
‘Our Lying Eyes’: Inaccurate eyewitness identifications and wrongful convictions - hhs
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/04/18/our-lying-eyes/
======
kbos87
I was asked to provide an eyewitness identification for a crime I witnessed
being committed and reported to the police. I had about a minute-long
conversation with one of the perpetrators.

When the detective came to my home with a black and white photo lineup, she
had a series of photos of people who looked very similar to one another. She
explained that lineups were intentionally set up with people who look alike,
to ensure that I was dead sure of who I was identifying. Long story short, I
declined to make an identification because even after talking to someone and
looking straight at him for a full minute, I wasn’t sure enough to become an
eyewitness and potentially be wrong about it.

~~~
SargeZT
It's worth noting that almost all photo lineups include only the suspect and a
bunch of photos they keep around. They generally aren't asking you to choose
between a group of possible suspects; they're using the other photos to make
sure that you're positive. You should try to make an effort, because even an
incorrect identification provides some amount of deniability for the suspect.

~~~
harry8
No you absolutely should not. If you aren't sure, say so. Best guess is not
the way to do this. Fingering their one suspect among a bunch of photos they
keep around who looks maybe a bit like the person you saw? Happens all the
time, innocent people go to jail. And yeah, especially if they're from a race
with homogenous hair colour and that race is one you don't share.

Every time they have the wrong suspect. There are 10 photos. 1 in 10 chance of
fingering that wrong suspect and providing false evidence contributing to
wrongful prosecution.

I actually don't understand why you would even suggest that this is a good
idea.

Is there something here I'm missing?

~~~
SargeZT
You should say you're not sure obviously, but tell them that you _think_ it
might be person 3.

Additionally, police almost always do a second and sometimes third lineup with
other pictures if there's a positive identification.

------
mirimir
> Finally, in 1993 [nine years later], DNA analysis of the semen extracted
> from the girl’s underwear showed that the culprit was not Bloodsworth but
> someone else, who eventually confessed. Thankfully, Bloodsworth had not been
> executed, and he was set free that year.

> Over a decade later, DNA testing of the semen taken from her vagina right
> after the crime proved to be that of another man, who was then charged, and
> Cotton was set free.

> Finally, however, after Bain obtained assistance from a lawyer and the
> Innocence Project of Florida, DNA testing was granted—and it completely
> exonerated him. He was released in 2009, having served thirty-five years for
> a crime he did not commit.

There ought to be a federal standard for compensating people who have been
wrongly imprisoned.

> For example, Texas compensates the wrongfully convicted $80,000 per year of
> incarceration and an annuity set at the same amount ...

That is, you get $80K per year for the rest of your life. That seems pretty
fair. But there also ought to be something like a life insurance payout for
families of prisoners who were wrongly executed.

~~~
lostlogin
> But there also ought to be something like a life insurance payout for
> families of prisoners who were wrongly executed.

Or alternatively, have the state stop killing people.

~~~
mirimir
Well, yes. That too.

------
js2
> One other modest mitigating factor should be mentioned. For many everyday
> crimes, like robbery, the presence of surveillance cameras in stores and
> buildings has made the police somewhat less dependent on eyewitness
> identification. The broader use of such surveillance cameras should
> therefore be encouraged.

Oy vey, the cure may be worse than the disease.

We’ve know this for over a century[0]. Plane crash investigators mostly ignore
eye witness testimony using it only at best to guide the investigation[1].
Maybe this should be the standard for the legal system too: allow eye witness
testimony to guide police investigation but not be used as courtroom evidence.

Also, this article doesn’t mention the cross or other race effect[2] which is
yet another compounding factor.

Aside: Rashomon is still an excellent movie.

0\. [http://historyforensicpsych.umwblogs.org/eye-witness-
account...](http://historyforensicpsych.umwblogs.org/eye-witness-accounts/)

(The link above embeds a 60 minutes segment about the Ronald Cotton case
mention in the submitted story.)

1\.
[https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&co...](https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=ijaaa)

2\. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culture-
conscious/20...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culture-
conscious/201208/the-truth-about-they-all-look-alike-me)

~~~
michaelt

      Maybe this should be the standard for the legal system 
      too: allow eye witness testimony to guide police
      investigation but not be used as courtroom evidence.
    

I used to think this, until I had to sit on a jury. I ended up trying a case
where the accused had allegedly gone to the victim's home, knocked on the
door, then barged in and punched the victim a few times when he answered the
door. Hospital records and photos meant no-one disputed the victim had been
punched. But what evidence was there that the accused was the attacker? Only
the eyewitness testimony of the accused and his wife.

