Critical analysis of research studies in criminal justice

Criminal Eyewitness Testimony

Eyewitness testimony, or the sworn oath of persons who believe they have witnesses a crime, or portion of a crime, has long been studied in both the fields of criminology and psychology. Research shows that a jury, for one, tends to convict a person when there is eyewitness testimony present by two to one odds. However, research also shows that criminal eyewitness testimony has the very real potential of being incorrect, and in fact has played a role in more than 75% of overturned and wrongful convictions using new criminological techniques and DNA testing (Eyewitness Misidentification, 2011). Thus, there is a very real concern with the contemporary judicial system that even at the best of times and with the best and most credible witness, eyewitness testimony is often suspect.

Literature Review -- The three articles under consideration are quite detailed in their literature review, citing examples from sociological, psychological, and criminological fields over the past several decades. Legal scholarship, however, both in criminology and criminal law, is typically based on one of two premises: how to best utilize eyewitness testimony in a given courtroom situation and/or how to best overturn any sense of accuracy that an eyewitness may have imparted to the jury. Most of the literature cited were various permutations of injustices proven later from eyewitness testimony, yet all cited more modern psychological research showing advances in human memory and cognition studies that debunk the validity of most recalled memories viewed once under extenuating circumstances (Benton, et.al., 2006; Clarke and Godfrey, 2008; Duke, et al., 2007;

Research Variables Duke, et.al., rely specifically on research reviews from both psychological and criminological studies to amass their data and viewpoint regarding the incorrect and widespread use of eyewitness testimony. Benton, et.al., and Clark and Godfrey, however, focus far more on the psychological literature, as well as their own research variables that focus on short- and long-term memory, cognition, and accurate recall of specific events.

Hypotheses- The three studies in question hold that that members of one race have a measurable deficiency in accurately identifying members of a different race. Whether this is because of skin tone, facial shape, racial attitudes, or even exposure to other races is unknown. However, the data tends to demonstrate that even people who are socially or culturally around other races regularly, and who have no predisposition toward racism still find it even more difficult to correctly identify the individual in question. In addition, once the evidence is collected, however, there is a period of time from several weeks to several months before the case is actually heard before a Jury. Of course, during that time, numerous factors intercede; media attention, changes in the witnesses personal life, belief systems, suggestions from others, and their own ability to recall. Then, once the witness is called in open court, there are even more factors present that may convolute the situation.

Sampling -- Since all three articles either utilize larger sampling pools than their own studies for validation, or combine past studies, the overall sample size tends to be quite large, and statistically viable. In most cases, samples used vary demographically over a larger population and are robust and longitudinal in character.

Research Design -- The two articles focusing on the psychological aspects of eyewitness testimony, Benton and Clark, use standard psychological modifiers and research design, including, but not limited to, double blind studies, extended variables, and more than one control. Duke follows a combination literature review and compilation and review of other research within the field.

Data Collection Methods -- Data collection methods, in combination, are quite adequate for the hypothesis under consideration and include; a large number of actual court cases and appellate testimony by expert witnesses, independent memory and recall studies using a wide population base (demographically and psychographically), and sound statistically analysis for verification.

Data Analysis -- Data is well organized and presented, both in verbal and visual formats; charts and graphs are appropriate for academic research. The data has a great deal of similarity, too, in that it shows that, human nature being what it is, eyewitnesses may not only inadvertently lie or mislead, some may use planned deception to foster false evidence to protect or defame the defendant; some to glean perceived attention, and some may omit or fabricate additions to their testimony out of fear or intimidation. Typically, the Judge will instruct the Jury to pay attention to the "demeanor" and "presence" of the eyewitness, but evidence shows that eyewitnesses who are highly motivated to lie, display fewer visual and physical clues to the point of being "hyper-believable."

Interpretation and Discussion - Law enforcement plays a crucial role, though, in the overview of eyewitness reliability. One of the key reasons, for instance, that eyewitnesses make errors of judgment is the variety of external events that often make up the police procedures used to collect and analyze evidence. For researchers, these are called "system variables," and may affect the accuracy of the identification to a degree that makes the identification almost unusable. This is particularly evident in three common ways that are identified in the psychological and criminological research: 1) authority suggests an answer and using relative judgment, the witness picks a person that most resembles their memory; 2) Instructions (pre line-up or trial instructions) -- usually, the witness is quite nervous and may get conflicting signals from both attorneys as well as the Court; 3) Experimentation bias -- using non-verbal clues, other clues, and the fact that so much time has passed between even and Court recall that the testimony is sketchy at best.

Pre-Lineup Instructions -- usually a witness is nervous at a line-up, and because of the variability of police procedures, may be instructed in different ways. Studies have even shown that if instructions are given that the accused "may or may not" be in the lineup, the outcome of the choice may be skewed.