Granhag Pär Anders, Strömwall Leif A, Hartwig Maria
Department of Psychology, Göteborg University, Sweden.
Behav Sci Law. 2005;23(5):709-27. doi: 10.1002/bsl.670.
This paper examines beliefs held by Swedish legal professionals about eyewitness testimony. In a survey including questions about 13 key issues of eyewitness testimony, three groups were investigated: police officers (n = 104), prosecutors (n = 158), and judges (n = 251). The response rate was 74%. Examples of findings are that the beliefs were in line with scientific findings concerning the weapon focus effect, but were not in line for simultaneous vs. sequential lineups. Between-group differences were found for seven items. Judges were much more sceptical than police officers about the reliability and completeness of children's testimonies. The groups seldom agreed about one answer alternative, and they reported not being up to date about scientific research on eyewitness testimony. The results suggest that some important research findings have reached those working on the field. However, they hold many wrongful beliefs about eyewitness testimony, beliefs that might compromise the accuracy of legal decisions.
本文考察了瑞典法律专业人士对目击证人证词的看法。在一项包含关于目击证人证词13个关键问题的调查中，研究了三个群体：警察（n = 104）、检察官（n = 158）和法官（n = 251）。回复率为74%。研究结果的例子包括，这些看法与关于武器聚焦效应的科学发现一致，但在同时列队辨认与连续列队辨认方面不一致。在七个项目上发现了组间差异。法官比警察对儿童证词的可靠性和完整性要怀疑得多。这些群体很少就一个答案选项达成一致，并且他们表示不了解关于目击证人证词的科学研究。结果表明，一些重要的研究发现已经传达给了该领域的从业者。然而，他们对目击证人证词持有许多错误的看法，这些看法可能会损害法律裁决的准确性。
