Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

had made a suspect identification as compared with

only 28% of the older age group (aged 40 years plus).

There were no differences in the rates of identifications

of the stand-ins or foils (innocent persons. in a police

lineup). In most cases, the suspects were young adults,

and there is some evidence that older adults do less well

with younger faces (as compared with older faces), at

least in situations where the perpetrator is not present

in the lineup. In other words, older adults might have

some advantage when recognizing faces that are closer

in age to themselves.

Finally, stereotypes of elderly witnesses have been

examined in simulated jury studies conducted by Liz

Brimacombe in Canada. Participant jurors were pre-

sented with the videotaped testimony of young and

older witnesses. In one study, older seniors were less

accurate in their responses to direct and cross-examina-

tion questions but were not rated as less credible than

younger seniors or younger adults. A later study con-

firmed that senior witnesses (70-year-olds) did provide

less accurate testimony than younger adults (20-year-

olds). Jurors were able to spot this and hence rated the

seniors as less credible. However, age stereotypes did

not bias the judgments of jurors. Further analysis

showed that the witnesses (young and old) who were

rated as most credible had provided fewer negative

qualifiers (e.g., “I think, but I am not sure.. .”). Thus,

what a witness actually says and their confidence,

rather than their age, may be more important determi-

nants of credibility.

Amina Memon

See also Cognitive Interview; Exposure Time and Eyewitness

Memory; False Memories; Identification Tests, Best

Practices in; Juries and Eyewitnesses; Mug Shots; Retention

Interval and Eyewitness Memory; Source Monitoring and

Eyewitness Memory; Unconscious Transference

Further Readings

Balota, D. A., Dolan, P., & Duchek, J. (2000). Memory

changes in healthy older adults. In E. Tulving &

F. I. M. Craik (Eds.),The Oxford handbook of memory

(pp. 395–425). New York: Oxford University Press.

Brimacombe, C. A., Quinton, N., Nance, N., & Garrioch,

L. (1997). Is age irrelevant? Perceptions on young and old

adult witnesses. Law and Human Behavior, 21,619–634.

Memon, A., Bartlett, J. C., Rose, R., & Gray, C. (2003). The

aging eyewitness: The effects of face-age and delay upon

younger and older observers. Journal of Gerontology:

Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58,338–345.

END-OF-LIFEISSUES

As the range of options for extending life and for has-

tening death continues to expand, so the range of

issues faced by clinical evaluators also has grown.

Among the most complex are those surrounding

requests for assisted suicide,euthanasia, or the with-

drawal or refusal of life-sustaining interventions. The

availability of some of these alternatives varies by

jurisdiction and medical condition, although all per-

sons are afforded the right to refuse life-sustaining

treatment. However, like all treatment decisions,

requests to hasten death depend on the patient’s deci-

sion-making competence. Forensic evaluators have

increasingly been asked to participate in competency

evaluations, particularly around end-of-life treatment

decisions. For the patient who is incompetent to make

treatment decisions, advance directives can help deter-

mine the course of end-of-life treatment and help pre-

serve the patient’s autonomy. But advance directives

often raise a new set of questions regarding exactly

when the directive should be implemented and, if a

health care proxy has not been appointed, who should

make treatment decisions. As public debates regarding

legalized suicide or euthanasia progress, these issues

will likely become even more important.

Defining Clinical/Legal Issues

at the End of Life

This following section defines key terms and concepts

pertaining to end-of-life decision making, including

physician-assisted suicide (PAS), euthanasia, do-not-

resuscitate (DNR) orders, and advance directives.

Perhaps the most controversial of these issues are PAS

and euthanasia. Both these interventions involve

actions that directly lead to a hastened death in a seri-

ously ill person; however, they vary in the nature of

the clinician’s involvement. In PAS, the clinician pro-

vides assistance and guidance, typically in the form of

a prescription for medication that the patient can use

if he or she chooses to commit suicide. Of key impor-

tance, it is the patient and not the physician who ulti-

mately administers a lethal dose of medication. In

1997, this practice was legalized in Oregon, resulting

in fierce public debate. Euthanasia, on the other hand,

involves the intentional administration of a lethal

medication by the clinician(presumably in response

to a patient’s request) for the sole purpose of ending

life. In 1998, one of the leading proponents of

254 ———End-of-Life Issues

E-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:42 PM Page 254