• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >How do jurors assess eyewitness testimony? Jurors' assessments of eyewitness testimony following exposure to inappropriate identification procedures.
【24h】

How do jurors assess eyewitness testimony? Jurors' assessments of eyewitness testimony following exposure to inappropriate identification procedures.

机译：陪审员如何评估目击者的证词？陪审员在暴露于不适当的识别程序后对目击者证词的评估。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Eyewitness testimony lies at the heart of many criminal convictions. Historically there has been little more damning to a defendant than the testimony of an eyewitness that says, “it was him, I saw him commit the crime.” However, eyewitness can be mistaken and these mistaken identifications have led to many wrongful convictions as the results of recent DNA testing have shown. At this point 261 wrongfully convicted individuals have been released.;Research has demonstrated that one way to reduce the number of false identifications it to use appropriate procedures when conducting an eyewitness identification through lineup or photo array. Proper procedures include gathering the witnesses’ certainty in their identification before telling the witness that they have identified the suspect and providing appropriate instructions that state that the individual who committed the crime may or not be in the lineup. When the procedures used to collect an eyewitness identification are flawed the subsequent identification is less likely to be accurate and as such should be viewed with more skepticism than if correct procedure had been followed.;The studies herein test three types of education about proper procedure that may be provided to jurors; education on Department of Justice Guidelines provided to jurors through cross examination of the officer who conducted the lineup, expert testimony, and judicial instruction. When proper procedure was violated because the officer provided confirmatory feedback (“Good job, you identified the suspect”) jurors were more skeptical of the case; they found the case to be weaker, the credibility of the eyewitness to be reduced, and the lineup to be more improper. However, even with these findings and a feeling that that officer had influenced the witness and placed the case in jeopardy no effect was seen on verdicts. When an officer failed to provide proper instructions significant effects were found only for perceptions of lineup propriety and again no difference was seen in verdicts. The level of general knowledge that mock jurors held was the only factor that affected verdicts and for this reason education may be the only hope for correcting for improperly gathered eyewitness identifications at trial.
机译：目击者的证词是许多刑事定罪的核心。从历史上看，对被告人的诅咒只不过是一个目击者的证词，他说：“是他，我看到他犯了罪。”然而，目击者可能是错误的，并且这些错误的识别已导致许多错误的定罪，如最近的DNA测试结果所示。在这一点上，已经释放了261名被错误定罪的个人。研究表明，一种减少错误识别的方法是，通过阵容或照片阵列进行目击者识别时，可以使用适当的程序。正确的程序包括：在告诉证人他们已经确认了嫌疑人之前，收集证人的身份，并提供适当的说明，指出作案的人可能会或可能不会在阵容中。当用于收集目击者识别的程序存在缺陷时，随后的识别不太可能是准确的，因此，与是否遵循正确的程序相比，应以更多的怀疑态度看待它；此处的研究测试了关于正确程序的三种教育可以提供给陪审员；通过对主持阵容，专家证词和司法指示的人员进行交叉盘问，为陪审员提供了《司法部准则》教育。当由于官员提供了确认性反馈（“干得好，您确定了嫌疑人”）而违反了正确的程序时，陪审员们对该案更加怀疑；他们发现案情较弱，目击者的信誉降低，阵容更加不当。但是，即使有了这些调查结果，并且感觉到该官员已经影响了证人并将案件置于危险之中，但判决结果并未见效。当军官未能提供适当的指示时，仅对阵容适当性的感知会产生重大影响，而在判决中也没有发现差异。模拟陪审员掌握的一般知识水平是影响判决的唯一因素，因此，教育可能是纠正在审判中不正确收集的目击者身份的唯一希望。

著录项

  • 作者

    Peterson, Tiamoyo.;

  • 作者单位

    University of California, Irvine.;

  • 授予单位 University of California, Irvine.;
  • 学科 Law.;Psychology Social.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2010
  • 页码 164 p.
  • 总页数 164
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号