Research methods in criminal justice

Ethics in Research

An error in human inquiry

Eyewitness testimony is frequently presented in criminal court cases, but it can be extremely unreliable. This unreliability is compounded when witnesses must identify persons of groups other than their own or when their experience is clouded because of exterior circumstances such as a lack of visibility or a heated, pressured moment. This was noteworthy in one 1984 case in which a Caucasian woman was raped and identified an African-American man out of a lineup of photographs within four or five minutes. "Police asked Thompson-Cannino to help draw a composite of her rapist. Later, she was shown a photo array with six photos. She initially chose two pictures from the array, one of which depicted [Ronald] Cotton," an African-American male (Garrett 2011). Cotton was later found to be innocent as a result of DNA evidence ten years later and the true rapist was later found, also using DNA.

It is not always possible to substantiate someone's innocence scientifically. However, in retrospect, criminologists find many faults with how Thompson-Cannino was questioned. "We do know that even unintended cues by well-meaning officers can play a dramatic role during these fraught identification procedures," and instead of a double-blind lineup, in which the examining officer does not know who the suspect is in the 'mug shots,' the officer questioning Thompson-Cannino was well aware that Cotton had been arrested and engaged in prompting the uncertain victim to make her incorrect selection (Garrett 2011). It is important to minimize all extraneous stimuli when victims are making identification and be aware of the fact that even though they may have experienced a horrific crime, memory is still imperfect. Fortunately, DNA is not subject to the same biases.