The thin blue line-up: Comparing eyewitness performance by police and civilians

Police officers are often believed to provide more reliable testimony than civilian eyewitnesses. We reviewed the available empirical evidence for this belief. There is some evidence to suggest that police officers do indeed report more accurate details about witnessed events than civilians do, particularly concerning crime-relevant details. That research finding does not translate directly to practice, however, since an average difference between police and civilian witnesses does not mean that a particular police officer in a specific case should be believed over a particular civilian eyewitness. More importantly, police officers are no better than civilians at identifying a perpetrator from a line-up and may even be more likely to make a false identification. Because eyewitness misidentifications have far more severe consequences than misreported event details, expert witnesses in court should warn decision-makers that police officers are at least as likely as the average eyewitness to falsely identify an innocent person

Bridging the gap between judges and the public? A multi-method study.

This article examines the gap between dutch judges and the public in terms of preferred severity of sentences. It focuses on one particular explanation usually given for the gap: the lack of case-specific, detailed information on the part of the general public. Findings from three studies are reported and combined: (a) a survey among a sample from the dutch population (n = 2,127), (b) a sentencing experiment with judges in dutch criminal courts (n = 180), and (c) a sentencing experiment, using the same case materials as with judges, but now with a sample from the dutch population (n = 917). Results show that providing the public with detailed case information indeed reduces severity of sentences preferred. Moreover, those members of the public who were given short and unbalanced newspaper reports preferred much harsher sentences than did those who were given the full case files. However, despite such a reduction in punitiveness as a result of information, the public’s preferred sentences remain much more punitive than judges’ sentences pertaining to exactly the same case files

From Emergency Call to Crime Scene: Information Transference in the Criminal Investigation

In the present study, how crime scene investigators are informed before going to a crime scene was investigated. In order to gain more insight in the flow of information from emergency call to crime scene, semi-structured interviews were conducted in three different police regions with six crime scene investigators, six forensic team leaders, and six crime scene investigators. Results indicate that information that crime scene investigators receive before going to a crime scene is usually limited. Most information is provided on-site by the uniformed police officers, forensic medical examiner, and tactical investigation team. This information flow is underexposed, and there are no guidelines about how it is recorded. Even though all parties are provided with limited information, incidents are quickly labelled by emergency call responders and forensic team leaders. The influence of the framing process that occurs as a result is underestimated. Furthermore, emergency call responders and forensic team leaders have different goals in the investigative process and hardly take into account the specific needs of the crime scene investigator. In order to better meet the needs of crime scene investigators, further research about the content of the provided information, as well as at what moment it should be shared, is needed. Also, in order to determine afterward what role information may have played in the decision-making at the crime scene the recording of information should be better safeguarded