Today the NJ Supreme Court issued a ruling suggesting (inter alia) that eyewitness identification procedures(e.g lineups, photos spreads etc. ) be conducted double blind. They are currently conducted single blind. That is the office conducting the procedure knows who the suspect is. This allows the officer to make not so subtle comments on the witnesses choice. Going double blind would mean the officer would be unaware of who the suspect is.
Today the NJ Supreme Court issued a ruling suggesting (inter alia) that eyewitness identification procedures(e.g lineups, photos spreads etc. ) be conducted double blind. They are currently conducted single blind. That is the office conducting the procedure knows who the suspect is. This allows the officer to make not so subtle comments on the witnesses choice. Going double blind would mean the officer would be unaware of who the suspect is.
It's hard to believe this is not the law of the land in every state in the union, given all that we know about the results.
So...you see the value in objectivity when turning suspects into the accused, but do not see its value in differentiating between audio components/files, etc. No that's not hypocrisy, that's seeing that the one is critically important and requires objectivity, the other is merely choosing a preference in a hobby. Wisdom, not hypocrisy.
But understanding all of the above and insisting that your subjective preference is somehow more natural, musical, closer to the original event...anything that implies something more objective than your preference? That would be hypocritical.
The destination remains the same. There may be different paths. Make no mistake. My opinion on ABX has not changed. Moreover indulging a preference is everyones prerogative. Trying to advance that prerogative as a standard is a different matter. I put this here in an attempt to be intellectually honest.
It might not surprise you that Barry Sheck and the Innocence Project were involved in this case. Their work in using DNA to prove innocence has been highly publicized. Many of the convictions were based on eyewitness identification.
Before the proponents of DBT do too much gloating, in eyewitness testimony, they acknowledge the role of memory,stress, and length of encounter. "Show ups" (presenting a single defendant for identification)i remain legal.
When Audiophiles get a test like DNA maybe then I'll change my mind.
Of course they do. In eyewitness testimony they are deciding the fate of another human in the front of a courtroom or in a Police station instead of differentiating between DACs in a comfortable, private room. And the whole thing is based on memory; sometimes pretty long-term memory; often pretty long-term memory that has been re-created for them, under tremendous pressure, by prosecutors and law enforcement. In blind listening tests the comparisons are right there, and you can relax and repeat them as many times as you like. Apples and Oranges would be a gross understatement. Absurd comparison wouldn't go to far.
When Audiophiles get a test like DNA maybe then I'll change my mind.
Well, audiophile won't get the test, scientists and engineers will. And if history is any indication, many Audiophiles will simply deny any results that don't support what they already believe.
Of course they do. In eyewitness testimony they are deciding the fate of another human in the front of a courtroom or in a Police station instead of differentiating between DACs in a comfortable, private room. And the whole thing is based on memory; sometimes pretty long-term memory; often pretty long-term memory that has been re-created for them, under tremendous pressure, by prosecutors and law enforcement. In blind listening tests the comparisons are right there, and you can relax and repeat them as many times as you like. Apples and Oranges would be a gross understatement. Absurd comparison wouldn't go to far.
Well, audiophile won't get the test, scientists and engineers will. And if history is any indication, many Audiophiles will simply deny any results that don't support what they already believe.
Whenever I am about to win in court the judge acknowledges the good points advised by the other side before telling me I've won. And vice versa. I've done a lot of reading on ABX/DBT. I just don't see sighted and non- sighted tests as mutually exclusive.
I've reached the conclusion that choice of testing methodology is overwhelmingly influenced by the results you want to achieve. For example the test for eyewitness testimony is "totality if the circumstances." Translation- feel free to ignore anything that does not support the conclusion you want to reach.
Today the NJ Supreme Court issued a ruling suggesting (inter alia) that eyewitness identification procedures(e.g lineups, photos spreads etc. ) be conducted double blind. They are currently conducted single blind. That is the office conducting the procedure knows who the suspect is. This allows the officer to make not so subtle comments on the witnesses choice. Going double blind would mean the officer would be unaware of who the suspect is.
Hehe,
sorry cannot resist, but if it is double blind how can the witness even identify the person as double blind is also to remove anyway to identify the source (in this case it would be visually)
So no I do not see how you are being hypocrite, and I appreciate you are specifically meaning the officer not the witness but double blind applies to that who is managing the test (say like a Dr injecting the unknown drug) and the person involved (say like the person who is brave enough to take the injection but does not know what it is), which is not happening in the scenario you mention as the witness must know and identify out of a lineup and does not match that of the patient scenario.
It makes sense though that the witness is not influenced by the police who is removed from giving deliberate or subconscious cues-tells, as has happened in the past.
But this should be done with the witness having no-one else in the booth with themselves and coming out to say which one they feel it is.
In the above quote example it is still possible that the witness can influence the officer and then in turn influences the witness, but compromises are needed and more evidence is needed than just witness selection, which is also used to quickly assist in narrowing down the investigation to specific target.
Orb thanks for being nice. The blind part is neither the witness nor the person presenting the test (usually a police officer) should no who in the line-up or photo -spread is the suspect. The alternates are usually people who could not have committed the crime. Barring identical twins (more common than you would think) the participants should have a significant difference in appearance but not so much so that anyone should stand out.
Hmm, but what is blind about a witness identification line?
It can only be blind if each selection choice can remove biases-associated behaviour, and if the witness sees all of them in the line it is not possible to remove biases (even if the actual perpetrator is not in it).
A DBT goes further and removes biases-associated behaviour from all of those involved in the test; a crude example such as a drug trial where the Dr cannot feel nervous about injecting a trial drug as they do not know if it is saline, which could cause cues otherwise or affect the patient's behaviour such as becoming concerned-scared-etc.
A witness identification line would be like having 6 sighted amps in a row with a light below showing when selected and the listener able to relate the sound to specific amp while deciding if it matches their memory.
In reality a blind test means we should not even see the products involved, in witness identification line we still do even though I appreciate the actual criminal may not be in the lineup.
I remember reading about this a couple years ago in another area so I don't think it is new. As I recall the article, there were tests done that showed the administrator unknnowingly gave subtle hints (without even realizing it) that participants picked up (again without realizing it).
I was under the impression that eye witness testimony is not the be all to end all when many times the same event is interpreted totally different by different observers. We humans I think are easily fooled but are generally very sure of ourselves.....you know arrogant
All kinds of studies and info on net. This is just one I found from 2006.
