Garcia

1
Marilaura Garcia
Ali M. Meghdadi
English 39C/Section 33374
May 26, 2014
A New Start
When the penitentiary system began, it was a place to rehabilitate and become a better
citizen. Throughout time the penitentiary became a form of punishment instead of its original
purpose. Since then the numbers of inmates has increased. Within those people there are the
innocent who were convicted of a crime they did not commit. Convicting innocent people is a
serious issue because it is not only a couple of people who are falsely accused, but rather many
more. Their lives are stripped away and they are forced to live in a prison for years. People might
end up being falsely accused because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time, but it does
not mean it should be allowed without prevention. There is not an ultimate solution to be able to
prevent and save every innocent person but there is an opportunity to lessen future innocent
people from being jailed.
The penitentiary since the earliest times was a place to rehabilitate and pay off debts. By
the late 19th Century, outrage over prison conditions led to the "reformatory" movement, which
attempted to redefine prison's role as that of "reforming" inmates into model citizens, by
providing education, work, and counseling (Prison History). After time, jails became a form
of punishment. The inmates are treated wrongly and live under harsh conditions. Prisons are not
a place where one would ever fancy to be put in and prisons have become overcrowded over the
years. By 2006, the California prison system had reached a crisis point: built to house 80,000
inmates, it held more than twice that number (Stelloh). As the numbers of inmates increase, so
Garcia

2
would the chances of an innocent man or woman being jailed and forced to live in a tight
constricting place with no sense of privacy.
So far only 316 innocent prisoners have been exonerated, when the prisoner is freed,
since 1989 because of DNA testing. DNA testing is the most relatively reliable evidence to prove
the guilt or innocence of a person; it is not as available as it should be. Even though DNA testing
may confirm the innocence of a person it is hard to pass legislations to access it all the time or
made available to all cases. It costs a lot of money to collect and process DNA evidence as
shown in Table 1. The numbers vary because Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Orange County have
bigger populations than Topeka and Denver. Then when there is a huge population crime tends
to occur more frequently so the expenses of crime are larger sums than other places. On average
it costs 1,400 to collect the DNA and have it processed. Then 4,502 for each identified suspect
that was identified because of the DNA. However, it does not mean it was the actual criminal but
all the DNA that was at the crime scene. DNA testing would be a smart choice to help prosecute
someone, although due to funds it would be difficult to enforce it. DNA testing should be used
on people who have already been convicted and are trying to prove their innocence. This would
be wiser because more people are going in jail than out.
Table 1 Denver is highlighted because officials are assumed "best practices".
Source: Ritter, Nancy. "DNA Solves Property Crimes (But Are We Ready for That?)." National Institute
of Justice. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2014
Garcia

3
Convicting someone of a crime is not an easy thing to do. Yet, one of the causes that send
innocent people to jail is false eyewitness. Even though one might claim confidently they are
positive the person on trial is the man/woman they saw, it can lead to misidentification.
Misidentification is when a person is being identified as a criminal because of an eyewitness
when in fact they are innocent. And people can reliably tell whether they remember a prior
event or whether they dont remember the event, but just know that it happened (Gleitman
322). People fail to recognize the difference if they actually know or are just familiar which leads
them to believe that they are completely sure of their claim. Some witnesses are not even sure the
person they claimed they saw is the right person. Witnesses substantially changed their
description of a perpetrator (including key information such as height, weight and presence of
facial hair) after they learned more about a particular suspect (Innocence Project). Using
eyewitness testimony as evidence for a crime is not often reliable because of the fault within
someones memory. A person cannot recall everything they have seen because memory can be
contaminated. It can be contaminated because our memory can be tricked. Memory is a tricky
thing; a person cannot recollect something that happened a week ago with precise recollection.
To avoid altering the witnesss memory, he or she should not discuss the details of the crime
with anybody else and refrain from watching the case in the media (Wise). Eyewitnessess
becomes an issue if the witness did not get a perfect view of the criminal. These people are
evidence that even though we would like to believe they would be correct, it is not likely that
they are one hundred percent correct.
According to the statistics The New Jersey Supreme Court noted that in its state,
eyewitness misidentifications accounted for 60 percent of DNA exonerations; nationwide that
number was more than 75 percent (Saggar). Due to misidentification many innocent men have
Garcia

