Abstract
The reform of eyewitness identification procedures is based in part on an argument which asserts that recommended procedures reduce the risk of false identifications with little or no reduction in the rate of correct identifications. A recent review of the experimental research literature (Clark & Godfrey, 2009), however, challenges the “No Cost” view. Across a range of identification procedures, correct and false identification rates covary such that decreases in false identification rates are typically accompanied by decreases in correct identification rates. The implication, that criminals will escape prosecution as a result of procedures implemented to protect the innocent, makes policy decisions far more complicated than they would otherwise be under the No Cost view. Policy issues are discussed in terms of the trade off between correct and false identifications, the economics and values associated with lineup outcomes, the probative value of evidence, and the procedural justice of eyewitness identification procedures.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
