【警察考試-警察英文-呂艾肯】
請選讀第二章刑事篇的閱讀-
了解mistaken identification的可能性
Most people trust what they see with their own eyes above all else. For thesame reason they put great weight on eyewitness testimony. They point tothe legal system, which often convicts people of crimes based largely on aneyewitnesses saying "I was at the scene and I absolutely saw the accusedcommit the crime."
大部分人尤其相信自己親眼看到的事物。據此他們把目擊證詞看得非常重要。他們指出司法體系很大程度上是根據目擊證人來判定嫌疑人是否有罪：“我當時就在那裡並且我看到了被告的犯罪行為。”
What more do you want? The person was there, he saw who did it, and unless he's a proven liar the case is closed.
你還能做什麼？證人在那裡，他看到是誰犯罪了，除非他被證明是個騙子否則就結案了。
Except it's not. In fact, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently issued new rules to prevent innocent people from being wrongly convicted of a crime based upon eyewitness testimony. According to an article in The New York Times,
The New Jersey Supreme Court, acknowledging a "troubling lack of reliability in eyewitness identifications," issued sweeping new rules... making it easier for defendants to challenge such evidence in criminal cases. The court said that whenever a defendant presents evidence that a witness's identification of a suspect was influenced, by the police, for instance, a judge must hold a hearing to consider a broad range of issues. These could include police behavior, but also factors like lighting, the time that had elapsed since the crime or whether the victim felt stress at the time of the identification.
但是事情並不是這麼簡單。事實上，最近新澤西最高法院採取了新的規則來防止無辜的人被那些目擊證詞證明有罪。以下是紐約時報上的一篇文章：紐澤西最高法院承認“目擊指證的可靠性存在缺陷”，發佈了一系列新舉措…讓被告能更容易的對於案件的證詞進行質問。法院說明：無論何時被告對於目擊證人的證詞有疑問時，例如警方，都要進行一個聽證會來討論這一系列的問題。這不但將包括員警的行為，也會包括當時的照明、犯罪行為過去的時間或者受害者在指證的時候的緊張情緒等。
The chief justice, Stuart J. Rabner, wrote in a unanimous decision that the legal system had to catch up with scientific evidence in order to ensure justice. "Study after study revealed a troubling lack of reliability in eyewitness identifications....From social science research to the review of actual police lineups, from laboratory experiments to DNA exonerations, the record proves that the possibility of mistaken identification is real. Indeed, it is now widely known that eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions across the country."
審判長Stuart J. Rabner簽署了一份一致通過的決定，要求司法制度必須掌握科學的證據來保證公正公平。“對於目擊指證的可靠性存在缺陷的不斷研究…從社會科學研究到審查實際的員警陣容，再從實驗到DNA免責，事實證明歪曲證詞的現象是存在的。確實在整個國家錯判的首要原因就是目擊證人的錯誤證詞。”
DNA Frees Innocent Man, But What About Eyewitnesses?
DNA可以替人洗冤，但是目擊證人呢？
The idea that people often incorrectly see, remember, and report what they experience is not merely theory but a proven fact; there are over 2,000 published scientific studies demonstrating it. By some estimates, as many as one-third of eyewitness identifications in criminal cases are wrong, and nearly 200 people who were convicted of crimes based on positive eyewitness identifications were later exonerated through DNA evidence.
人們通常會錯誤地目擊、記憶和報告他們所經歷的事情，這並不只是一個理論，而且是一個不爭的事實：有超過2000個科學研究證明了這一點。據預測，大約有1/3的目擊證詞是有誤的，而且將近有200個被之前的目擊證詞證明有罪的人事後在DNA測試中證明清白。
The problem of eyewitness unreliability (and memory unreliability) has been known in academia for years; psychologists have long documented how sincere, honest people make important mistakes when reporting what they saw. But it's only recently that the legal system has recognized -- and taken steps to mitigate -- the problem of eyewitness misidentification.
許多年來對於目擊的不可靠性（還有記憶的不可靠性）在學術界已經達成共識；心理學家長篇記載了那些真誠、誠實的人如何在報告他們所見所聞的時候犯重大的錯誤。但是在司法制度中被承認還是不久以前——然後採取措施來逐步消除目擊錯誤指證所帶來的問題。
Consider a few cases that were started (or fueled) by mistaken eyewitnesses.
