The Impact of Criminal Code Training on Eyewitness Identification Accuracy
- 1 Department of Criminology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
- 2 Department of Psychology, Algoma University, Sault Ste Marie, Canada
Abstract
Eyewitness identification accuracy of offenders (persons who committed a crime) is generally unreliable. In this study, we implemented a training approach to examine the impact of a brief criminal law training session on the identification accuracy of eyewitnesses viewing a simulated violent altercation between two males. Participants provided with prior training on how to appropriately apply specific criminal law definitions relevant to a violent altercation (assault and self-defense provisions) were more accurate in their identifications of the offender when compared to participants provided with irrelevant training (a riot and the unlawful assembly of a riot), and participants provided with no training, when observing the same violent altercation. Potential implications and limitations are discussed.
- Athens, L. (1997). Violent criminal acts and actors revisited. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
- Athens, L. (2005). Violent encounters: Violent engagements, skirmishes, and tiffs. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 34, 631-678. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891241605280570
- Clark, S. E., Marshall, T.E., & Rosenthal, R. (2009). Lineup administrator influences on eyewitness identification decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 63-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015185
- Criminal Code, R.S.C. C-46 (1985). laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/
- Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 687-706. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-004-0565-x
- Guerette, R. T., & Santana, S. A. (2010). Explaining victim self-protective behavior effects on crime incident outcomes: A test of opportunity theory. Crime & Delinquency, 56, 198-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011128707311644
- Hellman, J. H., Echterhoff, G., Kopietz, R., Niemeier, S., & Memon, A. (2011). Talking about visually perceived events: Communication effects on eyewitness memory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 658-671. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.796
- Hermida, J. (2011). Criminal law. The Netherlands: Kluwe Law International.
- Leippe, M. R., Eisenstandt, D., & Rauch, S. M (2009). Cueingconfidence in eyewitness identifications: Influence of biased lineup instructions and pre-identification memory feedback under varying lineup condition. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 194-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9135-y
- Marsh, D. P., & Greenberg, M. S. (2006). The influence of eyewitness similarity to a crime victim and victim culpability on eyewitness recall. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2, 43-56.
- Steblay, N. K., Dysart, J. E., & Wells, G. L. (2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analytic analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 99-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021650
- Tuckey, M. R., & Brewer, N. (2003). The influence of schemas, stimulus ambiguity, and interview schedule on eye witness memory over time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 9, 101-118.
- Webber, N., & Perfect, T. J. (2012). Improving eyewitness identification accuracy by screening out those who say they don’t know. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 28-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0093976