Post #8 A Retrospective

I've finally completed assignment #4, and I'm so relieved! I learned about mistakes in eyewitness identification in another class earlier this semester, and I really enjoyed the opportunity to write a paper about it. While I chose not to comment on real world examples in my paper, I did incorporate several U.S. Supreme Court cases, and I believe this strengthened my overall argument.

Now it's time to take a retrospective look at the past 11 weeks.

This semester has flown by, and I can't believe our class is over. The first assignment for WRIT 340 was about plagiarism, and my paper discussed the relationship between psychology and plagiarism.   Through my research for that paper I learned quite a bit, from the fact that copying your own work is plagiarism (who knew!?) to the idea that what may motivate an individual to plagiarize has a lot to do with their mental state of mind rather than pure laziness. As a student I've always been told not to plagiarize, and I remember the first time my middle school teacher had us turn in our work on Turnitin.com. There is so much more to plagiarism than what meets the eye, and my research for the first paper allowed me to gain a better understanding of the ethical responsibility educators have in making sure their students don't plagiarize. I also learned that plagiarism is an issue outside of academia, even authors such as J.K. Rowling are accused of plagiarism!

Through my research for the literature review and the final paper, I learned so much more about Psychology and its relationship to the Criminal Justice System. While the law is very black and white, Psychology allows for a grey area, much of what is studied is up for interpretation. As a result, the law can pick and choose what it likes from these studies and apply psychologist's findings as they see fit. It's interesting to note that psychologist's adhere to a strict code of ethics in their research, while individuals within the criminal justice system (i.e. police officers and detectives) are more willing to manipulate the law to work in their favor.

Research can be a long and arduous process, something that was confirmed by the extensive research I did for my final assignment. While google scholar is a great resource, it doesn't compare to the databases provided by the USC library. I can confidently say after the last 11 weeks, I am more confident now with my research abilities than I was at the beginning of the semester.

One aspect of the class that I really enjoyed was the experience of collaborative learning within the classroom. Peer-editing was very helpful for me, as it gave me the opportunity to flesh out my ideas a little more with other students before writing my final draft. I also thought the worksheets we received in class were helpful in allowing me a chance to further process my ideas. While I'm definitely not a blogger, the experience of self-publishing through this blog was a lot of fun as it gave me another forum to present my ideas, process where I was at in my research, and even post funny videos related to my topic. In fact, the process of blogging for this final assignment gave me an excuse to continue searching for more information on my topic, and showed me just how interested I am in the criminal justice system.

Next semester will be my last semester as an undergraduate at USC, I can't believe I'm going to be graduating. Over the past 11 weeks I've learned quite a bit about my writing style. I applied to law school a few weeks ago, so I know my future will be filled with several opportunities to apply what I've learned in WRIT 340.

Thank you for a great semester!

Sydney

Post #7 Videos and Linked Blogs

While looking for some more research today on my topic for the final assignment, I came across some funny videos that really show some of the mistakes that can be made when an eyewitness is asked to identify the suspect in a police line-up.

The first video, is titled "Darth Vader Police Line-up" in which the witness is asked to identify out of four men (one of which is Darth Vader) the man that killed her husband. While this is a parody of course, it's a good illustration of just how police line-up one suspect that fits the description, and the rest  do not.

The second video is a clip from Seinfeld, in which Kramer is included in a police lineup.

The third video is a discussion of police lineup procedures and what should be the best method for conducting photo lineups. Jon Blum comments on the necessity of police departments to be consistent in their procedures, and should depend upon the agency and their guidelines. He also discusses simultaneous vs. sequential procedures.


Here are some other interesting blogs I've found that relate to the criminal justice system and to my topic, enjoy!

1. False Confessions, the real truth

2. LAPD, an inside look

3. The Innocence Project

Post #6 Presentation Feedback

I received a lot of positive feedback and helpful suggestions following my presentation.

At the end of my presentation, I asked three questions:

1. Should I focus on one solution? Or explore various solutions?

• General consensus is to address multiple solutions since it is such a complex topic. 
• One question I received was whether or not there are court cases to support both sides of the issue. I'm assuming that's asking whether there are cases that view eyewitness testimony as positive vs. cases that focus on its weaknesses. 
• The issue of standardizing eyewitness identification -- an interesting angle I haven't really thought about yet was brought up in one of the comments I received. I would like to look at what impact standardizing interrogation would have and if it's even possible. 

2. Should I incorporate how the psychology behind the presentation of these individuals in police line-ups or photographic displays may perpetuate errors in ID?

• No one really addressed this issue in their comments to me, however overall it seems my classmates were curious as to whether or not the wording used in questioning could impact testimony. I did address this aspect in my presentation, and suggestive wording on behalf of the police and/or detectives absolutely impacts the accuracy of eyewitness identification. 

3. Should I incorporate real-world cases? i.e. Brenton Butler case

• A lot of my classmates thought I should absolutely try and incorporate real-world cases, especially since case studies would strengthen my argument. 
• A lot of my classmates felt I should absolutely add more case studies to show both sides of the identification problem. I think this absolutely goes back to Professor Carroll-Adler's suggestion about incorporating some research on the strengths of eyewitness identification. 
• A question I received a couple times was whether or not there are certain types of cases in which mistaken eyewitness ID occurs more often? i.e. in situations of race and class. This is an interesting question and one I'd like to address, but I'm worried it would broaden my topic more than allow me to narrow it. 

