Received:March 27, 2019; Published: April 02, 2019
*Corresponding author: Avraham Levi, Department of Israeli Police, Jerusalim, Israel
Why does the simultaneous lineup produce less mistaken identifications than the showup? Two prominent theories have been posited to explain this fact. Diagnostic feature detection theory Wixted, Mickes  posits that lineups enhance Witnesses’ ability to discriminate between innocent and guilty suspects, because facial features can be compared across lineup members. Filler siphoning Wells, Smalarz, Smith [2,3] posits that the presence of other lineup members siphons some of the incorrect identifications that would otherwise land on the innocent suspect. Levi, Lindsay  proposed testing large lineups to produce less identifications than the six-person simultaneous lineups. They reasoned that large lineups could substantially reduce mistaken identifications simply because, since the chance of the innocent suspect being chosen was no greater than any other lineup member, when a witness would mistakenly choose someone the chance of mistakenly identifying the innocent suspect is 1/N, where N is lineup size.
This reasoning has a similarity to the filler siphoning theory, except that the mechanism is not “siphoning” but simply probability, and most, not only some, of the choices will be fillers. The difference could become quite substantial as the large lineup grows, for example to size 48. Levi [5-8] tested ever larger lineups, reaching a lineup size of 120. He found that even as lineup size grew to 120, the number of successful identifications in target-present lineups and the number of mistaken choices in target-absent lineups remained constant. How do large lineups relate to the diagnostic theory of detection and the filler siphoning theory? The diagnostic theory predicts that more fillers should enhance the ability of witnesses to discriminate between innocent suspects, and therefore larger lineups should result in fewer witnesses mistakenly choosing someone. However, Levi’s experiments with large lineups found that no matter what the size of the lineup, the number of witnesses mistakenly choosing someone remained constant.
The filler siphoning explanation is faced with a similar problem. With more fillers, more witnesses should mistakenly choose someone who is not the suspect, and again these conflicts with Levi’s results. Rather, it seems to make more sense to interpret Levi’s results as indicating a certain response bias: a consistent number of witnesses are uncertain enough of the identity of the suspect and want to choose someone, and this is independent of lineup size. Collof, Wixted  argue that response bias is a confounding factor that their method eliminates from the analysis. However, response bias clearly is present in real world lineups, and ignoring them seems quite counterproductive when our goal is to produce the best possible lineup. Levi [10-15] has experimented with a 48-person lineup. The results indicate that the decrease in identifications is more than compensated by the decrease in mistaken identifications. If eyewitness researchers are interested in exploring better lineups, it would seem wise to turn their attention to 48-person lineups and even larger ones [16-18].
Bio chemistryUniversity of Texas Medical Branch, USA
Department of Criminal JusticeLiberty University, USA
Department of PsychiatryUniversity of Kentucky, USA
Department of MedicineGally International Biomedical Research & Consulting LLC, USA
Department of Urbanisation and AgriculturalMontreal university, USA
Oral & Maxillofacial PathologyNew York University, USA
Gastroenterology and HepatologyUniversity of Alabama, UK
Department of MedicineUniversities of Bradford, UK
OncologyCirculogene Theranostics, England
Radiation ChemistryNational University of Mexico, USA
Analytical ChemistryWentworth Institute of Technology, USA
Minimally Invasive SurgeryMercer University school of Medicine, USA
Pediatric DentistryUniversity of Athens , Greece
The annual scholar awards from Lupine Publishers honor a selected number Read More...