From Tradition to Evidence: Rethinking the Law on Eyewitness Identification in Estonia

Annegrete Palu, Anneli Soo
{"title":"From Tradition to Evidence: Rethinking the Law on Eyewitness Identification in Estonia","authors":"Annegrete Palu, Anneli Soo","doi":"10.12697/ji.2023.32.08","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Eyewitness identification is a procedural act that is influenced by various psychological factors. Scientific research has demonstrated that the way identification procedures are conducted and administered affects witnesses’ identification decisions and their confidence in those decisions. Research into these variables has also led to best-practice guidelines for conducting eyewitness identification. However, the legal system in Estonia, as have those in many other places, has been slow to adopt the recommendations and has adhered to traditional principles instead, which is reflected in the law on eyewitness identification. This article analyses whether Estonia's law governing eyewitness identification is consistent with evidence-based recommendations. It first presents an overview of variables related to the reliability of identification evidence over which the criminal-justice system has control, and then compares the most important findings from scientific literature (and the resulting best practices) with the current law. Finally, it highlights specific areas of law wherein adjustments could produce better alignment with the findings from scientific research. The authors conclude that the law today, leaving many decisions up to law-enforcement entities, displays a need for additional official guidelines. The article highlights the importance of using scientific research to inform legal practices. \n","PeriodicalId":55758,"journal":{"name":"Juridica International","volume":"97 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Juridica International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12697/ji.2023.32.08","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Eyewitness identification is a procedural act that is influenced by various psychological factors. Scientific research has demonstrated that the way identification procedures are conducted and administered affects witnesses’ identification decisions and their confidence in those decisions. Research into these variables has also led to best-practice guidelines for conducting eyewitness identification. However, the legal system in Estonia, as have those in many other places, has been slow to adopt the recommendations and has adhered to traditional principles instead, which is reflected in the law on eyewitness identification. This article analyses whether Estonia's law governing eyewitness identification is consistent with evidence-based recommendations. It first presents an overview of variables related to the reliability of identification evidence over which the criminal-justice system has control, and then compares the most important findings from scientific literature (and the resulting best practices) with the current law. Finally, it highlights specific areas of law wherein adjustments could produce better alignment with the findings from scientific research. The authors conclude that the law today, leaving many decisions up to law-enforcement entities, displays a need for additional official guidelines. The article highlights the importance of using scientific research to inform legal practices.
从传统到证据:重新思考爱沙尼亚的目击证人辨认法
目击者指认是一种程序行为,受到各种心理因素的影响。科学研究表明,进行和管理辨认程序的方式会影响证人的辨认决定及其对这些决定的信心。对这些变量的研究也为进行目击者指认制定了最佳实践指南。然而,爱沙尼亚的法律制度与其他许多地方的法律制度一样,在采纳这些建议方面进展缓慢,而是坚持传统原则,这一点在关于目击者指认的法律中有所体现。本文分析了爱沙尼亚关于目击者指认的法律是否符合循证建议。文章首先概述了刑事司法系统可控制的与辨认证据可靠性有关的变量,然后将科学文献中最重要的发现(以及由此产生的最佳实践)与现行法律进行比较。最后,作者强调了法律中的一些具体领域,在这些领域中的调整可以更好地与科学研究结果保持一致。作者的结论是,目前的法律将许多决定权留给了执法实体,这表明有必要制定更多的官方指南。文章强调了利用科学研究为法律实践提供依据的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信