Editing Weapon focus (section)

==Reducing weapon focus and its impact on criminal cases==

Pickel, Ross, and Truelove (2006) decided to take a more in depth look at these ideas and apply them specifically to reducing weapon focus.  If weapon focus is an automatic process, then the capture of attention may be out of an [[Witness|eyewitness]]' control.  However, if there is no automatic capture of the [[witness]]' attention, then weapon focus effect may be able to be overcome.  Specific training can be developed to teach a person who may be at risk of an [[armed robbery]], such as a [[bank teller]] or [[cashier]], to perform an identification that is comparable to if there was no weapon present.  The data indicate that weapons do not capture attention automatically and involuntarily.  If a witness was given a lecture about weapon focus and the problems that can arise in [[memory]] formation in an incident when a weapon is present at the scene, they can more accurately identify a perpetrator of a crime.  This shows that with proper training weapon focus effect can be overcome and an eyewitness' testimony becomes more accurate. These findings, however, are [[theoretical]] and need to be replicated in real world situations to really assess the usefulness of them.  They show great promise that weapon focus effect and be counteracted by education on the topic, but they will remain theoretical until further research and implementation of the idea can be conducted.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Pickel|first1=Kerri L.|last2=Ross|first2=S. J.|last3=Truelove|first3=Ronald S.|year=2006|title=Do weapons automatically capture attention?|journal=Applied Cognitive Psychology|volume=20|issue=7|pages=871–893|doi=10.1002/acp.1235}}</ref> Later research by Pickel and Sneyd (2018) showed that subjects reported more correct details of a crime scene if the perpetrator was White compared to a Black perpetrator. Stereotypes regarding race where measured in the study and concluded that memory performance was not related to subject prejudices. Ratings showed that the subjects had a high awareness of stereotypes, and had a low endorsement of prejudices.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Pickel |first1=Kerri L. |last2=Sneyd |first2=Danielle E. |date=2018-01-02 |title=The weapon focus effect is weaker with Black versus White male perpetrators |url=https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2017.1317814 |journal=Memory |volume=26 |issue=1 |pages=29–41 |doi=10.1080/09658211.2017.1317814 |issn=0965-8211 |pmid=28436249|s2cid=30614227 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> The findings imply that the presence of a weapon may make it more difficult for law enforcement to bring White offenders over Black offenders to justice.

One method that has become more and more prevalent to reduce negative [[Punishment|consequences]] that can stem from errors in [[eyewitness testimony]], including errors that can arise from weapon focus effect, is expert witness testimonies by research psychologists about eyewitness testimony.<ref name="Leippe">{{cite journal|last=Leippe|first=M. R.|title= The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory.|journal=Psychology, Public Policy, and Law|year=1995| volume=1 | issue = 4|pages=909–959|doi=10.1037/1076-8971.1.4.909}}</ref>  This is an educational session, which a [[judge]] has to allow, given by a [[forensic psychologist]] to a [[jury]] as part of the [[trial]].  This form of expert testimony has been called social framework testimony, defined by Cronin<ref name="Cronin">{{cite book|last=Cronin|first=Christopher|title=Forensic Psychology: An applied approach|year=2009|publisher=Kendall Hunt Publishing Company|isbn=978-0-7575-6174-0}}</ref> as "expert testimony that presents conclusions based on social science research to assist the court in making a decision."  The expert testimony would provide the jury with a context for evaluating eyewitness testimonies and the jury is meant to factor that into its [[decision making]] process.<ref name="Leippe" /> These educational sessions in the [[courtroom]] will help make the presentation of eyewitness testimony as rigorous as possible and put as much scrutiny on the social evidence as what is put on physical, scientific evidence.  Eyewitness testimony is very often wrong, and the scrutiny put on it greatly reduces the number of false convictions.<ref name="Cronin" /> Another way eyewitness testimony can be impaired even more by weapon focus is if the person in question is intoxicated. A study conducted in 2020 was done to observe what would happen if a person that was witnessing a crime was intoxicated and how it would affect their ability to retrieve crime scene data. The study found that if a person was intoxicated, they were more likely to focus on the weapon than people who weren’t intoxicated. This should be taken into consideration when retrieving information from people in the incident and will help to get better eyewitness testimony.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Harvey |first1=Alistair J. |last2=Sekulla |first2=Alistair |date=September 2021 |title=Evidence of alcohol induced weapon focus in eyewitness memory |journal=Applied Cognitive Psychology |language=en |volume=35 |issue=5 |pages=1263–1272 |doi=10.1002/acp.3858 |issn=0888-4080|doi-access=free }}</ref>