4
gone to jail. Eyewitness needs to be a priority to remediate because it is a huge reason as to why
so many innocent people are imprisoned. In the celebrated Tennessee case of Forbes v. State,
the defendant was convicted of rape and sentenced to 50 years in the penitentiary solely on the
basis of eyewitness identification. After another man confessed to the crime, Forbes was
subsequently pardoned by the Governor, but Forbes had already served some five years in
prison (Rayben). The man was convicted of a felony that would have cost him his life; if it were
not for the fact that the real perpetrator spoke out and admitted to the crime. Eyewitness is
something that needs to be fixed so there can be less error. It would be unwise to take out
eyewitnesses out of cases because sometimes it is the best evidence a case can have. Although
there are mistakes due to human error, causing it to be the biggest reason why people go to jail, it
can be made better.
Misidentification happens a lot and is the reason why so many innocent people are found
guilty. Misidentifications dont only threaten the innocent, they also derail investigations. While
police focus on finding evidence against an innocent person, the perpetrator can get away
(Innocence project). While an innocent man or woman is being suspected, the investigation in
way halts because a person is in custody and focuses on them instead of trying to see if there are
any other perpetrators. Thus leading an innocent man or woman in jail while the real criminal
gets away. It is stressful for victims and eyewitnesses to identify a perpetrator, and they make
mistakes. Sometimes these mistakes are triggered by a gap in memory or the desire to make an
identification at all costs (Innocence Project). As a human being one can be put under stress
with these types, in which a lot of responsibility is left to them. This type of stress leads a person
to make honest mistakes. To fix the issue, the witness should be calmed down and relaxed so he
or she are able to recall the incident with the best of their abilities. The stress that a witness
Garcia

5
undergoes while being questioned can mess up the memory. Fixing the small issues that lead to
misidentification can lead up to having fewer innocent people going to jail. So, if we reform the
methods then it would lead to fewer mistakes.
According to research there is fewer risk of misidentification if the police officer that is
administrating is blind on who the suspect is, blind administration (Innocence Project). By doing
this it stops the police officer from pushing the witness to choosing the suspect. If the
administrator is unaware, the witness will not be influenced to pick someone other than the real
criminal. To also help from the administrator influencing the witness would be if the process of
questioning the witness were recorded. By videotaping the procedure, it protects the innocent
suspects from any misconduct by the lineup administrator. Then, during court it would help the
prosecution because if the jury asked to view the questioning, it would be able to see how the
questioning was conducted and whether or not it followed unbiased protocol.
Then during the lineup, is when possible suspects are lined up either in person or picture
and the witness would try to point the suspect out, the suspects and fillers, and the non-suspects
in a lineup. It should all fit the description given by the witness because if one person stands out
from the rest he/she is most likely to be chosen as the suspect. For example, one of the suspects
should not be the only one of his/her race. In a lineup there should be more than one person of a
certain race because it would help ease cross-race biases. Eyewitness testimony is very
effective if you're dealing with somebody you know. But if you're dealing with strangers,
especially strangers of another race, and if that's the only data you have to go on ... it could be
suspect, says Jerry Bruce, chairman of the Psychology Department at Sam Houston University
in Huntsville, Texas (Fine). Bruce says this because if the eyewitness saw a person of dark
shade of skin color, he or she could make the assumption that it was the African American in the
Garcia

6
lineup, if he or she was the only one of his race. In addition, the witness would also need to see
other races of darker shades so the witness would not automatically assume the African
American. The other issue that would arise from cross-race biases is that it can lead to an
inaccurate identification. Eyewitnesses generally make less accurate identifications when they
have to identify a perpetrator who is a member of a different race than their own race (Wise).
This happens because they are not familiar with other races features and can mix races. Also
there should not be multiple lineups with same suspect because it would lead to misidentification
as well. If the witness is shown the same suspect multiple times he/she will choose that person
not because it is the actual perpetrator, but because of the familiarity that the witness will have
from seeing the suspect to many times.
There are two different types of lineups. One of them is called the simultaneous lineup,
also known as the traditional lineup, which is when all possible suspects are either lineup
together in person or are all shown together in pictures. From this lineup the witness would have
to pick one of the possible suspects or claim the real suspect is not there. Then the second lineup
is the sequential lineup in which all possible suspects are shown to the witness, either in person
or picture, one at a time. An identification obtained from a sequential lineup can be better
trusted than can one from a simultaneous lineup (Wells). The sequential is better trusted
because when all probable suspects are shown together, simultaneous lineup, the witness may
feel a sense to choose one of them even if he or she is not completely sure if they are correct. In
turn the sequential shows them one at a time so the witness can say yes or no more confidently
because they are led to believe they have more of a variety to choose from and feel less pressured
to pick someone.
During the questioning of the witness, the witness should be told from the beginning that
Garcia

7
the perpetrator might not be in the lineup. By doing this it takes off the pressure of the witness
that they do not have to pick someone out of the lineup. They should also be told that the
investigation would not end there if no one were chosen. Doing this assures the witness that it is
crucial that the right suspect is found, but it is not solely up to the witness to find the suspect.
The last thing the witness should be told is that he/she should not look towards the administrator
for guidance because it would influence and lead to a misidentification. In Tennessee the
Supreme Court is trying to put a law into action in which it would help regulate eyewitness.
These instructions require the jury to consider the capacity and
opportunity witness to observe the offender, the degree of certa-
inty, occasions when the witness failed to identify the defendant
and occasions when the witness made consistent identification.
The eyewitness jury instructions as well as the protections
against erroneous lineups are part of the defense arsenal to
counter mistakes in identification. In many jurisdictions this
also includes expert testimony by psychologists illustrating
how an individual could misidentify another person based on
various factors such as stress or the opportunity to see an
individual under abnormal conditions (Rayben).
If this law passes, then it would lead to less error in identification. The jury would be aware and
would speculate the witness if he or she is certain of the person they are accusing and check if
there could be a possible memory error.
Doing these simple steps would take off the pressure from choosing the suspect and
would lead to fewer misidentifications. Then finally after the lineup procedure is over the
Garcia

