Advertisement

Discussion, Policy Implications, Limitations and Directions for Future Research

  • Jon ShaneEmail author
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Criminology book series (BRIEFSCRIMINOL)

Abstract

What can criminal justice learn from a single case study? This study revealed how a person can be misidentified during a police show-up, the failure points during the preliminary investigation that may have facilitated the misidentification and the failure points during the follow-up investigation that may have accelerated the harm (or failed to stop the harm sooner). The study also revealed proof of concept, that the organizational accident framework is well suited for investigating critical police incidents. Approaching accidents through a systems theory of causation can help police managers, supervisors and support staff act with foresight and imagination to identify system failures before they occur leading to a safer work environment. Applying this theory of accidents to police work and replicating the study here can strengthen the theory so that across a range of critical incidents (e.g., use of force, vehicular pursuit, wrongful arrest), patterns of behavior and contributing factors reveal themselves to become predictable and, consequently, generalizable.

Keywords

Police Officer Police Department Police Agency Police Manager Eyewitness Identification 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Cicchini, M. D., & Easton, J. G. (2010). Reforming the law on show-up identifications. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100, 101–133.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Skolnick, J. H., & Fyfe, J. J. (1993). Above the law: Police use of excessive force. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fyfe, J. J. (1988). Police use of deadly force: Research and reform. Justice Quarterly, 5, 165–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tannenbaum, A. N. (1994). The influence of the garner decision on police use of deadly force. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85, 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Geller, W. A., & Scott, M. S. (1992). Deadly force: What we know: A practitioner’s desk reference on police-involved shootings (pp. 267–275). Police executive research forum.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reason, J. (1997). Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meurier, C. E. (2000). Understanding the nature of errors in nursing: using a model to analyse critical incident reports of errors which had resulted in an adverse or potentially adverse event. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32, 202–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walker, S. (2005). The New World of Police Accountability. (pp. 46–49). Thousand Oaks, CA: SageGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Archbold, C. A. (2013). Policing (pp. 341–355). Beverley Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Duncan, K., Gruenberg, M., & Wallis, D. (Eds.). (1980). Changes in working life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reason, J. (2002). Combating omission errors through task analysis and good reminders. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 11, 40–44.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dunbar, R. (1975). Manager’s influence on subordinates’ thinking about safety. The Academy of Management Journal, 18, 364–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (2009). Organizational trust and the limits of management-based regulation. Law and Society Review, 43, 865–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Douglas, M. (1987). How institutions think. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing consent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Friedman, A. (2010). Trial set to begin for newark police officers charged with misconduct. The Star Ledger, April 20.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Friedman, A. (2011). Misconduct charges against newark officer are dropped. The Star Ledger, February 2.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence: Five days to execution and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted (Vol. 264). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Garrett, B. (2011). Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ede, R., & Shephard, E. (2000). Active defense. London: Law Society Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leo, R. a. (2008). Police interrogation and American justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kassin, S., Drizin, S., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G., Leo, R., & Redlich, A. (2010). police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 3–38.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gould, J. B., & Leo, R. A. (2010). One hundred years of getting it wrong: Wrongful convictions after a century of research. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100, 825–868.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Steblay, N., Dysert, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in police show-up and line-up presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 523–540.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yarmey, D. A., Yarmey, M. J., & Yarmey, L. A. (1996). Accuracy of eyewitness identifications in showups and lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 459–477.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Connors, E., Lundregan, T., Miller, N., & Mcewan, T. (1996). Convicted by Juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hara, P. O’. (2005). Why law enforcement organizations fail: Mapping the organizational fault lines in policing, at 15. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Flyvberg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kennedy, M. M. (1979). Generalizing from single case studies. Evaluation Review, 3(4), 661–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink (p. 9). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Janis, I. (1983) Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd rev. ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moorhead, G., Ference, R., & Neck, C. P. (1991). Group decision fiascoes continue: space shuttle challenger and a revised groupthink framework. Human Relations, 44, 539–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hart, P. T. (1990). Groupthink in government: A study of small groups and policy failure. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Findley, K., & Scott, M. (2006). The multiple dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal cases. Wisconsin Law Review, 291, 291–397.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bandes, S. (2006). Loyalty to one’s convictions: The prosecutor and tunnel vision. Howard Law Journal, 49, 475–494.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Neck, C. P., & Moorhead, G. (1995). Groupthink remodeled: the importance of leadership, time pressure, and methodical decision-making procedures. Human Relations, 48, 546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Souryal, S. S., & Mckay, B. W. (1996). Personal Loyalty to Superiors in Public Service. Criminal Justice Ethics, 15, 44–62.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Souryal S. S. (1999). Personal loyalty to superiors in criminal justice agencies. Justice Quarterly, 16(4), 871–895.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioural study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Thomas, K. T., & Walker, A. D. (2010). The sharp end: real life challenges in a complex activity space. Journal of Public Affairs, 10, 186–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sinclair, H., Doyle, E. E. H., Johnston, D. M., & Paton, D. (2012). Decision-making training in local government emergency management. International Journal of Emergency Management, 1, 159–174.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bayley, D. H. (2002). Law enforcement and the rule of law: Is there a tradeoff? Criminology & Public Policy, 2, 133–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Law, Police Science and Criminal Justice AdministrationJohn Jay College of Criminal JusticeNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations