Eyewitness identification can play an important role in convicting a suspect, but research has also shown that the unreliability of eyewitness testimony is a major reason for wrongful convictions (Brandon and Davies, 1973; Huff et al., 1976). For example, Wells et al. (1998) found that of 40 exonerated cases, 90% involved erroneous eyewitness testimony. Consequently, much research has been conducted on how police practices and policies can affect the reliability of eyewitness testimony (Steblay et al, 2003; Wells et al, 1995). This led to the development of guidelines aimed at encouraging fair policing policies and reducing erroneous eyewitness testimony (Wells et al, 2016). For example, the American Psychology-Law Society (APLS) has made recommendations regarding lineups, a police procedure used to assess whether a witness can identify and distinguish the suspect from other innocent individuals (fillers). One of the guidelines states that queues should be fair, so that no one can stand out due to distinctive characteristics. Second, it states that the person organizing the identification must not know who the culprit is (Wells et al, 2016). In the case of R v Anderson, these two guidelines, as well as other suggestions in favor of fair lineups, are not followed and therefore pose significant problems regarding the quality of the evidence leading to Stephen's conviction Anderson. These questions and their implications will be discussed in more detail throughout this essay. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The way the programming was conducted raises many questions. First, there is a clear discrepancy between the author's and Anderson's descriptions. According to the victim, the man was clean-shaven while Anderson had a mustache. Additionally, the man was 5'9, while Anderson was 6'2. Finally, the man reportedly had a gap between his teeth while Anderson had a chipped tooth. Overall, descriptions of these men vary widely. Nonetheless, as stated in the case, the detective arrested Anderson and included him in the lineup because he thought he resembled the description of the attacker. This highlights a larger problem in police procedures: Police generally do not need hard evidence that a suspect is involved in a crime to place him in a lineup. Some detectives include suspects in a list based on simple intuition (Wells, 2006). In a national survey in the United States, more than a third of law enforcement agencies said their officers did not need any evidence to place someone in a lineup. Therefore, including innocent people in a lineup increases the risk of a wrongful conviction. (Wise, Safer & Maro, 2011). A fair line-up is one in which no individual stands out due to distinctive characteristics, and this is a guideline proposed by the SPLA (Wells et al, 2016). When an individual stands out, it has implications for the functional size of the formation. This refers to the number of viable queue members who resemble the culprit, whereas nominal size is the total number of people in the queue (Wells et al, 1979). Ideally, these should match. However, in R v Anderson, Anderson was the only one with dental defects, which arguably distinguished him fromothers who had no dental defects. Therefore, the functional size does not correspond to the nominal size. Research has repeatedly shown that when a suspect stands out from others in a lineup, people are more likely to choose him or her as a suspect (Clark, 2012; Doob & Kirshenbaum, 1973; Wogalter, Marwitz, & Leonard, 1992). Collof, Wade, and Strange (2016) conducted a large study of lineups involving people with distinctive characteristics. In this study, the feature was hidden for some participants. This was done either by replicating it on other members of the line-up, using rasterization or blocking on top. For the other participants, the particularity was left aside. The results showed that regardless of the method used to cover the distinguishing feature, participants performed with similar accuracy. Yet when the distinguishing feature was left highlighted, participants' accuracy decreased and false identifications increased. For example, when the culprit was absent but included a person with a similar distinguishing feature, participants identified that person as an innocent suspect 35% of the time, compared to only 9% of the time when the distinguishing feature was replicated across all cases. fillings. in the queue. This is consistent with the argument that people with distinctive characteristics are likely to be selected (Clark, 2012). So why do unfair lineups make us more likely to choose the individual who stands out? Wells (1998) explained this by suggesting that when selecting from a list, people tend to use a relative judgment strategy. This involves choosing the person who most closely matches the suspect, even if the overall match is not close. Thus, when an individual with a similar distinguishing characteristic to the perpetrator is included, they are more likely to be chosen because they are more similar to the perpetrator compared to other people included in the list (Zarkadi, Wade, & Stewart, 2009). . In R v Anderson, Anderson was the only one with dental defects, even though he had a chipped tooth rather than a gap between his teeth. This is the closest match to the perpetrator, compared to other individuals in the queue who had no dental defects. Conversely, Wixted and Mickes (2014) argue that when a lineup is fair, the victim has the ability to infer the distinguishing trait and rely on other cues and is therefore more likely to take an informed decision. a rule laid down by the SPLA: the person leading the identification parade must not know who the culprit is (Wells et al, 2016). However, in the case of R v Anderson, the same detective who had included Anderson in the hit list also led him. Research suggests that this is problematic because they risk victim bias (Wells, 2006). For example, Clark (2012) states that if the police know who the suspect is, they may unknowingly encourage the victim to choose that person. Phillips et al (1999) suggest that this can be done through a variety of verbal and non-verbal cues. For example, statements such as “look closely at the number…” could draw special attention to that person. Instead, research suggests that a detective who does not know who the suspect is should make the identification. Canter, Hammond, and Youngs (2013) found that when an informed administrator made the selection, the target member was selected more than twice as often as when an administrator.