SIML in the Courtroom - Chapter 6

This chapter again starts with an example: Mister X was charged for stealing in the supermarket. This was the second time he was charged with the offences. Both times Mister X bought all the items in the rear end of the trolley, but “steals” the items that are stored in the front end of the trolley. Mister X denied intend to steal and said that he simply overlooked the unpaid-items.

What are the factors of hallmarks of AM behaviour?

The behaviour of Mister X is indeed similar with AM behaviour. He found three factors that are all hallmarks of AM behaviour:

• Familiarity (the supermarket was a familiar setting)
• Preoccupation/Distraction (it was very hot that day and he already drank a can of juice during the shopping and the checkout was very meticulous to check if the can of juice was paid for)
• Separation (the “stolen” items were in a separate section of the trolley)

To convince the jury of the absent-mindedness of Mister X, Mr. and Mrs. X were given the SIML. The scores were both very high. After this, 26 students got to complete the SIML while they had to keep in mind they were just convicted of theft, but had offered absent-mindedness as a plea. When comparing these to tests, they found that Mister X’s scores were not having the ‘faking factor’. All these findings caused for reasonable doubt in the courtroom.

When analysing letters wrote by 67 people, who were (according to them) wrongly accused for theft. They found that most of the critical lapses occurred when the shoplifter’s limited attention resource was occupied of engaged by another task (e.g. some people were in a divorce, some under medical treatment).