Eyewitness Identification Reform: Data, Theory, and Due Process

Some commentators view my analyses (Clark, 2012, this issue) as an important step forward in assessing the costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform. Others suggest that the trade-off between correct identifications lost and false identifications avoided is well-known; that the expected utility model is misspecified; and that the loss of correct identifications due to the use of reformed eyewitness identification procedures is irrelevant to policy decisions, as those correct identifications are the illegitimate product of suggestion and lucky guesses. Contrary to these criticisms, the loss of correct identifications has not been adequately considered in theoretical or policy matters, criticisms regarding the various utilities do not substantively change the nature of the trade-off, and the dismissal of lost correct identifications is based not on data but on an outdated theory of recognition memory.