Read Smith, A. M., & Dufraimont, L. (2014). Safeguards against wrongful conviction in eyewitness identification cases: Insights
from empirical research. Canadian Criminal Law Review, 18(2), 199–217.
Address the following in a 500-word (minimum) essay. Make sure to elaborate fully on your main ideas, providing
supporting details and explanations.
Summarize three to five major points from the article.
Evaluate the effectiveness of current research methods in studying issues related to eyewitness testimonies.
Describe the safeguards the authors present to address limitations in eyewitness testimonies.
Describe your personal perspective on any relevant points from the research article.
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION
Inaccurate eyewitness testimony is a significant constraint to any justice system as in most cases it leads to the wrongful conviction of otherwise innocent individuals. The infallibility of the memories of eyewitnesses necessitates the application of various safeguards to prevent such unfortunate incidences from occurring. This paper reviews the article Safeguards Against Wrongful Conviction in Eyewitness Identification Cases: Insights from Empirical Research by Andrew Smith and Lisa Dufraimont highlighting the critical points raised in it and further elucidating various aspects of the measures in place to limit wrongful convictions.
Three main points can be drawn from the article. Foremost, the surest way to avoid convicting an innocent person is to embrace eyewitness procedures that minimize the chances for the mistaken identification of innocent suspects. Despite the inadequate evidence on the sufficiency of jury education for the sensitization of jurors, there is still some hope on the efficacy of such training from research findings that indicate the responsiveness of jurors to expert opinions. Secondly, besides principally focusing on increasing the sensitivity of the jurors to eyewitness accuracy, it is equally necessary to heighten the skepticism exhibited by these persons. An increase in skepticism promises a significant decline in false alarms and a subsequent rise in the juror’s belief’s diagnosticity (Smith & Dufraimont, 2014). Lastly, it is imperative to note that further research on the aspects of jury education is vital. The focus of this study should primarily be of relevance to the Canadian context.
The current research methods for studying matters on eyewitness testimonies are, to no small extent, ineffective. So far, only a few studies have been conducted to address the core concern as to the capacity of expert eyewitness testimony to aid jurors in discriminating between inaccurate and accurate eyewitnesses. Accordingly, additional research is necessary before any firm conclusions can be drawn on the matter. Additionally, there is need to conduct studies weighing the value of expert eyewitness testimony against pattern jury instructions. So far, just a single study has compared these two variables, and neither was found to be resoundingly more effective in increasing the sensitivity to eyewitness accuracy.
The authors present various safeguards that find use in addressing the limitations in eyewitness testimonies. They categorize these precautions broadly into two categories, namely: court-room safeguards and best-practice identification procedures. Courtroom safeguards are characteristically evidentiary and procedural rules fashioned to assuage the potentially catastrophic effects of erratic eyewitness identification evidence. Basically, they offer a mistakenly identified accused another chance at defense against unfair conviction (Smith & Dufraimont, 2014). Best-practice identification procedures, on the other hand, are mechanisms employed by law enforcement personnel in an attempt to identify suspects to reduce the risk of mistaken identities (Smith & Dufraimont, 2014).
I concur with the authors on their insistence on the importance of having almost impeccable eyewitness evidence for the conviction of guilty individuals. Inaccuracies in eyewitness evidence could sometimes culminate in irreversible adversities on otherwise innocent individuals. Accordingly, besides the meticulous application of the various safeguards against wrongful conviction, all of these measures should be integrated such as any possible sources of error are eliminated. Law enforcement personnel should undergo scrupulous training on best-practice identification procedures and standards be put in place to ensure that at no particular time are the ideals of the systems compromised.
TO RECEIVE THE REST OF THE PAPER IN THIS PROJECT, KINDLY GO TO www.perfectacademic.com. CLICK PLACE ORDER – FILL THE DETAILS OF THE ASSIGNMENT – COMPLETE PAYMENT PROCESSING
OUR PROFESSIONAL WRITERS WILL HAVE PAPER IN NO TIME!
Perfectacademic.com = A Grade paper + Timely Delivery By Our Professional Writers