The Intersection

                                                                                                              Decades of forensic psychology research has intersected with law and in many instances drove right past each other. Research that could prove very advantageous in a courtroom is being ignored throughout the United States. Topics such as the shortfalls of eyewitness testimony are being overlooked in the courtroom. The need to find the perpetrator of a crime is so great that police officers, victims and their families, the media, and members of society, prefer to lock someone up instead of no one at all. It comforts us knowing that the criminal is behind bars and not out roaming the streets. Even years of research (which is readily available to lawyers, judges, politicians, police officers, policy makers, and the general public) get silenced when it comes to a human beings need for justice. Emotions run so high that it clouds our better judgment and objectivity.

The human element that forensic psychology brings to the courtroom needs to be seen in a more serious light. Experts are not conducting research simply for their own entertainment. They are not spending endless hours designing and leading research experiments so that the data could sit somewhere and collect dust.  A couple of years ago, the National Research Council (NRC) organized a committee of psychologists and criminologists to report specifically on the topic of eyewitness testimony. As they poured through the data collected in the last 30 years, the scientific evidence was overwhelming. They released their report in October, 2014 and below are just a few of their science-based recommendations regarding police procedures:

·        Implement double-blind lineups

·        Take confidence statements

·        Electronically record identification sessions

Establishing such protocol may lead to fewer identifications which may be why officers and courtrooms are hesitant to enforce them, but it’s still no excuse. The recommendations are not burdensome and enforcement agencies should get on board.

Getting locked up for a crime you did not commit sounds like someone else’s problem – but it’s not. Laws need to change as science and technology evolve. At this moment, people in prisons throughout the country are begging for science to intervene so that they can prove their innocence. Policy makers throughout police agencies need to update their procedures to accommodate the new research. Lawyers and judges need to be mindful of the research and change how cases are prosecuted. Politicians and legislators should engage with the public on such issues and consider updating state and federal laws. Meanwhile, psychologists need to communicate the science behind eyewitness testimony to the jury and continue to shed light on the topic through more rigorous research.  

Only time will tell whether their recommendations will be taken seriously. Fortunately, even if the recommendations aren’t implemented, activists will continue working to exonerate the innocent. They will use whatever scientific tools available to them to get their points across. I imagine that at some point, legislatures and police precincts will have to heed the advice of experts. I am hopeful that eventually forensic psychology and law will make an effort to head in the same direction – but I’m not going to hold my breath.

Question for you:

Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus states that one of the best ways to improve the police identification process is to use a computer system to generate the lineup without any interference from law enforcement. This could improve the procedure but it is costly. Essentially the computer would auto populate the lineup using a photo database. What are your thoughts about this costly but effective future recommendation?


Special thank you to all the readers who have commented on this topic throughout the life cycle of this blog. Please see below for a collection of your wonderful feedback!!

Amanda Kelsheimer: Firstly, I think it is because the field of Psychology, a very legitimate and relevant science, has been and still is today this day, treated like a pseudo-science by many. I don't think people respect Psychology enough and thus tend to dismiss psychologically proven arguments and theories that can be lifesaving. Second, I think that our judicial system has yet to change because we as humans want to believe that we do not make these kinds of drastic mistakes. We want to believe that we know what we see, that we are accurate and that our brain does not play tricks on us. These two unfortunate reasons are probably why the system has yet to change.

 

Karine Hensley: I think people hold on to the notion that eyewitnesses are factual and trustworthy because they are so eager to catch the perpetrator. People also underestimate how priming and emotions can negatively affect the validity of an eyewitness. Lastly, the pressure put on the eyewitness may lead them to confabulate facts so they can provide answers.

 

Crystal: I still think eyewitness accounts are very damaging and should not be used in court or in a line up. Police can also alter the memories of what the person looked like, helping the problem with wrongful convictions. Therapy can also trigger false memories and could cause a person to make false allegations, like child abuse or molestation.

 

John Fadoju: As much as I hate to hear and see innocent people go to jail for what they’ve been wrongly accused of, the question is what other methods are there especially in situations where there are no security cameras to review, finger prints or DNA to go on.

 

Tesfay: Another problem is, the quality of ‎defense. Most of these people are not too rich to afford high profile lawyers to match the state’s ‎prosecutors to fight and prove their innocence

 

Andi Robbins: When I was looking at the lineup I didn't think he was there, but there was no option for that so I just chose one. I can see how people in real life might think they also have to from the people in a line up. They have probably assumed that the police have done their jobs correctly and have included the guilty party.

 

Kevin C: Eyewitness testimony, as you suggested, is an extremely dangerous concept and it shocks me how this is even admissible in a court of law.

 

Brandon Gum: As for those that are eventually proven innocent, they have most likely wasted the best part of their lives in prison. How will a person find a job and start a life after they have been set back 20 years or so? There is no way that someone could possibly live a positive life after these situations.

 

Wendy Morales: I also think that in general every American should have some kind of knowledge of the reality of our correction & law system so that if selected to be part of a jury one is conscience of misidentification vs. evidence, in order to make ones cast: guilty vs. not guilty.

 

Ayesha Qadri: This seems like a simple issue to comprehend but why is it so difficult for our system to understand and take try to change it.

 

Cristina D.: It was really interesting to read about Hugo Munsterberg. He definitely accomplished a lot during his lifetime and made some great contribution for society despite his apparent reputation.

 

Carlos Zavala: Eye witness testimony in my opinion could be used as an aid but not sole evidence to put someone away.