Citation

Malloy LC, Lamb ME. Law Hum. Behav. 2010; 34(1): 46-48.

Affiliation

Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge, CB2 3RQ, UK, lcm44@cam.ac.uk.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2010, American Psychological Association)

DOI

10.1007/s10979-009-9211-y

PMID

20107881

Abstract

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.

Language: en