The major problem with this strategy is that many judges do not allow this [[expert testimony]] in their courts.  For example, in the court case Blasdell v. State (2010, 2015)<ref>Blasdell v. State, No. 09-09-00286-CR(2010). WL 3910586 (Tex. App. – Beaumont October 6, 2010).</ref><ref>Blasdell v. State, No. PD-0162-14 (2015). S.W. 3d 824 (Tex. Crim.

App., 2015).</ref> a woman who had been robbed at gunpoint by an unknown man was able to describe the gun in great detail but could only provide very imprecise details of the perpetrator. The defense was unable to present expert testimony on the concept of weapon focus and the suspect was convicted based on the eyewitness testimony. Despite cases like these, reasoning behind judges not permitting expert testimony is Their reasoning is usually that they think what the social framework testimony will present is [[common knowledge]].  However, the data overwhelmingly shows that the typical jury member does not know most of the information presented by the expert.  The fallibility of eyewitness testimony is not common knowledge and eyewitness psychology can offer valid and constructive information to juries.  Even with this knowledge, jury decisions cannot perfectly serve justice without exceptions, but perfection in the [[legal system]] is an unattainable goal.  However, any information that can be presented about the shortcomings of eyewitness testimony can better serve justice in the long run.<ref name="Leippe" />  According to a 2001 survey of experts on eyewitness testimony, 87% found the weapon focus effect to be sufficiently reliable to form the basis of expert testimony in criminal trials.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Kassin|first1=Saul M.|last2=Tubb|first2=V. Anne|last3=Hosch|first3=Harmon M.|last4=Memon|first4=Amina|date=May 2001|title=On the "general acceptance' of eyewitness testimony research: A new survey of the experts|url=http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/kassin_tubb_hosch_memon_2001.pdf|journal=American Psychologist|volume=56|issue=5|pages=405–416|doi=10.1037/0003-066x.56.5.405|pmid=11355363 }}</ref> Regarding eyewitness testimony, another study by Shaw and Skolnick (1994) discovered that sex plays a role in eyewitness memory and recall of a crime. Both men and women identified targets of their own sex more easily than target persons of the opposite sex. Women identified other women more accurately and men identified men more accurately than the women did.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Shaw |first1=Jerry I. |last2=Skolnick |first2=Paul |date=1994-08-01 |title=Sex Differences, Weapon Focus, and Eyewitness Reliability |url=https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1994.9712191 |journal=The Journal of Social Psychology |volume=134 |issue=4 |pages=413–420 |doi=10.1080/00224545.1994.9712191 |issn=0022-4545 |pmid=7967547|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

There can be some ethical concerns to these expert witnesses.  There are arguments that suggest that these social framework testimonies discredit the eyewitnesses and put the victims and [[Witness|bystanders]] on trial.  This is not the purpose of the experts though.  These testimonies are merely attempting to educate jury members of problems that can arise from eyewitnesses.  There can also be issues raised about the [[credibility]] of the expert testimonies.  The screening process of the experts is not very stringent and the criteria of an expert witness are not laid out in black in white.  This can lead to a battle of the experts between [[prosecution]] and [[defense (legal)|defense]].  Any testimony the prosecution or defense deems relevant to contradict the opposing side may be introduced if the judge allows it, so an expert can be called and a battle of the experts can ensue.  This takes away from the central point of a trial and can overwhelm the jury.