Convicting a suspect being guilty is usually a difficult task more especially to People given the responsibility to carry out the sentence. These individuals include; police officers, district attorneys, judges and jury members. This is widely contributed by risks they may face such as; developing confirmation bias or tunnel vision. These parties may readily become convinced that the suspect is guilty, and may then no longer be open to alternative scenarios in which the suspect is actually innocent
People are biased to test hypotheses by looking for confirmation rather than by searching for falsification. According to Kassin (2005) a research bases on psychology suggests that human beings rarely seek, interpret, and create
behavioral data that verify it’ once they have an impression thus they are inclined for bias. In a classic study, Lord, Ross, and Lepper (1979) it was found out that confirmation bias has various definite level owing to the fact personal opinions do defer.
People have the aspects of favoring confirmation as laps testing strategy as illustrated by Wason’s card selection paradigm. They also tend to play a progressive role in producing information; apart from selectively confirming evidence, overweighting confirming evidence they also devise strategies in way that that they are more opportunist driven than falsification. (Snyder and Swann (1978) which used these case study to reach for a decision, the more confirming questions the interviewer asked, and the more likely naïve judges were to perceive the interviewee as an extravert. Hence, by asking confirmatory questions, people can actually create confirmatory behavioral information, even in the eye of the naïve beholder.
Confirmation bias is bound to occur during criminal proceeding due to the following; incidental miscarriages of justice in which confirmation bias on the part of police, public prosecution, and even the judge seems to have play central role. According to (Posthumus, 2005). Public defense and police seems to develop some kind of tunnel vision. Another reason is the structure of criminal proceeding. Judge prompt his verdict by naming the evidence that has led him to be convinced of the suspect’s guilt. Yet the process of justifying information is ignored. Criminal proceedings also affected by confirmation bias as (Meissner and kassim 2002) suggest. I t is difficult for police officer to change their minds if they believe that a suspect is lying. Same case applies to jurors they base their judgments on previous proceedings. Criminal procedure naturally provoke confirmation bias.
Three studies has been developed to help in determining between guilt-confirming and neutral questions. These studies are as follows;
THE EFFECT OF PRELIMINARY JUDGEMENT ON THE SELECTION OF INVESTIGATION ENDEAVOURS
This study was conducted to determine whether the concept of manifestation of confirmation bias which one seeks information that confirms a previously made decision apply to criminal procedures. It involved a case on physical abuse in which jurors were told to determine suspect guilt by carrying out further investigations. After the study it was found out that Some of these investigations seem to be aimed at collecting further incriminating evidence, whereas others seem to be exonerating in nature, in that they seek for flaws in the incriminating evidence. These finding confirm that, while incriminating and exonerating investigations were anticipated as such, there was no a priori exemption in the noted importance of the two types of investigations.
It should also be noted that nature of information desired was determined by prior decisions; those who believed suspect was innocent they searched for information to confirm he is innocent while those who believed the suspect was guilty searched for information to gathering more evidence of guilt. Hence the importance of procrastinating decisions (about guilt) until all relevant information is obtained. Preliminary conclusions may bias subsequent information search, which is detrimental, especially in case of decisions that affect other people’s lives, such as criminal convictions
STUDY 2: INHERENT CONFIRMATION AS A FUNCTION OF EVIDENCE STRENGTH AND CRIME SEVERITY
Its main objective was to determine whether parties tend to favor incriminating investigations over convicting ones, even if they have not yet concluded that the suspect is guilty especially during criminal proceeding. After the study it was found out that, selection of information convicting investigation increased with the strength of the evidence and crime cruelty. According to (Dror et al.’s 2005) sometimes judgment is usually clouded by our emotion, we should not let the severity of the crime to affect the content of the fact finding process as seen during those cruel cases where judges and juries seems to be convinced the suspect is guilty.
STUDY 3: OBTAINING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
Objective of this study was aimed at gathering extra evidence, this involves conducting further interrogations. At the end of this study it was found that obtaining incriminating information would increase participants’ tendency to convict the suspect. Though it should be noted that further investigation does not guarantee obtaining needed information.
References
Ask, K., & Granhag, P. A. (2005). Motivational sources of confirmation bias in criminal investigations: The need for cognitive closure. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profi ling, 2, 43–63.
y Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 273–281.
No comments:
Post a Comment