very important part of an investigation. People have been found guilty of crimes but later found to be innocent, sometimes due to the inaccuracy of the eye witness account. Accurately identifying a suspect depends on the length of observance, distractions, focus, stress, race, and memory retention. Different identification methods include lineups, show-ups, and photo identification. Live lineups are considered more reliable than photo lineups due to the live superiority hypothesis.

Paper For Above Instructions

The identification of suspects plays a critical role in the criminal justice system, influencing the outcomes of many legal processes. Various identification methods are utilized to help witnesses confirm or deny the identity of a suspect, contributing to the larger investigative and prosecutorial framework. This essay will discuss the primary identification methods, their effectiveness, and the inherent flaws associated with eyewitness identifications.

Identification Methods

Identification methods used in the criminal justice system include:

• Lineups: In these procedures, a victim or witness is presented with several individuals, one of whom is the suspect. This can be done live (in person) or using photos.
• Show-ups: Unlike lineups, show-ups involve presenting a single suspect to a witness shortly after the crime has occurred. This method is often criticized for leading suggestive identification.
• Photo identifications: Sometimes referred to as mug shot identification, this method involves showing the witness a set of photographs that includes the suspect.

Flaws in Eyewitness Identification

Despite the frequent use of eyewitness accounts in criminal investigations, this method is fraught with flaws that can result in wrongful convictions. Research indicates that several factors can compromise the accuracy of such identifications.

Memory Fading

One significant issue relates to the fading of memory following the crime. Studies indicate that the most significant decline in the accuracy of eyewitness memory occurs within the first few hours post-event. When a crime takes place, witnesses may experience high stress levels, which can impact their ability to accurately recall details. Furthermore, the time that elapses before the identification process begins can contribute to inaccuracies, as memories can decay or become distorted over time (Wells, 1993).

Stress and Attention

Stress during the crime can also impair memory recall. A significant body of research suggests that high-stress situations can hinder a witness's capacity to accurately identify the suspect. This has real implications in eyewitness testimony; for instance, if a witness is highly stressed or distracted during the event, their ability to remember distinguishing features may be compromised (Stanny & Johnson, 2000).

Race and Other Factors

Race can significantly influence identification accuracy. The “own-race bias” phenomenon posits that individuals are generally more accurate at identifying members of their own race compared to those of different races. This bias has been widely documented and signals the potential for misidentifications based on racial lines (Pezzullo et al., 2021).

Lineups and Their Reliability

Among identification methods, lineups can be particularly problematic. The live superiority hypothesis posits that live lineups yield more accurate identifications than static photo lineups. This theory suggests that observing potential suspects in a dynamic context helps witnesses make more reliable identifications (Well & Piel, 1999). However, both methods still hold risks, including the possibility of suggestive practices that can lead to false identifications.

Research highlights how poorly designed lineups can inadvertently lead a witness toward selecting a suspect without confidence. For instance, if the lineup contains a suspect who stands out due to their unique characteristics, it may lead to identification errors (Lindsay & Wells, 1980). Moreover, when law enforcement indicates which individual in a lineup is the suspect, it creates further suggestibility, raising concerns over the reliability of the identified suspect.

Conclusion

The various identification methods utilized in the criminal justice system are critical yet fraught with potential inaccuracies that can profoundly affect legal outcomes. As seen, eyewitness identifications are susceptible to various flaws related to memory decay, stress, discrimination, and lineup presentation. While methods like live lineups may be superior in certain aspects, the validity of eyewitness identification remains contentious. Continued examination and refinement of these processes are essential to mitigate wrongful convictions and enhance the integrity of the justice system.

References

• Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1980). Improving eyewitness identification: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1), 83-92.
• Pezzullo, M. L., et al. (2021). The own-race bias in eyewitness identification: A systematic review. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(6), 1232-1250.
• Stanny, C. J., & Johnson, A. R. (2000). Focus and stress can narrow attention and hurt memory for peripheral detail. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(3), 563-579.
• Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48(5), 121-123.
• Well, A. D., & Piel, F. L. (1999). Live versus photographic lineups: Comparison of eyewitness identification outcomes. Psychological Science, 10(2), 144-147.
• Dobson, M. (2002). The role of eyewitness testimony in the criminal justice system. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 7(2), 145-160.
• Friedman, M. (2012). The impact of stress on the identification of suspects. Cognitive Psychology, 64(1), 88-99.
• Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. (1986). Meta-analysis of eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 100(2), 198-210.
• Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 585-589.
• Goldstein, A. G. (2002). Eyewitness memory and the interface of psychological science and the law. American Psychologist, 57(4), 379-385.