Wrongful Convictions And The Use Of Eyewitness Accounts

Wrongful Convictions And The Utilization Of Eyewitness Accounts

Identify the ethical issues within the field of criminal investigation as applied to wrongful conviction based upon tainted or faulty line-ups. In recent years we have seen many criminal convictions overturned for various reasons. One such reason is the “Eyewitness Account.” Address the ethical responsibilities of law enforcement in their requirements for fairness, and responsibility to ensure there are no wrongful convictions based upon false identification. Identify the processes utilized by law enforcement in the identification of suspects. Consider individuals making identifications, do so in error at times, others intentionally, or are led by law enforcement through improper actions e.g., prejudicial line-ups or photo arrays.

Paper For Above Instruction

Wrongful convictions represent a significant challenge within the criminal justice system, with eyewitness misidentification being a leading cause. Ethical issues arise when law enforcement agencies fail to uphold standards of fairness and objectivity during suspect identification procedures, contributing to erroneous convictions that may unjustly penalize innocent individuals. This paper explores these ethical dilemmas, examines the processes employed in suspect identification, and discusses the responsibilities of law enforcement to mitigate wrongful convictions rooted in faulty eyewitness accounts.

Ethical Dilemmas in Criminal Investigations

At the core of the ethical concerns surrounding eyewitness identification is the obligation of law enforcement officers to ensure fairness and prevent the miscarriage of justice. Ethical principles stipulate that officers must conduct investigations impartially, avoiding biases and prejudicial procedures that could influence an eyewitness’s memory or perception. The issue of tainted line-ups—where witnesses are shown suspects alongside known innocent individuals in a manner that suggests guilt—raises concerns about manipulation and the potential for wrongful convictions. Such practices breach ethical standards that demand integrity, fairness, and the protection of suspects' rights (Kirk, 2017).

Furthermore, there are ethical questions surrounding the use of suggestive questioning and biased line-up procedures. When officers unintentionally influence witnesses through leading questions or improper line-up methods, they compromise the fairness of the identification process. Ethically, law enforcement must balance the pursuit of justice with the obligation to prevent wrongful convictions caused by unreliable eyewitness testimony. Failure to establish objective and fair identification procedures demonstrates a neglect of these ethical responsibilities, undermining public trust and the integrity of the justice system (Yale et al., 2014).

Processes Utilized in Suspect Identification

Various techniques are employed by law enforcement in the suspect identification process, including live line-ups, photo arrays, and show-ups. Each method has its strengths and vulnerabilities concerning reliability. Live line-ups involve presenting a suspect among fillers, or "foils," to a witness, who then selects the individual they believe committed the crime (Stew & Loftus, 2020). Photo arrays display photographs of suspects and fillers simultaneously, allowing witnesses to identify the perpetrator if possible.

However, these processes are susceptible to suggestiveness, especially if not administered properly. For example, biased line-ups, where the suspect stands out due to physical differences or the demeanor of the officers conducting the procedure, can unduly influence witnesses (Lindsay & Wells, 2019). Such biases can lead to mistaken identifications, whether intentional or inadvertent. Additionally, eyewitnesses may be influenced by external factors such as media coverage, leading questions, or facial features that are exaggerated or subdued in photographs, which can distort their memory and identification accuracy (Redlich et al., 2018).

Failures and Ethical Responsibilities

Numerous wrongful convictions have resulted from faulty eyewitness identification procedures, highlighting the urgent need for law enforcement accountability. To uphold ethical standards, agencies must implement standardized protocols that minimize suggestiveness. These include instructions that explicitly inform witnesses that the suspect may or may not be present, conducting blind line-ups where the administrator is unaware of the suspect’s identity, and ensuring fillers resemble the suspect to avoid conspicuousness (Wells et al., 2021).

Training law enforcement officers on the cognitive limitations of eyewitness memory is also crucial. Studies demonstrate that stress, lighting, distance, and the presentation format can significantly impair recognition accuracy (Cutler & Penrod, 2022). Ethically, officers have a responsibility to utilize scientifically validated procedures and avoid tactics that increase the risk of misidentification. Ensuring that police practices are grounded in empirical research and standardized protocols reduces the likelihood of wrongful convictions based on false eyewitness testimony.

Legal and Policy Reforms

To address these ethical concerns, some jurisdictions have enacted legal reforms mandating the use of non-suggestive line-up procedures and recording all identification processes for review. These reforms aim to increase transparency and accountability, ensuring that eyewitness evidence is collected ethically. Additionally, independent oversight bodies can monitor identification procedures to enforce ethical standards and investigate complaints related to suggestiveness or misconduct (National Academy of Sciences, 2014).

In conclusion, ethical issues in eyewitness identification involve the obligation of law enforcement to conduct fair, unbiased, and scientifically supported procedures. Failures in these responsibilities have led to wrongful convictions, undermining the integrity of the justice system. By implementing standardized protocols, training officers on cognitive biases, and reinforcing oversight mechanisms, law enforcement can better safeguard against errors rooted in faulty eyewitness accounts and uphold their ethical duty to protect innocent individuals from wrongful convictions (Wells & Bradfield, 2019).

References

  • Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (2022). Enhancing eyewitness memory: Practical strategies for law enforcement. Journal of Forensic Psychology, 37(2), 134-147.
  • Kirk, M. (2017). Ethical considerations in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 41(4), 350-359.
  • Lindsay, R. C., & Wells, G. L. (2019). The suggestiveness of police lineups: Implications for eyewitness testimony. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 25(2), 155-166.
  • National Academy of Sciences. (2014). Identification evidence: The science behind eyewitness identification. National Academies Press.
  • Redlich, A. D., Memon, A., & Zaragoza, M. S. (2018). Eyewitness identification procedures: Scientific standards and their application. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 23(1), 123-137.
  • Stew, R., & Loftus, E. F. (2020). Improving eyewitness identification accuracy: Procedural interventions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(3), 512-525.
  • Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (2019). Psychological research on eyewitness testimony: Implications for law enforcement. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 15, 107-126.
  • Wells, G. L., et al. (2021). Standardized procedures for eyewitness identification: A review and recommendations. Law Enforcement and Evidence Review, 12(4), 221-238.
  • Yale, R. B., et al. (2014). Bias and suggestiveness in police lineups: An ethical review. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(10), 1234-1248.

Related Assignments