This paper shows that from a practical point of view, large lineups can decrease mistaken identifications much more than
Present-Absent Criteria Discrepancy.
Smith et al. [1], found that by informing witnesses shown a
show-up that if they did not identify the suspect as the target, they
would be shown an additional show-up, that the rate of mistaken
identifications decreased by half, while having a minimal effect on
identifications. They concluded that witnesses, finding an imperfect
fit between their memory of the target and someone who was not,
unconsciously lowered the level of their criteria for choosing.
They reasonably speculated that the same effect would be found
for lineups rather than show-ups. The research has important
theoretical implications. The question is whether the practical
implications are nearly as significant. The decrease in mistaken
identifications by half may also be found with lineups. However,
pursuing his line of research ignores the fact that large lineup have
the potential of decreasing mistaken identifications much more.
Levi [2-8] has experiments extensively with the 48-person
lineup. With an average rate of mistaken choices of someone in
target-absent lineups about 50%, the expected rate of mistaken
identifications is 50/48=1%. This is a much greater improvement
than be expected from Smith et al. [1] results. There is a decrease
in identifications, but not nearly to the same extent. Furthermore,
Levi [9] found the same number of identifications in a 96-person
lineup, where the expected rate of mistaken identifications was
50/96=0.52%. Would a lineup of 192 members, where the expected
rate of mistaken identifications likely be 50/192=0.26% be even
better, or would there be a falling off correct identifications? On
the other hand, would Smith et al. [1] method succeed in reducing
mistaken choices in 96-person lineups to the same extent as found
for show-ups? These are empirical questions worth exploring.