Here’s a great editorial from the New York Times from law professor, Adam Benforado. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/opinion/flawed-humans-flawed-justice.html?ref=opinion He argues that our present system is old and based on inaccurate ways we assume people act.  In order to reform the criminal justice system, he argues, we should apply the results of new scientific research about human behavior.  What are the faulty procedures we rely on now?

1.  The criminal justice system assumes that an unwavering eyewitness who identifies the defendant at trial, is enough solid proof for a finding of guilt.  But new scientific studies have clearly shown that eyewitnesses choose an innocent person about 1/3 of the time!  The witness can be affected by biases, failed memory, and the lack of time to actually see the suspect.

2.  The criminal justice system relies on a signed confession by a suspect as clear proof of guilt.  After all, we think, why would an innocent person sign a confession about their guilt?  But again, scientific studies have shown that the “tricks” the interrogators use can affect the suspect’s actions.  Often, police will exaggerate the strength of their case and offer to let the suspect go—if only they would just sign this piece of paper indicating their involvement in the crime.  Their guilt, that is.

3.  Even some scientific testing can be flawed.  We’ve come to assume that DNA analysis is fool-proof and will provide the criminal justice system with the truth.  But even here in my area, there can be problems.  For instance, a police forensics lab in St. Paul was recently closed because of the sloppy manner in which they did their testing.  All the cases they analyzed had to be re-opened and looked at.  The testing may be okay, but the humans running the tests are only that—humans subject to errors.

So, what should we do to reform the criminal justice system?

Prof. Benforado suggests that we use the research that we have now.

1.  Witnesses should not be coached or even talked to by the police actually investigating the crime.  Use a neutral party to present line-ups to witnesses.  Research also shows that a better identification can be made by showing witnesses suspects’ photos one at a time rather than all at once.

2.  To reform the criminal justice system of interrogations, police should use a less confrontational approach and rely, instead, on an information gathering style.  The process should be recorded by cameras set at “third party” positions.  (Many interrogations place the camera behind the cop or behind the suspect—both lead to biased impressions among juries)

3.  Lab technicians should not be informed that samples are from the suspect.  Research has shown that the human bias to help law enforcement can affect the lab test results.

Will this cure all our problems?  Of course not, but I like the idea of using the evidence-based research to change and reform our criminal justice system.  Now the job of doing it starts . . .

Do you have any suggestions?