Eyewitness identification can play an important role in convicting a suspect, but research has also shown that unreliable eyewitness evidence is a major reason for wrongful convictions (Brandon & Davies, 1973; Huff et al., 1976). For example, Wells et al. (1998) found that of 40 exonerated cases, 90% involved faulty eyewitness evidence. As a result, there has been extensive research into how both police practice and policy can influence the reliability of eyewitness testimony (Steblay et al, 2003; Wells et al, 1995). This has led to the development of guidelines which aim to encourage fair policing policies and reduce erroneous eyewitness evidence (Wells et al, 2016). For example, the American Psychology-Law Society (APLS) has made recommendations on line-ups, a police procedure used to evaluate whether a witness can identify and distinguish the suspect from other innocent individuals (fillers). One of the guidelines states that the formations should be fair, such that no one should stand out due to distinctive characteristics. Secondly, it is stated that the person conducting the training should not know who the perpetrator is (Wells et al, 2016). In the case of R v Anderson, these two guidelines and other suggestions for fair training were not followed, and therefore raise important questions regarding the quality of the evidence leading to the conviction of Stephen Anderson. These issues and their implications will be discussed further in this essay. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay There are many issues surrounding the way the line-up was conducted. First, there is a clear and large discrepancy between the offender's and Anderson's descriptions. According to the victim, the man was clean-shaven while Anderson had a moustache. Furthermore, the man was 5'9, while Anderson was 6'2. Finally, the man was said to have a gap between his teeth while Anderson had a chipped tooth. Overall, descriptions of these men vary widely. However, as stated in the case, the detective arrested Anderson and included him on the list because he thought he resembled the offender's description. This highlights a broader problem in police procedures: Police generally don't need hard evidence that a suspect is involved in a crime to bring them into line. Some investigators include suspects on a list based on simple intuition (Wells, 2006). In a national survey conducted in the United States, more than a third of law enforcement agencies said their officers didn't need any evidence to bring someone to line. Therefore, including innocent people in a lineup increases the risk of a wrongful conviction. (Wise, Safer & Maro, 2011). A fair formation is one in which no single individual stands out for distinctive characteristics, and this is a guideline put forward by the APLS (Wells et al, 2016). When an individual stands out, this has implications for the functional dimension of training. This refers to the number of viable members of the lineup who resemble the perpetrator, while nominal size is the overall number of people in the lineup (Wells et al, 1979). Ideally, these should match. However, in R v Anderson, Anderson was the only one with dental defects, so it probably distinguished him from the others who had no dental defects. Therefore, the functional size does not correspond to the nominal size. Research has repeatedly found that when a suspect stands out from others in atraining, people are more likely to select him as a suspect (Clark, 2012; Doob & Kirshenbaum, 1973; Wogalter, Marwitz & Leonard, 1992). Collof, Wade, and Strange (2016) conducted a large study examining lineups involving people with distinctive characteristics. In this study, the distinguishing feature was hidden for some participants. This was done by replicating it on others in the lineup, using pixelization or blocking above. For the other participants the distinctive feature was left in evidence. The results showed that regardless of the method used to cover the distinguishing feature, participants performed with similar accuracy. However, when the distinguishing feature was allowed to stand out, participants' accuracy decreased and false identifications increased. For example, when the perpetrator was absent but included a person with a similar distinguishing characteristic, participants identified this person as an innocent suspect 35% of the time, compared to only 9% of the time when the distinguishing characteristic was replicated in all fillers. in the lineup. This is in line with the argument that people with distinctive characteristics are likely to be chosen (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 choosing from a lineup, people tend to use a relative judgment strategy. This involves choosing the person who is closest to the suspect, even if the overall match is not close. Thus, when an individual with a similar distinguishing characteristic to the offender is included, he or she is more likely to be chosen because he or she is more similar to the offender than others 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 offender, compared to the other individuals on the list who did not have any dental defects. In contrast, Wixted and Mickes (2014) argue that when a lineup is right, the victim has the ability to infer the distinguishing feature and draw on other cues and is therefore more likely to make an informed decision. The next issue also centers on a rule established by the APLS: the person conducting the deployment must not know who the culprit is (Wells et al, 2016). However, in R v Anderson it was also conducted by the same detective who included Anderson in the lineup. Research suggests that this is problematic, as they may run the risk of influencing the victim (Wells,2006). For example, Clark (2012) states that if the police know who the suspect is, they may unknowingly encourage the victim to select that person. Phillips et al (1999) suggest that this can be done through various verbal and non-verbal cues. For example, statements such as "look carefully at the number..." could draw more attention to that individual. Instead, the research suggests that a detective who doesn't know who the suspect is should conduct the search. Canter, Hammond, and Youngs (2013) found that when a knowledgeable administrator conducted the training, the target member was selected more than twice as often as when a blind administrator conducted it. In the case of R v. Anderson, the detective may have unconsciously directed attention to Anderson, increasing the likelihood that the victim will choose Anderson as the perpetrator. After the victim selected the suspect, the detective said, "Well done, this is our case." suspect!" This is an example of post-identification feedback.