LETTER OF THE DAY - Make full use of DNA evidence
Published:Monday | August 23, 2010 | 12:00 AM
The Editor, Sir:
Former deputy commissioner of police Mark Shields is reported as having 'admonished' the Government for 'dragging its feet' on proposed deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) legislation. I share his amazement in this matter.
I am equally amazed at the mental laziness of members of the force who continue to explain the low rate of convictions as resulting from the fact that eyewitnesses 'won't come forward' and 'tell what they know'. Given the deep resentment and distrust of the police, it is unrealistic to expect this from the public anytime soon. But - in this day of impressive forensic advances - why are they relying so heavily on eyewitness testimony?
Research psychologists have been studying the reliability of eyewitness testimony for the last 20 years. The results are disturbing. Studies reveal error rates as high as 50 per cent. This is worrying as many convictions have been based largely or solely on eyewitness testimony.
Today, there are numerous psychological studies which show that human beings are not very good at identifying people. This is the leading cause of wrongful conviction in the United States (US). More than 200 convicted persons have been exonerated in the US by way of DNA. Interestingly, 75 per cent of these were wrongfully convicted on the basis of erroneous eyewitness identification evidence.
In The People v Lee, the New York Court of Appeals recently ruled that a trial judge had the discretion to admit expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identifications. In England - 39 years ago - the Criminal Law Review Committee stated that cases of mistaken identification constitute 'by far' the greatest cause of actual or possible wrong convictions. Yet, despite substantial anecdotal and scientific evidence, that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, it continues to be the bedrock of our judicial process. Why? How many of our 'convicts' are innocent?
Electronic database
Crime is, by far, our number one problem. It is crippling every facet of national life. How far along are we in training our police and investing in these methods? Why don't we have a well-developed electronic database of DNA profiles in 2010? Would I be unreasonable to conclude that our crime problem, like our 'child' problem, will not be taken seriously as long as we have a good excuse?
When a witness takes the stand, points to a man and says 'I saw him do it!' nothing makes a more powerful impression on a jury. Steps need to be taken, therefore, to increase jurors' comprehension of complex DNA evidence, so that they will be able to understand the expert's intricate analysis and use it to reach a verdict.
I am, etc.,
GLENN TUCKER
Stony Hill