The Impact of Criminal Code Training on Eyewitness Identification Accuracy

Michael Storozuk, Paul Dupuis

Department of Criminology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Department of Psychology, Algoma University, Sault Ste Marie, Canada.

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2013.412149                

Abstract

Eyewitness identification accuracy of offenders (persons who committed a crime) is generally unreliable. In this study, we implemented a training approach to examine the impact of a brief criminal law training session on the identification accuracy of eyewitnesses viewing a simulated violent altercation between two males. Participants provided with prior training on how to appropriately apply specific criminal law definitions relevant to a violent altercation (assault and self-defense provisions) were more accurate in their identifications of the offender when compared to participants provided with irrelevant training (a riot and the unlawful assembly of a riot), and participants provided with no training, when observing the same violent altercation. Potential implications and limitations are discussed.

Keywords

Eyewitness Identification; Criminal Law; Training

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Athens, L. (1997). Violent criminal acts and actors revisited. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
[2]	Athens, L. (2005). Violent encounters: Violent engagements, skirmishes, and tiffs. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 34, 631-678. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891241605280570
[3]	Clark, S. E., Marshall, T.E., & Rosenthal, R. (2009). Lineup administrator influences on eyewitness identification decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 63-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015185
[4]	Criminal Code, R.S.C. C-46 (1985). laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/
[5]	Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 687-706. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-004-0565-x
[6]	Guerette, R. T., & Santana, S. A. (2010). Explaining victim self-protective behavior effects on crime incident outcomes: A test of opportunity theory. Crime & Delinquency, 56, 198-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011128707311644
[7]	Hellman, J. H., Echterhoff, G., Kopietz, R., Niemeier, S., & Memon, A. (2011). Talking about visually perceived events: Communication effects on eyewitness memory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 658-671. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.796
[8]	Hermida, J. (2011). Criminal law. The Netherlands: Kluwe Law International.
[9]	Leippe, M. R., Eisenstandt, D., & Rauch, S. M (2009). Cueingconfidence in eyewitness identifications: Influence of biased lineup instructions and pre-identification memory feedback under varying lineup condition. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 194-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9135-y
[10]	Marsh, D. P., & Greenberg, M. S. (2006). The influence of eyewitness similarity to a crime victim and victim culpability on eyewitness recall. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2, 43-56.
[11]	Steblay, N. K., Dysart, J. E., & Wells, G. L. (2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analytic analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 99-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021650
[12]	Tuckey, M. R., & Brewer, N. (2003). The influence of schemas, stimulus ambiguity, and interview schedule on eye witness memory over time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 9, 101-118.
[13]	Webber, N., & Perfect, T. J. (2012). Improving eyewitness identification accuracy by screening out those who say they don’t know. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 28-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0093976
[14]	Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277-295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145028