The Illinois Field Study: A Significant Contribution to Understanding Real World Eyewitness Identification Issues
The Illinois Field Study: A Significant Contribution to Understanding Real World Eyewitness Identification Issues
复制标题
伊利诺伊州实地研究：对理解现实世界目击者识别问题的重大贡献
DOI：
10.1007/s10979-007-9108-6
复制
发表时间：
2008
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
M. R. Larson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sheri H. Mecklenburg;Patricia J. Bailey;M. R. Larson
2006年，伊利诺伊州执法部门向伊利诺伊州立法机构发布了这份报告：伊利诺伊州序贯、双盲阵容程序试点计划(“伊利诺伊州试点报告”)，其中列出了一项长达一年的多司法管辖区实地研究的数据，该研究旨在检验序贯双盲阵列法的有效性。伊利诺伊州的数据显示，顺序双盲序列的已知错误率为9.2%，而传统(即同时、非盲)序列的已知错误率为2.7%。伊利诺伊州的试点报告代表了目击者识别研究的重大进步。在伊利诺伊州的试点报告之前，顺序双盲阵容的倡导者依靠实验室研究来支持要求改变目击者识别政策的呼声。一些从业人员对实验室研究持怀疑态度，因为除其他外，实验室研究没有捕捉到对评估目击者鉴定的可靠性至关重要的真实世界因素。实验室实验一般只试图模仿简短的非暴力陌生人犯罪，而许多真实犯罪涉及更复杂的因素，例如真实犯罪的心理体验、真实的物理观看条件(与在视频上观察观看条件相反)、参与警方身份识别程序的影响、证人与罪犯事先熟悉的影响、证人和受害者的各种动机，以及了解在刑事案件中进行或不进行身份识别的多种后果的效果。与执法部门不同的是，该实验室也不会排除不可靠的证人，而是允许所有研究参与者参与测试，无论参与者是否真的注意到了刺激，或者认为他可以找到罪魁祸首。实验室研究也缺乏调查技术的影响，这导致现实生活中出现目标的比率明显高于50/50的目标
In 2006, Illinois law enforcement released the Report to the Illinois Legislature: Illinois Pilot Program on Sequential, Double-Blind Lineup Procedures (‘‘Illinois Pilot Report’’), setting forth the data from a year-long, multi-jurisdictional field study examining the efficacy of the sequential, double-blind lineup method. The Illinois data showed that the sequential, double-blind lineups had a known error rate, measured by filler identifications, of 9.2%, whereas the traditional (ie, simultaneous, non-blind) lineups had a known error rate, also measured by filler identifications, of 2.7%.The Illinois Pilot Report represents a significant advancement in the study of eyewitness identification. Prior to the Illinois Pilot Report, the advocates of the sequential, double-blind lineups relied upon laboratory studies to support calls for policy changes in eyewitness identification. Some practitioners viewed the laboratory studies with skepticism because, among other things, the laboratory studies do not capture the real-world factors vital to assessing the reliability of an eyewitness identification. The laboratory experiments generally attempt to imitate only brief, non-violent stranger crimes, whereas many real crimes involve more complicated factors, such as the psychological experience of a real crime, authentic physical viewing conditions (as opposed to observing the viewing conditions on a video), the impact of participating in a police identification procedure, the effect of a witness’s prior familiarity with the offender, the variety of motivations of witnesses and victims, and the effect of understanding the multitude of consequences of making or not making an identification in a criminal case. The laboratory, unlike law enforcement, also does not ‘‘weed out’’unreliable witnesses, but allows all research participants to be included in the testing regardless of whether the participant actually paid attention to the stimulus or believed that he could identify the culprit. The laboratory studies also are devoid of the influence of investigative techniques, which result in a significantly higher rate of target present lineups in real life than the 50/50 target