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.