taxpayers to support such a system remains a major
challenge.
Like it or not, community-based care is here to
stay. The costs of hospital care remain prohibitive, and
although some states have relaxed civil commitment
statutes, in general, long-term hospital treatment
remains targeted only at those with the most disabling
conditions. Increasingly, the necessity for long-term
hospital care is being questioned for anyone who has
not committed a serious crime.
However, as our public policy remains committed
to community living for persons with serious mental
illness, the gap between needs and resources must
continue to shrink. Alternatives to jail, prison, home-
lessness, and premature death must be funded and
implemented if deinstitutionalization is to keep its
lofty promises, and there is much work yet to be done.Joel A. Dvoskin, James Bopp,
and Jennifer L. DvoskinSee alsoCivil Commitment; Mental Health LawFurther Readings
Abram, K. M., & Teplin, L. A. (1991). Co-occurring
disorders among mentally ill jail detainees: Implications
for public policy. American Psychologist, 46,1036–1045.
Kiesler, C. A., & Sibulkin, A. E. (1987). Mental
hospitalization: Myths and facts about a national crisis.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
O’Connor v. Donaldson,422 U.S. 563 (1975).
Wyatt v. Stickney, 325 F. Supp. 781(M.D. Ala., 1971), 334 F. Supp.
1341 (M.D. Ala., 1971), 344 F. Supp. 373 (M.D. Ala., 1972),
sub nom Wyatt v. Aderholt, 503 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir. 1974).INSTRUCTIONS TO THEWITNESS
The instructions given to a witness prior to the presen-
tation of a lineup have an important influence on how
the witness views the identification task and how the
witness makes a decision whether to make an identifi-
cation or whom to identify.Biased Versus Unbiased Instructions
Because the suspect in the lineup may be innocent, it
is important that police officers instruct the witnessesthat the actual perpetrator may or may not be in the
lineup and that they are not obligated to make an iden-
tification. Because these instructions are unbiased
with respect to the presence or absence of the perpe-
trator, they are typically called unbiasedinstructions.
In contrast, instructions that explicitly state or imply
that the perpetrator is in the lineup and that the wit-
ness should make an identification are called biased
instructions.
It is not surprising that biased instructions result in
more identifications. Witnesses who are led to believe
that the perpetrator is in the lineup and that it is their
“job” to identify him or her make more identifica-
tions. The question, of course, is whether they make
more correct identifications or more false identifica-
tions. As simple as the question is, it does not have a
simple answer. Some studies have shown that biased
instructions lead to increases in both correct and false
identifications, and some studies show only increases
in false identifications with little or no change in cor-
rect identifications.
The consistent increase in false identifications
arises because biased instructions lead to more identi-
fications, and if the perpetrator is not in the lineup
(i.e., the suspect is innocent), then any identification
made by the witness will be an error. The most criti-
cal errors, of course, are the false identifications of the
innocent suspect. The proportion of identifications of
the innocent suspect (rather than one of the foils—i.e.,
an innocent person in a police lineup) depends on the
composition of the lineup.
The question remains: Is there variation in the out-
comes for correct identifications? Some of the variation
is likely due to ceiling effects. Considering only those
lineups in which the perpetrator is present, if the identi-
fication rate is fairly high under unbiased instruction
conditions, then it cannot increase very much under
biased instruction conditions. Consequently, the correct
identification rate cannot increase very much either.
However, the variability in correct identification
rates cannot be explained by ceiling effects alone.
Results showing an increase in the overall identifica-
tion rate (when the perpetrator is in the lineup), with no
increase in the correct identification rate, suggest that
the biasing effect of the instructions is not simply to
lower the witness’s decision criterion. Instead, in
studies showing this pattern of results, the biasing
instructions may induce witnesses to change their deci-
sion rule or change the way they compare the lineup
members with their memory. Another explanation376 ———Instructions to the WitnessI-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 376