Expert facial comparison evidence: Science versus pseudo science ¹⁰⁶⁷

Confirming the identity of the accused is a critical component of many criminal trials. However, recent evidence suggests this process is highly error prone and leads to unacceptably high rates of wrongful conviction (Innocence Project, 2015). When photographic identification evidence is ambiguous, facial mapping practitioners may be called upon to make comparisons between images of the culprit and the accused. This practice assumes that the techniques employed are reliable and can be used to assist the court in making identity confirmation decisions. However, previous experimental work in this area has established that many of these techniques are unreliable (Kleinberg, Vanezis & Burton, 2007; Strathie, McNeill & White, 2012). We extend these findings by examining another facial mapping technique that uses gridlines, drawn between face-pairs, as a potential face matching aid (Oxlee, 2007). Results show that a simple side-by-side presentation of face-pairs without gridlines produces most accurate responding. Moreover, the application of the grideline technique increases the likelihood that two different face pairs will judged to be the same. These findings suggest that continuing to admit facial mapping evidence in court is likely to increase, rather than decrease, the incidence of wrongful conviction.

Ключевые слова: facial comparison, identification of persons

Рубрика: Зарубежные исследования по юридической психологии

Тип: научная статья

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/psylaw.2015050411

Establishing that the person in the dock is the person who committed the crime is an essential component of many criminal trials. While an eyewitness who has identified the defendant as the perpetrator can have a persuasive effect on a jury, research suggests that the high value attached to this form of evidence is not always justified (Scheck, Neufeld & Dwyer, 2000). Indeed, figures from the Innocence Project, an organisation that works to overturn miscarriages of justice using DNA evidence, suggest that faulty eyewitness identification evidence is the single greatest cause of wrongful conviction (The Innocence Project, 2015). In January 2015, post-conviction exonerations stood at 325, with 234 (72%) attributable to eyewitness misidentification. Research in this area appears to support this estimate. Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin (1986) suggest that 60% of cases of wrongful imprisonment involve eyewitness misidentification, whereas Wells, Small, Pernod, Malpass, Fulero, & Brimacombe (1998) put this figure as high as 90% (for further examples of eyewitness identification fallibility see: Cutler & Penrod, 1995; Lindsay & Pozzulo, 1999; Narby, Cutler & Penrod, 1996; Pezdek, 2012; Scheck, Neufeld & Dwyer, 2000; Wells & Bradfield, 1999; Westcott & Brace, 2002; Wright & Davies, 1999).  Taken together this compelling body of evidence suggests that eyewitness identification is highly unreliable. However, much progress has been made in recent years towards understanding the variables that contribute to the high error rates in this area.

