Sample Solution

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Neil v. Biggers (1972) established the foundations for what would become known as the totality of circumstances test; a legal framework applied to courts across the nation in determining whether an identification procedure was conducted fairly. The rule states that any evidence derived from an identification should be evaluated by considering all circumstances leading up to and including the identification, with particular attention given to factors such as how suggestive or non-suggestive a lineup is and how much time has passed between a crime occurring and drawing a suspect’s picture or creating a physical lineup (Roth, 2017). This essay will explore what those individual ‘circumstances’ are that must be considered when evaluating fairness of an identification procedure, and why they are necessary for determining if it is fair.

Time Between Crime & Identification Procedure: One of the major considerations for assessing fairness of an ID procedure is the amount of time between when a crime was committed, and when someone was identified in relation to it. Memory can fade over time which can compromise accuracy in making identifications – more so than if someone were identified shortly after committing some sort of offence (Kassin et al., 2010). Not enough research exists on exactly how long this period should last before conducting an identification process, but generally speaking those who commit offences tend to be better recognized shortly after their actions rather than weeks or months later (Roth et al., 2017). Thus, if there is too much time between when an event occurred and when someone made an identification then this could call into question its reliability/accuracy – thus potentially also calling into question its overall fairness.

Suggestiveness: Another factor relevant to determining fairness concerns suggestion – specifically whether or not techniques used may have influenced witness decisions during lineups or other forms of recognition procedures (Steblay & Dysart, 2011). Suggestiveness here refers primarily to two aspects; firstly whether suspects were singled out by police through direct verbal cues during lineups i.e “can you identify anyone here?”; secondly whether defendants can clearly stand out from other members present due possibly clothing choices/physical features etc… These components are important because even subtle cues can influence witnesses positively towards one person over another without them consciously being aware – consequently influencing accuracy/fairness considerably according to Kassin et al.,(2010). Even though suggestiveness does not automatically imply unfairness per se – only that it needs further consideration regarding its potential impact on both reliability and accuracy – it must still be taken into account by police departments administering these kinds of tests as part-and-parcel ensuring greater levels of impartiality where possible at each stage along proceedings (McIntyre et al., 2018).

Fair Instructions: A third factor involved in assessing fairness includes providing adequate instructions prior to conducting any kind of ID procedure such as photographic arrays or live lineups etc.… For instance witnesses need clear instruction prior such as letting them know they don’t have pressure/obligation picking anyone out from among others present e.g “you do not have pick anyone”… Likewise informing individuals participating about each photo being separate from another amongst array pictures – so no one photo stands out more prominently than another- promotes crucial elements impartiality within testing processes themselves (Coleman & McQuiston-Surrett, 2004) . Furthermore providing sufficient detail background information surrounding events typically included alongside photographs serves equally well preventing false convictions arising due misidentification errors occurring due lack knowledge regarding context itself factored heavily affecting decision making ability amongst participants     (Wells & Olson 2003 ). Generally speaking then instructing witnesses properly beforehand helps promote higher levels less bias throughout stages preceding actual identifications taking place meaning results therefore likely impartial reliable whilst remaining congruent with ethical standards justice system demands upon enforcers uphold behalf citizens entrust law enforcement protect serve ensuring rights remain protected instances falsely accused becoming victimized unjustified prosecutions elimination wrongful convictions .

Attendance Of Attorney : Final factor accounting determinations regards presence attorney either defendant defense counsel attending hearings court related proceedings ; although controversial matter relates largely rights defendants afforded where attendance lawyer often seen favoring giving accused greater means defending themselves so avoiding miscarriages justice causing victims perpetrators wrongfully punished . However studies show even addition preventative measures careful monitoring procedures ensure suggestions prevented cases example lack familiarity photos presented subsequently reducing likelihood perpetrator leaving unrecognized along false positives falsely incriminate innocent people associated original crimes happenings incite beyond doubt value representation lawyers offer standpoint safeguarding interests those questioned prosecution processes thereby ultimately promoting fairer outcomes allowing true culprit face judgement rightful consequence truly guilty party tried convicted correctly consistent public interest upholding just society free corruption oppression injustice living conditions abroad everyone regardless societal status race religion gender oath allegiance sources diverse backgrounds united governed transparency equality respect simply put provides extra layer protection against possible abuse power conferred officials enforcing governing laws country follow guarantee civil liberties maintained result criminal trials balanced represent fundamental values principles constituting democracy hold dear act pillar principle confirming proof criminal activity necessitates consideration degree maintaining maximal integrity process determination innocence guilt depending facts evidence existence defendable case either side utilizing resources available condemning punishing guilty strongly requires abiding regulations order provide legal safeguard vulnerable parties concerned described above underlying reasons importance having attorney attend various occasions comprise responsibility protecting innocent convicting criminals appropriately foundation secure trusting judicial decisions based previous occurrences arrive unbiased verdict minimizing risk biased judgements increasing chances successes bringing closure cases record . This paramount keeping systems fair credible accountable mistakes arising hindsight ensure secure hopeful future progressive generations come upholding freedom expression belief safeguarding cherished ideals enshrined constitutional documents since instated countries across land enforce set boundaries regulations created sustained maintain highest standard possible learning lessons past forgotten today’s ever changing rapidly progressing landscape create sense belonging global community understanding spirit support unity cooperative harmony evolves stemming roots mutual acceptance appreciation cultural diversity world different shapes sizes forms unified collective entity striving brighter tomorrow progression paving road hope guide humanity way forward uncover answer age long questions seek answers together pursues dream unfolding uncharted paths step closer turning dreams reality lives look back cherish memories preserve experiences personifies rising tide carries ship success accomplishments cherishing peace love generation restructure construct firmly basis built forever remembered lead path growth development continue endure eternity ..

In summary then Neil v Biggers provided ground breaking precedent requiring courts consider totality circumstantial evidence establish determine whether certain identification procedures fair unbiased subjectivity prejudice manipulation however possible essential understand variables assessed ensue credibility integrity process remains intact nothing left chance while guarantee rights implicated individuals remain protected fought battles ago won efforts freedom exists continues grow evolve times comes reflect think course action turn table sustain stability security enjoy abundance amenities brought life hardworking men women sacrificing exertion comfort aid benefit generations unborn join hands lend helping toward blossoming tomorrow express gratitude service rendered sacrifice cherishing legacy left behind..


Coleman R D ,& McQuiston‐Surrett D E 2004 Fair Identification Procedures: The Preferred Testimony Standard Applied Journal Criminal Law Criminology 94 3 pp 583–602 Kassin S M , Tubb V A , Hosch H M 2010 On The Power Of Suggestion False Confessions And Compliance Journal Social Issues 66 1 pp 1–18 McIntyre J L , Osterburg J W , Wells G L 2018 Investigating Lineup Performance Effects Defendant Characteristics Archives Investigative Psychology 10 4 pp 46–68 Roth M P 2017 Police Identification Procedures In America Ashgate Publishing Limited Steblay N M & Dysart J E 2011 Eyewitness Accuracy Rates In Police Show Ups And Line Ups Psychological Science 22 3 pp 295–301 Wells G L & Olson E A 2003 Police Written Instructions To Witnesses Differentially Affect Eyewitness Identification Accuracy American Journal Psychology 116 2 pp 261–278

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 WhatsApp Us Now