Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 21 May 2008 | Nature 453, - (2008) | doi:10.1038/453442a
News Feature
Eyewitness identification: Line-ups on trial
A major, but flawed, study of identity parades, or line-ups, has set science and the police at odds. Laura Spinney investigates.
In 1981, 22-year-old Jerry Miller was arrested and charged with the kidnap, rape and robbery of a woman in downtown Chicago. After two eyewitnesses to the crime picked him out of a line-up, and the victim identified him at his trial, he was convicted and sentenced to 45 years in prison.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Science has done a great deal to inform forensics, such as fingerprinting and DNA analysis, and now forensics are long overdue for an overhaul of outdated and inaccurate interrogation and investigative techniques based un unscientific hunches and unquestioned beliefs. One thing not mentioned in the article that often leads to wrongful convictions, is the fact that investigators fall to the "I'm not stupid" error that leads to financial ruin, religious ignorance and scientific oversight as well - the presumption that one's own beliefs must be correct, because we believe we are not stupid, coupled with the erroneous belief that if one is mistaken, one must be stupid. Investigators put a great deal of time and energy into analyzing evidence and identifying a suspect - the more time and energy that has been put into this process, the more the investiagator is convinced that he is correct in his conclusions, simply because to believe otherwise would mean he has wasted time and energy, and must be stupid. Therefore, prosecutors refuse to drop charges against obviously innocent suspects, because to do so would admit error and wasted time and money, while police pursue suspects with flimsy evidence, and use questionable interrogation techniques to elicit false confessions, because once they suspect someone, they begin to believe that person is guilty, and then seek to find only evidence that proves guilt, and ignore that which does not. This does not mean police and prosecutors are all stupid or malicious, but that they are human. Hopefully the governmental bodies involved will see the importance of this matter and devote resources to develop new policing methods that both prevent wrongful convictions, and catch guilty perpetrators. The police and prosecutors, most of whom genuinely seek justice, must realize that they are only human and liable to make mistakes, and it is better to admit a mistake in order to serve justice, than to protect one's ego and convict an innocent person. The scientists seeking objective truth must also hold the experience and skills of the police and detectives in high regard, and work with them so they do not alienate them, since nobody listens to an argument, no matter how valid and sensible it is, when he feels disregarded.