I struggle to see how such a case could be prosecuted without eyewitness
testimony? Unless perhaps people put CCTV cameras all around in their own
homes, and to me that doesn't sound like an improvement in civil liberties.

(After we found the guy guilty, the judge revealed the accused was awaiting
trial for two other very similar offences with different victims)

~~~
marcinzm
>I struggle to see how such a case could be prosecuted without eyewitness
testimony?

Maybe it shouldn't be then. Just because a crime happened doesn't mean someone
has to be punished for it irrespective of their actual guilt.

~~~
NotAnEconomist
> Just because a crime happened doesn't mean someone has to be punished for it
> irrespective of their actual guilt.

The failure to prosecute the case of someone attacking someone else in their
home merely creates an incentive for people to enact more violence in
response, because the system fails to ensure baseline safety and won't be able
to hold them accountable for their revenge.

Punishment for violence against others is required to have a peaceable
society.

You can argue what you are, but you're advocating for a world of anarchy and
uncontested violence.

~~~
dahfizz
In your scenario, why wouldn't people take revenge on each other by making
false accusations and getting their enemies thrown in jail?

It's not like putting people in prison is a peaceful thing. It's a very
violent ordeal, it's just violence that the state perpetrates on your behalf.
We have to be _sure_ that it's worth while.

~~~
NotAnEconomist
> I ended up trying a case where the accused had allegedly gone to the
> victim's home, knocked on the door, then barged in and punched the victim a
> few times when he answered the door. Hospital records and photos meant no-
> one disputed the victim had been punched. But what evidence was there that
> the accused was the attacker? Only the eyewitness testimony of the accused
> and his wife.

Because we're not talking about an abstract situation of sans evidence
accusations, and because that's _already_ a problem -- even without eyewitness
testimony being admissible.

We're talking about the different rates of bad things we can have in real
compromises we can enact for real situations: if you go so far towards never
convicting the innocent that you never convict violent home invasions, society
will break down.

You can think that's justice, I was just connecting the choice with the
outcome.

------
HillaryBriss
There's some debate about the accuracy of "flashbulb memories".

One side thinks that such traumatic events create durable, accurate memories.
The other thinks that such events merely create a _strong feeling of
confidence_ that the memories are durable and accurate.

[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9280.02453](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9280.02453)

------
RyJones
I've experienced this; my impressions of what other drivers were doing is
rarely borne by the dashcam video.

------
drdeadringer
I am reminded of a particular "Olde Time Radio" episode of 'The Shadow' which
involves a trial; a person of [political? judicial?] importance is accused of
receiving or at least being approached with blackmail//bribery. Fatal evidence
was reel-to-reel film video with accompanying reel-to-reel audio played in
tandem ["high-tech" at the time, remember].

Lamont Cranston & Margo Lane are in the courtroom audience for plot reasons
and Lamont has issue with how the voice audio [doesn't quite] sync up with the
lips on the video despite potential technology sync issues.

"Believe only half of what you see," Lamont paraphrases//declares to Margo,
"and nothing you hear."

I'll let folks enjoy the episode to the end and I realize that the quoted
paraphrase is likely a paraphrased quote in and of itself, but many decades
after both I've still remembered the phrasing.

- _/_ - _/_ -

I've encountered this myself personally when trying to be a personal witness
to someone escaping bounty hunters through a hotel bathroom window. In trying
to be A Good Citizen, literally being voluntarily in the face of a cigar-
chewing dude with sunglasses, and intellectually knowing what "tricks" might
be played on me [e.g. "tall, blond hair?" \-- "no, short and curly black!"] I
still made rookie mistakes in basic reality-telling. And this was live-and-in-
person shortly after the event. "Eye witnesses are unreliable" as sometimes
reported, indeed.

------
bookofjoe
"I was certain, but I was wrong"(2000)
[https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/18/opinion/i-was-certain-
but...](https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/18/opinion/i-was-certain-but-i-was-
wrong.html)

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
I think there is also a racial component to it. We focus on features that
enable us to distinguish people in our social circle. For example, for some
groups of people hair color and eye color are not really distinguishing (a
majority of the group have black hair and brown eyes). It would be interesting
to see how many of the inaccurate identifications were cross-racial.

~~~
spodek
Sex too.

The Innocence Project has overturned hundreds of wrongful convictions, around
99% men.

------
alexnewman
I have been talking to some chinese researchers working on facial recognition
who claim that 3d infrared video is already more accurate than eyewitness
identification, for chinese people, in china.

------
macintux
I thought about this problem recently when I was listening to To Kill a
Mockingbird. Quoting Atticus:

> “...but in the absence of eyewitnesses there’s always a doubt, sometimes
> only the shadow of a doubt.”

------
tus87
One word: corroboration.

