When selecting an image of a potential suspect, eye-witnesses are either shown images one after the other in separate pages or screens, or are presented as a part of a line-up with multiple faces present simultaneously. The issues surrounding these two methods is which is the most accurate for selecting a suspect. Each method has its own positives and negatives. The serial method allows for comparison of faces and features, but also forces the witness into a choice to select someone on the page when the suspect may not be present. The sequential method allows for less distractions and full recognition of a face or person, but also makes witnesses hesitate to pick someone if they are not completely certain. The first makes it more likely for an innocent man to be convicted, the second more likely to release a suspect. The researcher hopes to continue experimentation with eye-gaze tracking software to see how serial and sequential identification methods change the participant's gaze, speed, and accuracy.
The media representation that came to my mind first was the debate over testimony accuracy in 12 Angry Men. The eyewitness testimony claims to have seen the act of murder occur through a passing train car. This testimony is severely discredited, however, when a juror notices her eye glasses marks, indicating that her eyesight and its quality was in question. One could have 20/20 vision, however, and still provide inaccurate testimony. The jurors, especially #2 and #3, make the case that the shaky memory of the boy on trial is evidence on his inability to recall the movie he'd seen the previous day. Unfortunately, these lapses in memory are common for humans, even in immediate short term tasks. Remembering something from a previous day, especially under duress and extreme emotion, can be exponentially difficult. It was for the boy in 12 Angry Men and it is also the case for many who identify suspects after a crime. They are under pressure to select a suspect, are emotionally stressed, and may still be coping with the trauma of the crime. Under such circumstances, how could anyone expect accuracy? Yet, some court rooms and convictions still rely on it.
This movie originally came out in 1957, so the accuracy of such visual memory has been contested for many years. In many ways the eyes are the most easily deceived, yet are considered the best representations of truth. For example, even the hand is faster than the eye, making slight of hand and trivial magic appear miraculous to the naked eye. Yet, there is also the axiom, "seeing is believing." So how does one vision, eyes, sight become a dichotomous reality and deception? The key here is in negotiating the history of communication. All communication between people is a dilution of the subject being discussed. I may tell you about an elephant, but until you see one, the word does not have the proper referent. Seeing, thus, creates the connection between a word, symbol, icon, and the reality. Because of this connection, people often stop analyzing, critiquing, and evaluating once sight is confirmed. This leaves an opening for manipulation and deceit that can be left unchecked.
What is the future of eyewitness testimony? The researcher at the conference discussed the hundreds of scholars currently working on the issue and how it is unlikely to be solved soon. Some states are beginning to legislate eyewitness testimony and it has even been mentioned in Supreme Court cases, but until overarching research, data, and conclusions are achieved, there may continue to be mis-identifications and innocent people behind bars.
No comments:
Post a Comment