Site Loader
Rock Street, San Francisco

First of all, I want to say that the video we watched was terrific. To see the two of them together and what they are trying to do to make changes is lovely. She made a legitimate error, and in turn, Ronald Cotton lost 11 years of his life, but together they are operating to bring awareness so that hopefully this can be avoided in the future.After reviewing the five procedures to reduce false identification, I think that the first three will have an enthusiastic impact on identifying the right suspect. Beginning with the first process of blind administration, it suggests that the officer administering the line-up has no knowledge of who the defendant is which can prevent suggestive statements or unconscious gestures. I believe that this is a great place to start and it would eliminate the possibility of witness coercion. If the officer does not know the suspect, there is no way they can lead the witness in any direction. Entrants’ literature recommends that the “fillers” should compare the eyewitness’ description of the perpetrator and the eyewitnesses should not observe more than one identification method with the same suspect.Subsequent watching the video and knowing that Ronald Cotton was the only one that was both in the photo’s and in the lineup I can understand how he was picked out by the suspect. If the bystander said there was a man with a beard and a tattoo but only two of the suspects fit that description, then the witness will be convinced that one of those two is the suspect. By following this procedure and having them all resemble the report can help evaded that matter as well. If it comes to the instructions, I agree that if the witness is doing stated that the perpetrator may either may not be in each lineup takes a burden off of them. The witness wants to be sure they are doing their part, and there is a lot of pressure to make sure that they don’t make a mistake or let a guilty person walk. If they feel that there is a chance the suspect may not even be in the lineup they may feel more satisfied saying that they don’t recognize any of them. Radically far as the confidence statement, I can understand needing clarification as to how they think of their level of confidence at the time of identifying the suspect, but I don’t know that will eliminate putting away an innocent person. They may feel one-hundred percent confident at that moment and then the second opinion themselves behindhand. I don’t agree with recording the identification procedure. Through doing so, there can be no question of oppression, and they could be useful in the investigation as to whether original protocol was developed by the law enforcer I can’t say the last two will make a massive impact on false identification though.Eventually, I think that the scheme made by the Innocence Project would make a positive effect and should be put into site to help remove untrue identification. Something needs to be changed to help shun putting away an vituous person. That can be just as harmfull to the eyewitness for putting away an innocent person when they wholeheartedly felt they had picked the right one.Eyewitness Misidentification. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2017, from

Post Author: admin


I'm Eunice!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out