<...>

1. ACPO (2003). National working practices in facial imaging. Association of Chief Police Officers Working Group, unpublished document.
2. ACPO (2009). Facial Identification Guidance 2009. Association of Chief Police Officers Working Group. Retrieved January 10, 2015, from: http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/crime/2009/200911CRIFIG01.pdf
3. Attorney General’s Reference (No. 2 of 2002) (2003). 1 CR. App. R. 321, England.
4. Bromby M. (2003). At Face Value? The Use of Facial Mapping and CCTV Image Analysis for Identification. New Law Journal: Expert Witness Supplement, 153, 302-304.
5. Burton A.M., Wilson S., Cowan M., & Bruce V. (1999). Face recognition in poor quality video: evidence from security surveillance. Psychological Science, 10, 243-248.
6. Burton A.M., White D., & McNeill A. (2010). The Glasgow Face Matching Test. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 286-291.
7. Bruce V., Henderson Z., Greenwood K., Hancock P., Burton A.M., & Miller P. (1999).  Verification of face identities from images captured on video. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 339-360.
8. Cutler B. L., & Penrod S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. Davis J., & Valentine T. (2009). CCTV on trial: Matching video images with the defendant in the dock. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(4), 482-505.
10. Davis J.P., Valentine T., & Davis R.E. (2010) Computer assisted photo-anthropometric analyses of full-face and profile facial images. Forensic Science International 200(1–3), 165–176.
11. Edmond G., Biber K., Kemp R., & Porter G. (2009). Laws Looking Glass: Expert Identification Evidence Derived from Photographic and Video Images. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 20:3, 337-377.
12. Edmond G., Kemp R., Porter G., Hamer D., Burton M., Biber K., & San Roque M. (2010). Atkins v The Emperor: The cautious use of unreliable expert opinion. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 14, 146-166.
13. FIAG (2006). Guidance for Evaluating Levels of Support. Forensic Imagery Analysis Group. Retrieved January 10, 2015, from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm?abstract_id=1550752
14. Hole G. J. (1994). Configurational factors in the perception of unfamiliar faces. Perception, 23, 65-74.
15. Huff C. R., Rattner A., & Sagarin E. (1986). Guilty until proved innocent: wrongful  conviction and public policy. Crime & Delinquency, 32, 518-544.
16. Innocence Project. (2015). Understand the causes: the causes of wrongful conviction. Retrieved January 10, 2015, from: http://www.innocenceproject .com/understand.
17. Iscan M.Y., & Loth S.R. (2000). Photo Image Identification. In J. Siegel, G.  Knupfer, & P. Saukko (Eds.), Encylopedia of Forensic Science (pp. 795-807). London: Academic press.
18. Kleinberg K.F., Vanezis P., & Burton A.M. (2007). Failure of anthropometry as a facial identification technique using high-quality photographs. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 52(4), 779-783.
19. The Law Commission (2011). Expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. Retrieved January 10, 2015, from: https:// www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/ file/229043/0829.pdf
20. Lindsay R. C. L., & Pozzulo J. D. (1999). Sources of eyewitness identification errors.  International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 347-360.
21. Liu C. H., Seetzen H, Burton A. M., & Chaudhuri A. (2003). Face recognition is robust with incongruent image resolution.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,9(1), 33-41.
22. Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2006). Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task. Memory & Cognition34(4), 865-876.
23. Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2007). Hits and false positives in face matching: A familiarity-based dissociation. Perception and Psychophysics, 69, 1175-1184.
24. The Ministry of Justice (2013). The Government’s response to the Law Commission report: Expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. Retrieved January 10, 2015, from: https://www.gov.uk/government /uploads/system/ uploads/attachment _ data/file/260369/govt-resp-experts-evidence.pdf
25. Moreton R., & Morley J. (2011). Investigation into the use of photoanthropometry in facial image comparison. Forensic Science International, 212, 231-237.
26. Narby D. J., Cutler B. L., & Penrod S. D. (1996). The effects of witness, target, and situational factors on eyewitness identifications. In S. L. Sporer, R. S. Malpass, & G. Koehnken (Eds.), Psychological issues in eyewitness identification (pp. 23-52). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27. Oxlee G. (2007). Facial Recognition and Imagery Analysis. In: T. Thompson, & S. M. Black (Eds.), Forensic Human Identification: An Introduction (pp. 257-270). Taylor and Francis, Florida.
28. Pezdek K. (2012). Fallible eyewitness memory and identification. In B. L. Cutler (Ed.), Conviction of the innocent: Lessons from psychological research (pp. 105-124). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
29. Porter G., & Doran G. (2000). An anatomical and photographic technique for forensic facial identification. Forensic Science International, 114. 97-105.
30. Reuters. (2007). Court told de Menezes photo manipulated. Retrieved January 10, 2015, from: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/10/17/uk-britain-demenezes-idUKL1775546420071017
31. Rossion B. (2009). Distinguishing the cause and consequence of face inversion: the perceptual field hypothesis. Acta Psychologica, 132, 300-312.
32. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence: Five days to execution and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted. New York: Doubleday.
33. Security News Desk. (2015). British Security Industry Association attempts to clarify question of how many CCTV cameras there are in the UK. Retrieved January 10, 2015, from: http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/bsia-attempts-to-clarify-question-of-how-many-cctv-cameras-in-the-uk/
34. Stavrianos C., Zouloumis L., Papadopoulos C., Emmanouil J., Petalotis N., & Tsakmalis P. (2012). Facial Mapping: Review of Current Methods. Research Journal of Medical Sciences, 6: 77-82.
35. Strathie A., McNeill A., & White D. (2012). In the Dock: Chimeric Image Composites Reduce Identification Accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(1), 140-148.
36. Strathie A. (2010). Person Identification in a Legal Setting (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow.
37. R v Atkins and Atkins, (2009). EWCA Crim 1876.
38. Tanaka J. W., & Farah M. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 225-245.
39. Vanezis P., & Brierley C. (1996). Facial image comparison of crime suspects using video superimposition. Science and Justice, 36, 27-34.
40. Wells G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Experimental Psychology,36, 1546-1557.
41. Wells G. L., & Bradfield A. L. (1999). Distortions in eyewitnesses’ recollections: Can the postidentification-feedback effect be moderated? Psychological Science, 10, 138-144.
42. Wells G. L., Malpass R. S., Lindsay R. C. L., Fisher R. P., Turtle J. W., & Fulero S. M. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55(6), 581-598.
43. Wells G. L., Memon A., & Penrod S. (2006). Eyewitness evidence. Improving itsprobative value. Psychological science in the Public Interest, 7(2), 45-75.
44. Wells G. L., Small M., Penrod S. J., Malpass R. S., Fulero S. M., & Brimacombe C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603-647.
45. Westcott H., & Brace N. (2002). Psychological factors in witness evidence and identification. In N. Brace, & H. Westcott (Eds.), Applying psychology (pp. 117-178). Milton Keynes: Open University.
46. Wright D. B., & Davies G. M. (1999). Eyewitness testimony. In F. Durso, R. Nickerson, R. W. Schanveldt, S. T. Dumais, D. S. Lindsay, & M. T. H. Chi (Eds.), A  Handbook of Applied Cognition (pp. 789-818). Chichester: Wiley.
47. Young A.W., Hellawell D., & Hay D.C. (1987). Configurational information in face perception. Perception, 16, 747–759.
48.