An important role of an eyewitness to an assault is to effectively quantify the degree of force used; yet evidence of this form is often subjective and relies on personal opinion. Twelve subjects were asked to strike a load cell with a wooden bat, using varying degrees of force. The strikes were recorded by video camera and 50 people observed the video and were asked to grade the strikes. On average 44% accurately assessed the severity of the strikes, whilst 26% over-estimated. Results suggest that the evidence of eyewitnesses should be treated with caution.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BennettoJ. (1996) Surge in crimes gives lie to official claims. The Independent, 25 September.
2.
Biodynamics Engineering Inc. (1993) Baton and Riot-Control Projectile Tests.Los Angeles Police Department.
3.
FrowleyJ.N.MacloedM.D. (1992) Stereotypes and eyewitness memory. Paper presented at Third European Conference on Law and Psychology.
4.
HarrisJ.R. (1973) Answering questions containing marked and unmarked adjectives and adverbs. J. Experimental Psychology97, 399–400.
5.
HibbsJ. (1997) England near top of world violent crime league. The Electronic Telegraph, 27 May.
6.
HontzT. (1994) Striking force of batons and medical implications of those strikes.Scottsdale Police Department: PPCT Management Systems Inc., pp. 1–105.
7.
LieppeM.R. (1994) The Appraisal of Eyewitness Testimony in Adult Eyewitness Testimony.Cambridge University Press, pp. 385–418.
8.
LoftusE.F. (1979) Eye Witness Testimony.London: Harvard University Press, Chapter 1.
9.
RobertsA.R.NokesL.D.LeadbetterS.PikeH. (1994) Impact characteristics of two types of police baton. Forensic Science International67, 49–53.
10.
WelcherJ.B.WardJ.A. (1992) The Rodney King case: An analysis of the force produced from baton strikes.Los Angeles: Biodynamics Engineering Incorporated.
