Unit III Wrongful Convictions

Wrongful Convictions: Unit III Article Critique

In their article titled, Safeguards Against Wrongful Conviction in Eyewitness Identification Cases: Insights from Empirical Research, Smith and Dufraimont evaluate the efficacy of two of the safeguards that have in the past been put in place to ensure that mistakenly identified persons are not convicted. One of the key issues the authors raise has got to do with the fact that in the past, there have been numerous instances of wrongful convictions based on eye witness mistakes. In the words of the authors, “several researchers have catalogued known wrongful convictions and documented their commonalities.” Yet another important issue highlighted in the article is the fact that wrongful convictions do not come about as a consequence of eyewitness mistakes only. Instead, wrongful convictions could be caused by defense and Crown lawyers as well as police officers. This is more so the case when the decisions the said lawyers make and the approaches police officers make use of are defective in one way or another. Next, the authors also point to the need for lineup reform procedures. As they observe, the fact that the lineup reform procedures have costs that accompany their inherent benefits must not discourage their adoption. In that regard, therefore, law enforcement personnel ought to fully embrace these reform procedures – particularly given that as the authors of this particular article point out, “they increase the diagnostic value of identifications.”

In essence, as it has been pointed out in the article, psychological laboratories are often the sites of eyewitness identification procedure studies. In my opinion, the lab setting is not only appropriate, but also highly effective in this kind of research. This is more so the case given that in such settings, various variations can be made so as to study specific aspects of interest regarding eyewitness testimonies. Also, the researchers in such a case have the benefit of being aware of all aspects of the entire setting. In that regard therefore, the validity of the conclusions they make based on their observations is further enhanced.

There are various safeguards that the authors of this article put forth to address eyewitness testimony limitations. According to the authors, the adoption of eyewitness procedures designed to curb the identification of innocent suspects remains the best way of ensuring that the innocent are not convicted. Jury education to ensure that jurors are sensitized to eyewitness accuracy could be effective on this front, according to the authors. In their own words, the overall aim of the said education would be “increasing juror sensitivity to eyewitness accuracy…” Further, the relevance of lineup reform procedures cannot be overstated in seeking to address eyewitness testimony limitations. This, according to the authors, is more so the case given that available literature indicates that reforms of that nature would have a significant impact in the further enhancement of “the probability that a suspect is guilty given identification.”