考慮到些由錯誤目擊指證（或者添油加醋）產生案例。
• When Elizabeth Smart was abducted from her Salt Lake City home in 2002, Elizabeth\'s sister, Mary-Katherine, watched the abduction while pretending to be asleep, and told the police that the abductor was "about 30 or 40 years old, wearing light-colored clothes and a golf hat." Actually, Smart's abductor, Brian David Mitchell, was wearing black (not white), was nearly 50 (not 30 or 40), and was not wearing a golf hat.
• 2002年，當Elizabeth Smart在她位於鹽湖城的家中被綁架時，她的姐姐Mary Katherine假裝睡覺並觀察到了整個綁架過程，並且告訴員警綁架者“大約30至40歲，穿著淺色的衣服和高爾夫球帽。”事實上，綁架Smart的人Brian David Mitchell穿著黑色（並非白色），年近50歲（不是30或者40歲），而且並沒有戴著高爾夫球帽。
• In 2009, six-year-old Falcon Heene caused a national outcry when his father said he'd been accidentally launched into the skies over Colorado in a homemade balloon. Police weren\'t sure what to make of the case, whether it was a hoax or a mistake, but what convinced them to take the case seriously was the eyewitness account of Falcon\'s brother Brad. According to Sheriff Jim Alderman, "He said he saw his brother climb into that apparatus and he was very adamant, they interviewed him multiple times and that was his consistent story." It turned out to be a hoax; the eyewitness was wrong (or he lied).
•2009年，6歲的Falcon Heene被他的父親在科羅拉多州通過自製的氣球偶然地發射到了空中，這引起了廣泛的抗議聲。警方不知如何處理這個案件，這到底是一個惡作劇還是一個錯誤，但是Falcon的哥哥Brad的目擊證詞讓警方確信應該嚴肅處理這個案件。根據警長Jim Alderman：“他說他看到弟弟爬進了發射裝置，他非常確定，警方約見他很多次，不過他堅信他說的沒錯。”最後證明這件事是個惡作劇；目擊證人的證詞是錯誤的（或者他在說謊）。
The CSI Effect: How TV Influences True Crime
CSI效應：電視是如何影響真實犯罪的？
• When two snipers terrorized the Washington, D.C. area in October 2002, killing 10 people and injuring three others, the nation's capital was paralyzed. Police caught a break when eyewitnesses reported seeing the shooters: Two white men in a white box truck. Checkpoints were set up on roads near the shootings hoping to snare the suspects. The killers were eventually captured: two black men driving not a white box truck but a dark blue Chevrolet Caprice sedan. If the multiple eyewitnesses hadn't got nearly every detail about the killers wrong, the police might have caught them sooner and lives might have been saved.
•2002年10月，兩名狙擊手埋伏在華盛頓特區造成了10人死3人傷，造成了首都一度的癱瘓。警方通過目擊者報告發現射手尋求到了突破點：躲在白色卡車車廂中的兩個白人男子。路邊設置了檢查站希望借此可以捕獲嫌疑人。殺手最終抓到了：是開著一輛藍黑色雪佛蘭Caprice廂式轎車而不是白色廂式卡車的兩個黑人。要不是諸多目擊者提供幾乎全錯的細節，員警可能早就抓到嫌疑人，更多的生命也許得以保全。
The research also has implications for other types of eyewitness reports. For example people often report seeing things for which there is little or no hard evidence, such as Bigfoot, UFOs, and ghosts. The bulk of evidence for such "unexplained" reports are eyewitness accounts. Many people who believe in the existence of Bigfoot or extraterrestrials, for example, do so based on the faulty premise that sincere, honest eyewitnesses couldn't be mistaken.
調查也暗示了其他形式的目擊報告。例如人們經常報告看到一些並不能作為確鑿的證據的證據，比如大腳怪、UFO和鬼怪等。大量的“無法解釋的”證據都是目擊者敘述的。許多相信大腳怪或者地外生命存在的人應當以誠信、誠實作為前提，不能誤報。
People like to believe that they accurately experience, remember, and understand what they see and hear. We all like to think that we are accurate and observant. Yet the cold hard evidence tells us otherwise; we can all be fooled -- every one of us -- and if you don't think you can be fooled, you have already fooled yourself.
人們傾向於相信他們真的體驗、記住和理解他們的所見所聞。我們都願意相信我們的正確判斷和敏銳觀察力。但是事實告訴我們：我們都被愚弄了——我們每一個人——如果你覺得你並不會被愚弄，那麼你已經被你自己所愚弄了。
留言列表
