Juxtaposition
A comparison is a measure that takes place in the context of police investigative work and is used to convict criminals. In the variant of the electoral comparison, an eyewitness of the crime is shown a selection of people, one of whom, according to the state of the investigation, is the potential perpetrator, while the comparison persons are potentially innocent. A comparison that does not take the form of an election comparison, in which only a single suspect is presented to the witness, generally leads to the fact that the corresponding witness evidence can no longer be used in criminal proceedings. In Germany, therefore, according to No. 18 of the guidelines for criminal proceedings and fine proceedings , comparisons must be made in the form of an election comparison.
The aim of the comparison is to check whether the eyewitness actually recognizes the perpetrator. Therefore, when selecting the comparison persons, it is important to ensure that they look as similar as possible to the main suspect in terms of size, age, stature and appearance. To protect the eyewitness, they can be positioned behind a one-way mirror so that the perpetrator cannot see the witness.
Incorrect witness identification
It is important to mention that the reliability of witness identifications is less than assumed. This can be illustrated by the example of the USA, where psychologists who conducted experimental research on this topic advised caution in handling witness identifications. According to the US campaign Innocence Project (2010), 258 (apparently wrongly) convicted people were released in the 1990s thanks to the use of DNA tests . 200 of them were sentenced on the basis of false witness-perpetrator identification in a juxtaposition.
There are many reasons for these incorrect identifications. The decision of a witness (either to identify an alleged perpetrator or to reject all persons in the lineup) depends not only on the quality of their memories, but also on other factors such as social influences, feedback, general, cognitive or methodological impairments.
- For example, it is more difficult to identify a perpetrator of a different ethnic group than your own, e. B. to face a lineup of Asian people as a western person.
- It is also obvious that it is particularly difficult to identify a perpetrator who was wearing a mask or similar at the time of the crime. which is why comparisons should be used with particular caution in this context.
- The witness in such a lineup situation normally assumes that the perpetrator is among the people in the line-up, which is quite likely to let him make a decision (a correct or incorrect identification, depending on the case). Feedback from the competent officials can influence the witness this "decisiveness": is he explicitly pointed out the offender that, while actually under the conditions shown suspects are can , but not necessarily be the case must , he will meet less likely a selection.
- Feedback after identification (e.g. “Very good, you have identified the perpetrator.”) Also affects, for example, how convinced the witness is of his decision after the confrontation. For this reason, among other things, many psychologists advocate “double-blind lineups”: a form of comparison in which neither the witness nor the responsible officer knows who and whether the perpetrator is present, in order to leave the witness as uninfluenced as possible.
- A longer period between the incident and the subsequent confrontation, as well as cognitive aspects (e.g. divided attention of the witness) can also influence the correctness of the witness's decision.
- Formal factors also play a role in correct or incorrect identifications, e.g. B. unfavorable lighting conditions, large distance between the suspect and the witness, short duration of the explicit confrontation.
- The lack of inclusion of the various influencing factors on the quality of a witness testimony and the higher weighting of police statements carry the risk of a wrong judgment.
- While some studies show that police officers in psychological studies have a better perception and reproduction of criminal-relevant details than lay people, other studies did not find any significant differences between witness statements by lay people and trained police officers. On the contrary, one study points to the overestimation of one's own abilities when it comes to identifying experts such as police officers.
Web links
- Mirko Laudon: "Comparison by means of an optional photo template" , Strafakte.de of January 27, 2015.
Individual evidence
- ↑ Neil Brewer, Gary L. Wells: Eyewitness Identification . In: Current Directions in Psychological Science . tape 20 , no. 1 , February 4, 2011, p. 24-27 , doi : 10.1177 / 0963721410389169 ( sagepub.com [accessed June 14, 2017]).
- ↑ Toch and Schulte (1961), Vredeveldt et al. (2015), Müller (2012), Zimmermann and Sparer (2009)
- ↑ Smart et al. (2014), Stanny & Johnson (2000)
- ↑ Kristina Kaminski, Siegfried Sporer: Are police officers better eyewitnesses? 2016.