A Review Study on Scrutinizing the Efficacy of Single-Blind Versus Double-Blind Police Line-ups

T. Jaitly
{"title":"A Review Study on Scrutinizing the Efficacy of Single-Blind Versus Double-Blind Police Line-ups","authors":"T. Jaitly","doi":"10.19080/jfsci.2018.10.555797","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"DNA Profiling was not so efficiently developed and utilized in the earlier times to get a conclusive proof. Almost all convictions were solely based on the eye-witness’ identification of the suspect. The innocent had a fair chance of being convicted for a crime he/she did not commit because of his/her resemblance to the real culprit. After the advent of the DNA technology in the recent past, results mostly proved to be inconclusive due to inexperience of the experts. Even in those cases, eye-witness identification and testimony were given primary importance. One of the eye-witness identification procedures is “line-up”. There can be live line-ups as well as photo line-ups. The present study circumference the reviews of the inefficiency of single-blind line-ups (in which the administrating officer knows the identity of the perpetrator while the victim does not) in comparison to double-blind line-ups (where both the parties are unaware of the identity of the perpetrator). Cases from the recent past have been highlighted in the study to get a clearer perspective of the line-up procedure and how a poor and biased administration procedure leads to the conviction of an innocent.","PeriodicalId":93024,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic sciences & criminal investigation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic sciences & criminal investigation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19080/jfsci.2018.10.555797","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

DNA Profiling was not so efficiently developed and utilized in the earlier times to get a conclusive proof. Almost all convictions were solely based on the eye-witness’ identification of the suspect. The innocent had a fair chance of being convicted for a crime he/she did not commit because of his/her resemblance to the real culprit. After the advent of the DNA technology in the recent past, results mostly proved to be inconclusive due to inexperience of the experts. Even in those cases, eye-witness identification and testimony were given primary importance. One of the eye-witness identification procedures is “line-up”. There can be live line-ups as well as photo line-ups. The present study circumference the reviews of the inefficiency of single-blind line-ups (in which the administrating officer knows the identity of the perpetrator while the victim does not) in comparison to double-blind line-ups (where both the parties are unaware of the identity of the perpetrator). Cases from the recent past have been highlighted in the study to get a clearer perspective of the line-up procedure and how a poor and biased administration procedure leads to the conviction of an innocent.
单盲与双盲警察列队检查效果的综述研究
在早期,DNA分析并没有得到如此有效的发展和利用,以获得确凿的证据。几乎所有的定罪都完全基于目击证人对嫌疑人的指认。无辜者有公平的机会因他/她没有犯下的罪行而被定罪,因为他/她与真正的罪犯相似。近年来,DNA技术出现后,由于专家缺乏经验,结果大多被证明是不确定的。即使在这些案件中,目击证人的鉴定和证词也是最重要的。证人鉴定程序之一是“列队”。可以有现场排队,也可以有照片排队。本研究围绕着对单盲队列(行政官员知道犯罪者的身份,而受害者不知道)与双盲队列(双方都不知道犯罪者的身份)相比效率低下的审查。该研究强调了最近发生的案件,以便更清楚地了解排队程序,以及不良和有偏见的行政程序如何导致无辜者被定罪。
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
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信