Post #5 Presentation

Once the Literature Review was completed, the next step was to create an oral presentation on our topic for Assignment 4.

I was really excited for the oral presentation because it gave me the opportunity to talk more about my topic, Accuracy in Eyewitness Identification. In combining the two fields of Psychology and the Law, I felt it was important to begin by discussing the state of both fields. The issue of accuracy in eyewitness identification is a perfect combination of psychology and the law because it lends itself well to the scientific method. It's interesting to note that over 90% of wrongful convictions are based on inaccurate eyewitness identifications.

This topic is important as accuracy within the system is crucial, any mistake (while common) can be detrimental for those involved. With this topic, it's interesting to see how the goals of the criminal justice system may conflict with the goals of psychological research. Within the criminal justice system, it appears that more often than not the rush to solve the crime takes priority over discovering the truth. One could say that the goal of identifying the actual (rather than perceived) perpetrator of the crime is elusive, and unintentionally neglected. According to psychological research, for police and detectives a resolution is more desirable than discovering an objectively established truth.

While the Law is black and white, it identifies two separate truths (guilt vs innocence, right vs wrong, etc) Psychology is open to various explanations and is willing to accept a grey area. incorporating psychology into this issue touches on the fact that the study of this phenomenon moves beyond common sense and requires scientific research. The law isn't responsible for these mistaken identifications, rather, it is the result of psychological factors that influence perception and memory.

The ultimate question that will be researched further in my paper is whether or not eyewitness identification can become more reliable? Complete elimination is impossible, and as a result effective solutions have to be identified and then implemented. Through focusing on issues in perception and memory, I plan to further explore this issue in my paper.

Post #4 Literature Review

It's been a few weeks since the Literature Review, but I wanted to wait until I received feedback on the review to blog about it.

For the Literature Review I wanted to focus on the majority of the research I had found up until that point, which consequently focused mainly on the weakness of eyewitness testimony. The truth of the matter is eyewitness testimony is absolutely faulty, it's not the same as hard evidence found at the scene of the crime (i.e. DNA evidence). As a result, misidentifications are more likely to occur.

In the process of writing the Literature Review, I realized that research on the topic focused mainly on the difficulties in exploring the phenomenon, and the incidents that have been studied focus mainly on the weaknesses rather than the strengths.

In looking at the feedback I received on the review, Professor Carroll-Adler made a very interesting point; under what circumstances is eyewitness testimony likely to be more reliable? If experts are able to make the process more reliable, and testimony is viewed as more credible, then it would undoubtedly be easier to determine when testimony becomes unreliable. Yet at the same time, given the high incidence of misidentifications it seems pretty cut and dry that such testimony is more often than not misleading and inaccurate.This is a critical question and one I plan to further research in order to develop a more well-rounded paper.

Another comment Professor Carroll-Adler made was if there is any reason why police and the courts might be reluctant to make sue of psychological findings on this? To be honest, based on the research I've gathered it's evident that police want to solve the crime, they want to match a suspect to the crime. It's not so much that they're reluctant to utilize psychological findings as much as they may not be exposed to these findings. In cases in which these findings are made known to them, they're often disregarded because they move away from the ultimate objective in arresting someone for a crime.

Post #3 Research Progress

After writing the Literature Review for the research I've obtained so far on eyewitness identification, I realized just how extensive of a topic this truly is. There are so many articles and studies that have been published that concentrate on various aspects of eyewitness identification, and its difficult to focus on just one aspect of it. I'm realizing more and more just how important it is to try and refine my research on this particular topic. I'm currently considering limiting the scope of topic even more, more specifically focusing on the presentation of individuals in police line-ups and photographic displays and how that leads to errors in eyewitness identification. I may also still want to incorporate the role of memory, and what may lead to an individual having a "faulty" memory after an emotionally arousing situation like a crime.

My research this weekend will focus on exploring further the reliability of eyewitness identification, and whether or not it is even possible to devise solutions that will increase its reliability. What solutions are the best solutions? Can we even argue that one solution is better than another? Will these solutions account for an increase in reliability? All of these are important questions to consider, and ones I will need to incorporate into my oral presentation next week.

Post #2 Preliminary Research

Last Tuesday's visit to Leavey as a class absolutely helped me find more research on my topic, issues of accuracy in eyewitness identification. I found several psychological studies and reviews of the issue in legal journals. Several of the studies I've found so far focus on issues of memory in identification, while others focus on the impact of these faulty identifications on jurors and convictions.

One article that I found titled, "Fallible Eyewitness Memory and Identification" by Kathy Pezdek discusses eyewitness testimony regarding their identification of the perpetrator as more inaccurate rather than accurate. Pezdek focuses on memory and how the way in which we process memory is inherently error-prone, especially in high stress situations. Pezdek argues for the use of scientific research within this phenomenon, stressing the fact that errors in eyewitness identification must move beyond the use of common sense.

Several of the articles and studies that I have found so far ultimately advocate for a particular solution. More often than not, those solutions were either the use of expert testimony or more intricate judicial instructions.

In furthering my research for the final paper, I hope to find more information on how to make eyewitness identification more reliable. This may include research on how to make police line-ups more reliable, and how the psychology behind the presentation of these individuals may perpetuate the errors in eyewitness identification.