Advances in Applied Psychology
Articles Information
Advances in Applied Psychology, Vol.2, No.2, Apr. 2016, Pub. Date: Jun. 20, 2016
Misconceptions Regarding Criminal Justice Procedures and Evidence Gathering: A Perspective
Pages: 14-17 Views: 2133 Downloads: 997
[01] Renee Pistone, Faculty, Humanities Department: College of Arts and Sciences, Kean University, Union, NJ USA.
The media uses wrongful convictions as ways to influence and fuel perceived failings of criminal justice procedures and evidence gathering by the public. More information has been circulated in media television programs that focus on these cases (Amaya, 2010). The average television viewer is now realizing that there are several reasons why innocent people get convicted such as: Eyewitness identification, Forensic Oversight, Access to DNA Testing, Exoneree Compensation, False Confessions and ineffective assistance of counsel. From a historic perspective, eyewitness identification tends to be not as reliable and often leads to wrongful convictions (Wells, Small & Penrod, 1988). These issues within the criminal justice discipline continue to recur. Here, the relevant literature is surveyed in order to provide a forum to generate even more detailed discussions on these timely and important subjects within the discipline to call for meaningful changes.
Eyewitness, Justice System, Media
[01] Aguirre, A., Baker, D., & Lee, K. (1999). Sentencing outcomes, race, and victim impact evidence in California: A pre-and post-Payne comparison, 11 Justice Professional, 297.
[02] Amaya, H. (2010). Citizenship, diversity, law, and Ugly Betty. 32 Media, Culture, & Society, 801-817.
[03] Bandes, S. (2006). Loyalty to One’s Convictions: The Prosecutor and Tunnel Vision, 49 Howard Law Review, 475.
[04] Bibas, S., & Bierschbach, R. (2004). Integrating remorse and apology into criminal procedure, 114 Yale Law Journal 85.
[05] Chemerinsky, E. (2001). The role of prosecutors in dealing with police abuse: The lessons of Los Angeles. 8 Virginia Journal of Public Policy and Law, 305-321.
[06] Clark, S. (2012). Costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform: Psychological science and public policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 238-259.
[07] Cutler, B., & Penrod, S. (1999). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
[08] Davis, J., Valentine, T. (2015). Identification on the street: A field comparison of police street identification and video line-ups in England. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21, 9-27.
[09] Dressler, J., & Garvey, S. (2012). Cases and materials on criminal law. St. Paul, MN: West.
[10] Erez, E., & Laster, K. (1999). Neutralizing victim reform: Legal professionals’ perspective on victims and victim impact statements, 45 Crime and Delinquency 530.
[11] Logan, W. Confronting evil: Victoms’ rights in an age of terror, 96 Georgetown Law Review 721.
[12] Maroney, T. (2011). The persistent cultural script of judicial dispassion, 99 California Law Review, 629.
[13] Medwed, D. (2005). Up the river without a procedure: Innocent prisoners and newly discovered non-DNA evidence in state courts.47 Arizona Law Review, 655-660.
[14] Palmer, M., & Brewer, N. (2012). Sequential line-up presentation promotes less-biased criterion setting but does not improve discriminability, Law and Human Behavior, 36, 247-255.
[15] Steblay, N., Dysart, J., & Wells, G. (2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 99-139.
[16] Sunby, S. (2003). The capital jury and empathy: The problem of worthy and unworthy victims, 88 Cornell Law Review, 343.
[17] Valentine, T., & Davis, J. (eds) (2015). Forensic facial identification: Theory and practice of identification from eyewitnesses, composites, and CCTV. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
[18] Valentine, T., Davis, J., Memon, A., & Roberts, A. (2012). Live showups and their influence on a subsequent video lineup. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 1-23.
[19] Wells, G., & Bradford, A. (1999). Distortions in eyewitness recollections: Can the post-identification feedback effect be moderated? 10 Psychological Science, 138-144.
[20] Wells, G., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, & S., Fulero. (1988). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photo spreads, 22 Law and Human Behavior, 6-10.
MA 02210, USA
AIS is an academia-oriented and non-commercial institute aiming at providing users with a way to quickly and easily get the academic and scientific information.
Copyright © 2014 - American Institute of Science except certain content provided by third parties.