Few contemporary data support the assertion that eyewitnesses are important in police investigations. In the present study, 159 UK police officers were surveyed regarding their perceptions of eyewitnesses and eyewitness performance. The respondents indicated that eyewitnesses usually provide the central leads in criminal investigations; however, the police officers also believed that eyewitnesses rarely provide sufficient information, especially descriptive details as opposed to action details. Nevertheless, the officers believed that eyewitnesses are rarely incorrect. A sizable minority reported that witnesses rarely come forward to the police and that those who do are often reluctant to testify in court. Many officers indicated that they do not have enough time to conduct good eyewitness interviews.
Evidence concerning eyewitness testimony given by people with mental retardation in court was reviewed. Despite general perceptions that people with mental retardation make incompetent witnesses, available evidence suggests that they can provide accurate accounts of witnessed events. The accounts are usually less complete than those provided by the general population and are greatly influenced by the methods of questioning. The sparse available evidence suggests that cross-examination methods may lead to memory distortion. The use of closed, complex, and leading questions and the absence of aids to recall may have a particularly adverse effect on people with mental retardation. Resulting errors could lead to a false conviction or acquittal. Future policy and research in this much neglected area were discussed.
Purpose. To identify the ways in which witnesses with and without intellectual disabilities are examined in court. Specifically to identify what questions are asked and what influence they have. Methods. Court transcripts were obtained for 16 rape, sexual assault or assault trials involving witnesses with intellectual disabilities and 16 matched cases involving witnesses from the general population. The cases were assessed systematically concerning the questioning strategies of lawyers and the influence of those strategies on witness responses. Results. Questioning of witnesses with intellectual disabilities was almost identical to that of witnesses from the general population indicating that lawyers are not altering their questioning behaviour for witnesses with intellectual disabilities, either positively or negatively. Cross‐examination is particularly poor for eliciting accurate memory reports, especially for witnesses with intellectual disabilities. The accounts of witnesses with intellectual disabilities are shorter and more likely to agree with a leading question than are accounts from the general population. Conclusion. The way in which witnesses are examined does little to ensure that their memories are as accurate as possible. People with intellectual disabilities should be questioned in such a way that their ability to give accurate evidence in court is maximized.
The purpose of this study is to explore sex offenders' perceptions of how the police should interview suspected sex offenders to facilitate confessions, and to investigate whether there is a relationship between sex offenders' perceptions of how the police interviewed them and their decisions to confess or deny. Forty-three convicted sex offenders were interviewed using two 35-item questionnaires that contained five questions on each of seven interviewing strategies. An additional 20 violent offenders were included for comparison purposes. The strategies were evidence presenting strategies, ethical interviewing, displays of humanity, displays of dominance, use of minimization and maximization techniques, and demonstrating an understanding of sex offenders' cognitive distortions. One questionnaire concerned how the police should interview sex offenders and the other concerned how they perceived the police who interviewed them. Generally speaking, evidence presenting strategies, ethical interviewing, and displays of humanity were perceived to increase the likelihood of a confession. Interviewer dominance was perceived to be associated with a reduction in the likelihood of a confession. Interviewing suspects 3 Sex offences are difficult to prove because prosecutions typically rely on the victim's word against that of the offender and, unlike many other offences, sex offences most often occur within personal settings with few corroborating witnesses (Greenfield, 1997). Consequently, confession evidence can prove invaluable because the likelihood of securing a conviction is greatly increased (Kassin & Neumann, 1997; but see also Gudjonsson, 2003, for a discussion of the problems associated with false confessions). Further, confessions reduce the likelihood of the victim having to give evidence in court, thereby countering the potentially negative impact on the victim of testifying (Epstein,
Research indicates that the confidence eyewitnesses express in information heavily influences both the investigative process and the credence which jurors give to eyewitness testimony. However, studies in this area suggest that there is either no relationship or only a small positive relationship between eyewitness confidence and accuracy. Nevertheless, it is argued here that researchers may have paid insufficient attention to the issue of item difficulty, and have used statistical procedures that fail to consider highly accurate responses with low variance. In an attempt to address these issues, two experiments were conducted which measured confidence–accuracy in response to information seen in video films. In each case questions were used that ranged in difficulty. Higher confidence–accuracy correlations than are usually reported were found in both experiments. Furthermore, when participants were ‘absolutely certain’ that a piece of information was correct, they almost invariably were accurate.
Purpose. Little research has been conducted on the effects of courtroom examination/questioning styles on witness confidence and accuracy. Two studies were therefore conducted, one investigating the effects of examination style on witness confidence and accuracy, the other investigating observers/jurors perceptions of witness confidence and accuracy. Method. In Study 1, after observing a video event, 60 witnesses were individually interviewed about the event according to one of three conditions: (1) simple questioning style, (2) lawyerese questioning style (containing leading and suppositional phrases), and (3) lawyerese with negative feedback style. In study 2, 60 observers/ jurors observed a good and a poor witness under examination by one of the three questioning styles. Measures of the perceived fairness of the examination were also taken in study 2. Results. In the main, significant results were found only for question items classed as difficult to remember. The lawyerese style appeared to have an adverse affect on confidence‐accuracy relationships. Adding subtle negative feedback reduced the problem, but at the price of reduced overall accuracy. Observers (jurors) also seemed to be most affected by observing the negative feedback style; judging the witness overall to be less accurate. An unexpected result was that, regardless of questioning style, presenting the testimony of the least confident witness first appeared to spuriously boost confidence and thereby perceived accuracy, in that witness's testimony. No significant effects were found for perceived fairness. Conclusions. In general, these results lend some support to those who have asserted that the lawyerese style of questioning may be unwise.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.