Richard A. Wise

What judges know about eyewitness testimony: A comparison of Norwegian and US judges

Abstract We surveyed 157 Norwegian judges about their knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony, and compared their answers to a prior survey of 160 US judges. Although the Norwegian judges were somewhat more knowledgeable than the US judges, both groups had limited knowledge of eyewitness testimony. The Norwegian judges, like the US judges, frequently differed from eyewitness experts in their responses to such important issues as whether eyewitness confidence is related to identification accuracy at trial and what is the best method for conducting identification procedures. As was true for the US judges, more knowledgeable Norwegian judges had many of the beliefs that may be necessary for reducing and mitigating the effects of eyewitness error. The results suggest that increasing judges’ knowledge of eyewitness testimony may be an important component of the solution to eyewitness error.

An Examination of the Causes and Solutions to Eyewitness Error

Eyewitness error is one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions. In fact, the American Psychological Association estimates that one in three eyewitnesses make an erroneous identification. In this review, we look briefly at some of the causes of eyewitness error. We examine what jurors, judges, attorneys, law officers, and experts from various countries know about eyewitness testimony and memory, and if they have the requisite knowledge and skills to accurately assess eyewitness testimony. We evaluate whether legal safeguards such as voir dire, motion-to-suppress an identification, cross-examination, jury instructions, and eyewitness expert testimony are effective in identifying eyewitness errors. Lastly, we discuss solutions to eyewitness error.

What Italian Defense Attorneys Know about Factors Affecting Eyewitness Accuracy: A Comparison with U.S. and Norwegian Samples

We surveyed 100 Italian defense attorneys about their knowledge and beliefs about factors affecting eyewitness accuracy. The results of similar surveys show that U.S. defense attorneys were significantly more knowledgeable than other legal professionals, including U.S. prosecutors and U.S. and European judges. The present survey of Italian defense attorneys produced similar results. However, the results suggest that the defense attorney’s superior performance may be due at least in part to their skepticism of eyewitness testimony rather than their greater knowledge of eyewitness factors.

Scientific Procedures for Eyewitness Evidence for U.S. Law Officers

To significantly reduce eyewitness error, law officers must do the following: (a) identify the relevant eyewitness factors at the crime scene and determine how they likely affected eyewitness accuracy; (b) apply scientific procedures to eyewitness interviews; and (c) use scientific procedures for identification procedures. Research shows, however, that most U.S. law officers have limited knowledge of eyewitness factors and fail to follow proper procedures for eyewitness interviews and identification procedures. By following the recommended procedures delineated in this article, law officers will be able to substantially reduce wrongful convictions from eyewitness error and significantly strengthen the states evidence in criminal cases.

The consequences of restricting police arrest authority: less deterrence and more crime

Purpose Past research indicates that increasing police arrests deters crime. However, little research exists on how restricting police arrests affects crime. The current study tests whether restrictions on police authority to arrest affects deterrence and crime rates. Design/methodology/approach The data consisted of crime statistics for 105 criminal suspects from a medium-size police department in the western United States. A 2 x 4 mixed analysis of variance compared the suspects’ criminal activity for a four-month period before and after the arrest restrictions were imposed to ascertain how they affected deterrence and crime rates. Findings The restrictions on police arrests significantly increased the crime rate. Moreover, the crime rate increased the longer the restrictions on police arrest authority were in effect. In sum, the present study provides empirical support for the hypothesis that restrictions on police arrest authority decrease deterrence and increase the crime rate. Practical implications...