|
|
עמוד:18
LAWam / SOCIETY A Case of Mistaken Identity In 1985 , Ronald Cotton was living a nightmare : he had been found guilty of two crimes of rape and burglary and had been sentenced to prison for life plus 54 years * . He had been identified by one of the victims in a police line-up and this evidence was used against him at the trial . A second victim had been unable to identify Cotton in the police line-up . However , later on at the trial , the second victim also identified him as the man who had attacked her . Throughout his trial and for years after , Cotton insisted that he was innocent and that it was all a mistake , but nobody believed him . Then , in 1994 , DNA tests * proved beyond any doubt that Ronald Cotton had not committed the crime . After he had already served 11 years in prison , his case was finally dismissed and he was released from prison . As a result of Ronald Cotton ' s case and others like his , the US criminal justice system is reviewing testimonies given by victims as well as by eyewitnesses . Courts of law have always considered eyewitnesses to be accurate and truthful . Yet over the last decade , more than 60 people have been falsely accused and convicted of serious crimes in the US . In most of these cases , they were convicted on the basis of evidence that was given by eyewitnesses . How is this possible ? Recent studies by psychologists have shown that human memory is actually very poor at recalling past events . Traditional police methods of questioning eyewitnesses and using their evidence to identif y suspects may be problematic . Psychologists have found that these methods often have the opposite effect : they prevent rather than aid in gathering accurate information . Other psychological studies have shown that eyewitnesses often identify the wrong person from photos or " mug shots . " Therefore , many psychologists have concluded that eyewitness testimony is unreliable . 4 Eyewitnesses often feel under pressure to identify someone , and in many cases , they will make a choice , even if they are not certain . The police officer standing next to an eyewitness may put pressure on the eyewitness to choose someone . Unknowingly , the police officer often guides the eyewitness to choose the " right " suspect . This may be done through body language , a direct question or a request to "look at that one again . " Dr . Gary Wells , a psychologist at the University of Iowa , has conducted research into eyewitness memory and identification . His research has shown interesting infonriation on how human memory works . He has made recommendations regarding police line-ups and courts of law . For example , he has recommended that eyewitnesses view each person from the line-up separately rather than all together . In addition , he suggests that eyewitnesses view police line-ups that do not include a suspect at all . If the eyewitness identifies someone , this shows that he or she does not really remember the details ofthe crime . 6 Some of Dr . Wells ' s recommendations are already used in many states in the US . Perhaps more reliable methods of identifying suspects will prevent cases like Ronald Cotton ' s from occurring in the future . * life plus 54 years — the prison sentence "life plus 'X' years" is sometimes given in the USA . This means that the prisoner must serve his or her entire life in prison and has no possibility of pardon or parole . * DNA tests — tests that compare the genetic code of blood or other body fluids or tissue left at the scene of crime to that ofthe suspect . A DNA test is 1 00 % accurate .
|
|