8
eyewitness should write out a statement on how confident they of the information they provided.
The statement would help because in court it would show how sure the witness is. Another thing
that would help out would be that instead of showing all the suspects at once, they should be
shown to the witness one by one. Doing this contributes to finding the real perpetrator and stops
from an innocent man/woman being convicted. It is of value because if the witness does not
know how many suspects there are, he or she may feel that one of the suspects is the actual
criminal rather than feeling obligated to choosing one of the suspects whether he/she is correct.
There are other proposed ideas to help remediate the issue at hand but they do not handle
the big portion of the problem, which is misidentification. Although there are different ideas as
to how to mitigate saving innocent they are still in progress and there needs to be a more
immediate way to mitigate the problem. With the 316 people who were exonerated seventy-five
percent were convicted because of misidentification. In Table 2 it shows the numbers of people
who have been exonerated since 1989 up to 2013 because of DNA testing. Seventy-five percent
of these numbers were jailed because of misidentification. Since misidentification is a big part on
why innocent people are jailed then it should be mitigated so the percentage can lower.

Table 2 Exonerations from 1989 to 2013 because of DNA testing.
Source: The Innocence Project-Home The innocence Project-Home N.p..n.d. Web 25 May 2014
Garcia

9
Even though eyewitness has jailed many innocent people getting rid of eyewitness, as a source to
convict someone cannot be done it is a big part of proving someone guilty or innocent.
Misidentification can be mitigated by the simple means of accepting that there is a possibility of
error from the witness. If an eyewitness can understand that he or she might be wrong with their
statements then the law enforcement would be aware and would not just focus on who the
witness points out and would also focus on finding another possible suspect. Then if the jury is
informed and understands that there is a possibility of misidentification then they would focus on
the other evidence presented and just take into consideration what was said by the witness.
Misidentification will always occur but it does not weigh out that eyewitness points out real
criminals. The way to go would be to prevent it by trying to lessen the problems regarding
eyewitness. Many innocent people are jailed because of misidentification. If this can be solved
there will be fewer innocent citizens accused for crimes. It is not a solution but it is a start.











Garcia

10
Works Cited
Fine, Andrea. "As juries weigh witness testimony, color lines apply." Christian Science Monitor
12 May 1999: 2. Academic Search Complete. Web. 22 May 2014.
Gleitman, Henry. Psychology. 8
th
ed. New York: Norton & Company, n.d. Print.
Levs, Josh. "Innocent Man: How Inmate Michael Morton Lost 25 Years of His Life."
CNN. Cable News Network, 04 Dec. 2013. Web. 04 May 2014.
"Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie ." Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie. N.p., n.d.
Web. 04 May 2014.
McCormack, Simon. "Daniel Villegas Exonerated: Man Convicted Of Murder 20 Years
Ago." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 14 Jan. 2014. Web. 04 May 2014.
Pelaez, Vicky. "The Prison Industry in the United States: Big Business or a New Form of
Slavery?" Global Research. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 May 2014.
"Prison History." Architects/Designers/Planners for Social Responsibility. N.p., n.d.
Web. 04 May 2014
Raybin, David L. "State V. Copeland: Supreme Court Permits Eyewitness Expert Testimony."
Tennessee Bar Journal 43.7 (2007): 28-29. Academic Search Complete. Web. 22 May
2014.
Ritter, Nancy. "DNA Solves Property Crimes (But Are We Ready for That?)." National Institute
of Justice. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2014
Saggar, Natasha A. "New Jersey Revamps Eyewitness Identifications." Litigation News 37.2
(2012): 22. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 May 2014.
Schenwar, Maya. "35,948 Arrested Yesterday." Truthout. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2014.
Garcia

11
Stelloh, Tim. "California's Great Prison Experiment." Nation 296.26/27 (2013): 31-34.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 22 May 2014.
"The Innocence Project - Home." The Innocence Project - Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 May
2014.
Wells, Gary L. "Eyewitness Identification: Probative Value, Criterion Shifts, And Policy
Regarding The Sequential Lineup." Current Directions In Psychological Science (Sage
Publications Inc.) 23.1 (2014): 11-16. Academic Search Complete. Web. 22 May 2014.
Wise, Richard A., Barry Cushman, and Martin A. Safer. "Scientific Procedures For Eyewitness
Evidence For U.S. Law Officers." Journal Of Forensic Psychology Practice 12.2 (2012):
173-187. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 May 2014.