Lipstick on pigs, fact vs fiction and damage done to ID reform
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
I’ve been remiss in not mentioning EyeID’s terrific coverage of the debunking of a highly-publicized study out of Illinois that claimed to have raised questions about some of the procedural reforms being adopted around the country to improve the handling of eyewitness evidence.
The study, taking the form of a pilot project spearheaded by Chicago police across three counties, purported to reveal that current identification procedures protected against mistaken identifications better than reforms (PDF) proposed by respected social scientists, based on extensive research on eyewitness memory. In other words, the Chicago police were happy to report that, notwithstanding the 19 wrongful convictions recorded in Illinois that resulted from faulty eyewitness evidence, everything was just fine and no pesky (scientific) reforms were needed.
Two immediate red flags: The report was not subjected to peer review and it was authored by a lawyer for the Chicago Police Department. EyeID notes sadly that the study’s findings “were trumpeted on the front page of the New York Times and have since served as serious impediments to reform in Legislatures around the country.”
Then some scientists decided to take a look. They released their own analysis [pdf] of the CPD report and found
“the design [of the Illinois study] guaranteed that most outcomes would be difficult or impossible to interpret,” and the study’s fundamental flaw has “devastating consequences” with respect to its scientific merits.
Then the Chicago Tribune runs this curious story, suggesting that the best lineup format has yet to be identified. This is utter nonsense. As EyeID rightly notes,
The first problem is that the “disagreement” is one of conflicting agendas, not unresolved questions of science. Scientists, with their well-known bias in favor of facts, are in general agreement that sequential lineup procedures are less likely to put innocent people in prison. Every peer reviewed study on the topic bears out this finding. A meta-analysis (PDF) was conducted by leading psychologists to extrapolate the comparative accuracy rates of the two types of procedures, and the clear finding was that sequential lineups are far less likely to result in an innocent person being identified. When “moderator variables” are considered, the two methods are also largely equivalent in their likelihood of bringing about a correct selection of the actual perpetrator, when he is present in the lineup. The general consensus among scientists is that “sequential lineups are superior.”
To the extent that there is disagreement on this point, it is not a disagreement among scientists or any sort of conflict in empirical findings. Rather, it is an objection by prosecutors at the audacity of scientists who dare to suggest that science should inform criminal justice policy. After all, the Chicago Police Department has been doing lineups for decades. Who are these scientists to tell them their procedures are flawed? It’s like a bunch of M.D.s telling cigarette manufacturers that smoking causes cancer.
While the Illinois study may have stalled ID reform in some states, or made others question the validity of their pilot programs in the short term, it has also resulted in an explosion of interest in the area of ID reform. This can only be a good thing. As more and more people become aware of these proposed reforms and there are more studies confirming their effectiveness, states will have to take notice and ID reforms will gain more acceptance. As the study I reported about earlier noted, “the leading cause of the wrongful convictions was erroneous identification by eyewitnesses, which occurred 79 percent of the time.” It should be in everybody’s interests to significantly reduce that number.
Sphere: Related Content
Loading ...
Gideon’s World.
Erroneous convictions = need for review of justice system.
Three people tortured and burned to death by paroled career criminals = nothing to see here, move along folks.
You know, criminal defense attorneys have to vigorously represent individual defendants–they don’t have to reflexively take the side of defendants as a class. I agree that the criminal justice system needs to constantly find ways to be better and more accurate. What you guys forget is that the criminal justice system is what keeps us all safe. And that is a goal which you should support, but do not seem to support.
[quote comment="3302"]Gideon’s World.
Erroneous convictions = need for review of justice system.
Three people tortured and burned to death by paroled career criminals = nothing to see here, move along folks.
You know, criminal defense attorneys have to vigorously represent individual defendants–they don’t have to reflexively take the side of defendants as a class. I agree that the criminal justice system needs to constantly find ways to be better and more accurate. What you guys forget is that the criminal justice system is what keeps us all safe. And that is a goal which you should support, but do not seem to support.[/quote]
Yes, I am all for murder, mayhem and anarchy. Great insight.
I didn’t say that, now did I? You have argued that there is no reason to look at the criminal justice system in Connecticut in light of the Petit murders. To the extent such a review could make Connecticut safer, you suggest not doing it. I don’t see how my post is unfair or over the top.
Your response is.
No, what Gideon said is that a reactionary backlash is unnecessary. You have not indicated you are very familiar with the daily operation of the justice system. The only people who are intimately familiar with it are defense attorneys (and sometimes supervised release officials). Prosecutors do not have any real idea; they don’t have clients. Judges just see what’s before them. The only people who interact with defendants regularly are their defense attorneys.
You are basically saying that far, far fewer offenders should be on supervised release (although you have not provided any ideas on how to fund that state of affairs). Gideon has said that the CT incident does not justify mindless reactions and I agree. And you continually imply those of us who disagree with you are pro-crime.
And erroneous convictions are far more serious than what amounts to a freak incident. Our criminal justice system presumes innocence, has rules designed in great part to prevent erroneous convictions and we continue to develop new methods for sorting out erroneous convictions. If you have a problem with the common law and our tradition, maybe you would be happier in a jurisdiction with your draconian view of law and order…China, perhaps.
A “freak incident”? Alec, if you have as much experience with the criminal justice system as you imply, you have to know that there are many many murder victims of career offenders who, prior to the murder, had been let out of jail on parole or outright release. This is yet another example of it. It is certainly not draconian to think that 44 year old criminals who have a 20 year repeated criminal history should (a) serve every bit of their most recent sentence and (b) should have been subject to an LWOP sentence in the first place. Career criminals are a danger to all of us, and if the Petit case focuses attention on that, all the better.
All I ask is that you guys acknowledge that there is serious risk in releasing people like that. Now maybe that’s a risk that society ought to bear–fine. But when elected officials (i.e., people responsible to law-abiding citizens) want to examine the whys and wherefores of these people being loosed into our society after think heinous crime, I would think that people like you and Gideon would at least agree that such an examination is ok. Remember, we are dealing with a risk to society here. Dismissing concerns about how much risk we are willing to take as unthinking or knee jerk is wrongheaded.
The reality is that three people would be alive today if these guys were incarcerated. That fact means that a look-see is deserved.
And yes, I will stand by my pro-criminal implication. Your concern is obviously more with the people who get incarcerated, not with the victims of their predations. Your smug self-assurance speaks volumes.