The Issue of Globalization-An Overview

[From Summary] In the 1990s, globalization gained widespread usage as a term with many interpretations. Globalism is employed in this report to describe networks of interdependence functioning at multi-continental distances. Globalization is an increase in globalism and de-globalization a reduction. In providing an introductory view of these networks, with an emphasis on contemporary economic factors, a goal of this report is to illustrate how policy consequences, sometimes unintended, may be dispersed via globalized networks. As networks expand and become more intricate there is an opportunity for feedback along previously non-existent linkages

Eyewitness Identification Evidence: Science And Reform

Kirk Bloodsworth was the first death row inmate to be exonerated by DNA evidence. Bloodsworth, a U.S. Marine veteran, had never been in trouble with the law, but was convicted in 1984 of the rape and murder of a 9-year-old girl and was sentenced to die in Maryland’s gas chamber. DNA tests exonerated Bloodsworth in 1993, but it was not until 2004 that the real killer was identified by DNA tests. The evidence driving Bloodsworth’s conviction was mistaken eyewitness identification. There is little doubt today that mistaken eyewitness identification is the primary cause of the conviction of innocent people in the United States. The DNA exoneration cases, carefully tracked by the Innocence Project at the Cardozo School of Law, show that approximately 75 percent of these convictions of innocent persons were cases of mistaken eyewitness identification.1 Even before the development of forensic DNA tests, mistaken identification was shown to be responsible for th

Eyewitness Identification

Mistaken eyewitness-identification testimony is at the heart of a large share of the convictions of people whose innocence was later proven using forensic DNA testing. A considerable amount is now known about how to lower the rate of mistaken identifications through the use of better procedures for conducting identification. Several procedural reforms are described, such as double-blind lineups and pristine assessments of eyewitness-identification confidence. Although numerous jurisdictions have made improvements to their identification procedures in recent years, a large share of jurisdictions have still not made significant reforms. Although some courts have been making better use of the scientific findings on eyewitness identification, most courts are still using an approach that is largely unsupported by scientific findings

Eyewitness identification: Systemic reforms

The vagaries of eyewitness identification are well known; the annals of criminal law are rife with instances of mistaken identification

Helping Experimental Psychology Affect Legal Policy

Any scientific psychologist who has interacted extensively with police, lawyers, or trial judges has learned that scientific psychology and the legal system are very different beasts. The differences run much deeper than mere language and instead represent different types of thinking-a clash of cultures. This clash is particularly apparent when psychologists attempt to use research findings to affect legal policies and practices. In order for scientific psychologists to work effectively in applying psychological science to the legal system, they will need to develop a better understanding of the concept of policy and the contingencies that exist for policymakers

Eyewitness Identification: Psychological Aspects

Eyewitness identification refers to a type of evidence in which an eyewitness to a crime claims to recognize a suspect as the one who committed the crime. In cases where the eyewitness knew the suspect before the crime, issues of the reliability of memory are usually not contested. In cases where the perpetrator of the crime was a stranger to the eyewitness, however, the reliability of the identification is often at issue. Researchers in various areas of experimental psychology, especially cognitive and social psychology, have been conducting scientific studies of eyewitness identification evidence since the mid-1970s. Today, there exists a large body of published experimental research showing that eyewitness identification evidence can be highly unreliable under certain conditions. In recent years, wrongful convictions of innocent people have been discovered through post-conviction DNA testing; these cases show that more than 80 percent of these innocent people were convicted using mistaken eyewitness identification evidence (Scheck, Neufeld, and Dwyer; Wells et al., 1998). These DNA exoneration cases, along with previous analyses of wrongful convictions, point to mistaken eyewitness identification as the primary cause of the conviction of innocent people

Eyewitness testimony

Eyewitness testimony refers to verbal state­ ments from people regardi ng what they observed and can purportedly remember that would be relevant to issues of proof at a criminal or civil trial. Such state­ ments constitute a common form of evidence at trials. Eyewitness identification is a specific type of eyewit­ ness testimony in which an eyewitness claims to rec­ ognize a specific person as one who committed a par­ ticular action. In cases where the eyewitness knew the suspect before the crime, issues of the reliability of memory are usually not contested. In cases where the perpetrator of the crime was a stranger to the eyewit­ ness, however, the reliability of the identification is often at issue. Researchers in various areas of experi­ mental psychology, especially cognitive and social psychology, have been conducting scientific studies of eyewitness testimony since the early 1900s, but most of the systematic research has occurred only since the mid- to late 1970s. There now exists a large body of published experimental research showing that eyewit­ ness testimony evidence can be highly unreliable under certain conditions. In recent years, wrongful convictions of innocent people have been discovered through post-conviction DNA testing, and these cases show that more than 80 percent of these innocent people were convicted using mistaken eyewitness identification evidence. These DNA exoneration cases, along with previous analyses of wrongful convictions, poi nt to mistaken eyewitness testimony as the primary cause of the conviction of innocent people

Eyewitness Lineups: Identification from

The police lineup is a common tool for eyewitness identifications of suspects in criminal cases. Forensic DNA testing of people convicted by eyewitness identification evidence and field studies of police lineups, however, have revealed that mistaken identification from lineups is not uncommon. Controlled laboratory experiments have isolated numerous variables that contribute to mistaken identifications from lineups, some of which are controllable by the criminal justice system (e.g., various biases in the lineup or its procedure) and some of which are not controllable by the criminal justice system (e.g., witnessing conditions, stress)

Obtaining and Interpreting Eyewitness Identification Test Evidence: The Influence of Police–Witness Interactions

Eyewitnesses to a crime are frequently asked to view an identification parade to see if they can identify the offender. Conduct of a line-up involves police or line-up administrators in a number of important decisions, such as who to put in the line-up, the method of presentation of the line-up, and what to say to witnesses before and after the line-up. The identification test can be conceptualized as a variant on an interview between the police and the witness, involving important interactions between police (or other line-up administrators) and witnesses. These interactions can profoundly influence witness decisions and impact on the characteristics of any subsequent evidence they provide in the courts. We shall focus on (i) the expectations that police/administrators can engender in witnesses and how these can shape witness behaviour; (ii) the instructions that are provided to witnesses prior to viewing the line-up; (iii) possible ways in which administrators can interact with (and hence influence) witnesses in the conduct of line-ups; (iv) the soliciting of confidence assessments from witnesses; (v) the interpretation of witness confidence assessments; and (vi) the influence of interactions that occur post - identification on witnesses’ subsequent reports about the event and the identification test

Expert Testimony Regarding Eyewitness Identification

Increasingly, psychologists are giving expert testimony in court on the accu­ racy of eyewitness identification (Kassin, Tubb, Hosch, & Memon, 2001). Eyewitness experts typically are cognitive or social psychologists who have published research articles on the topic of eyewitness memory. Expert testi­ mony in eyewitness identification is most commonly offered by the defense in criminal cases but is occasionally countered by opposing expert testimony offered by the prosecution. The increasing use of such expert testimony owes largely to the growing recognition that mistaken eyewitness identification is the single most common precursor to the conviction of innocent people (Doyle, 2005). In addition, there is an increasingly strong case that the exist­ ing safeguards designed to protect defendants from erroneous conviction resulting from mistaken identification, such as motions to suppress sugges­ tive procedures, cross-examination, and right to counsel at live lineups, are ineffective (Van Wallendael, Devenport, Cutler, & Penrod, 2007)