On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, frank scott wrote:
> Before people totally disregard eyewitness testimony - someone mentioned
> that witnesses are a problem of some kind to the police - does anyone
> have figures to indicate how many are wrong, and how many right? My
> guess is that most witnesses are correct, and that we only hear about
> the ones who are wrong...anyone know for sure?
>
> fs
>
Cognitive/legal psychologists have studied this extensively. Gary Wells has identified a large number of factors that influence the accuracy of eyewitness identifications--everything from the number of "fillers" in the lineup to the reactions of the detective conducting the lineup to the wording of initial interview questions.
Put bluntly: overall, using standard police procedures in the U. S., when corroborating evidence is available to assess accuracy of eyewitness identifications, eyewitnesses are wrong more often than they are correct. Most detectives and police officers will verify this in candid conversations.
That said, Wells has also argued that procedures can be followed that clearly increase the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. For instance, identification accuracy increases if the officials conducting the lineup do not know which person in the lineup is the suspect. Reno actually started to implement some of these recommendations into D of J guidelines, but I doubt the Bush administration has any interest in basing police activities on any rigorous scientific research.
Miles