Comparative Law and Society

Comparative Law and Society

Research Handbooks in Comparative Law series

Edited by David S. Clark

Comparative Law and Society, part of the Research Handbooks in Comparative Law series, is a pioneering volume that comprises 19 original essays written by expert authors from across the world. This innovative handbook offers both a history of the field of comparative law and society and a thorough exploration of its methods, disciplines, and major issues, presenting the most comprehensive look into this contemporary field to date.

Chapter 7: Comparative Legal Psychology: Eyewitness Identification

Ruth Horry, Matthew A. Palmer, Neil Brewer and Brian L. Cutler

Subjects: law - academic, comparative law, law and society


Ruth Horry, Matthew A. Palmer, Neil Brewer and Brian L. Cutler* 1 INTRODUCTION We focus in this chapter on one important area of legal psychology: eyewitness identification. Following a brief overview of the broader field of legal psychology and the history of eyewitness identification research, we outline the major contributions that psychological science has made to our understanding of eyewitness identification, and review the procedures used to collect and interpret identification evidence in the United States and England and Wales. We conclude with some thoughts about how one might improve the treatment of identification evidence in legal settings in the future. 1.1 Overview of Legal Psychology Legal psychology has shaped thinking and practice in many areas of the criminal justice system, with psychologists (including researchers, and clinical and forensic practitioners) and legal professionals (including lawyers, judges and police officers) contributing actively to this field. Rather than attempt a detailed review of legal psychology in this short chapter, we introduce—as a starting point for readers interested in a broader treatment— a few brief examples of research issues that have attracted programmatic attention from researchers. Legal psychology research has had much to say about the interpretation of evidence presented in the courtroom. Numerous studies have examined the way that jurors make decisions, both individually and collectively. For example, research suggests that juroreligible individuals are better able to process and recall relevant information—and, hence, make better judgments—if they receive judicial instructions before, rather than after, hearing complex evidence.1 In addition,...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information