Biases in judging victims and suspects whose statements are inconsistent.
In this commentary, we point to similarities in characteristics of suspect and victim/witness statements and the underlying motivations of these individuals. Despite the similarities, there are differences in how such statements are evaluated by fact-finders and investigators. Retractions, for example, cast serious doubt on the credibility of victims/witnesses but appear not to diminish the power of confessions. Investigators need to recognize the wide range of motivations behind statements made to the authorities and be mindful of biased dispositions to doubt victims and believe confessors, especially when their statements are inconsistent or retracted. An investigative process that was entirely transparent would help ensure that inconsistencies and retractions, whether in statements from victims, witnesses, or suspects, are viewed in the context of other statements and eliciting circumstances.
Malloy
Lindsay C
LC
Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge, UK. lcm44@cam.ac.uk
Lamb
Michael E
ME
D000739:Anecdotes as Topic; D019548:Crime Victims / Q000523:psychology*; D008192:Deception; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D007604:Juvenile Delinquency; D011287:Prejudice; D014342:Truth Disclosure