Eyewitness

The impact of eyewitness testimony upon the members of a jury has been the subject of various research projects and has guided the policies formed by the federal government regarding its competent use in criminal matters (Wells, Malpass, Lindsay, Fisher, Turtle, & Fulero, 2000). Therefore, eyewitness studies are important to understand how

An eyewitness testimony is unreliable because of many different things. Sometimes when witnesses see something they don’t see the whole crime, but only parts which could cause the wrong people to be in trouble. When it’s a serious crime the trial could take years and when asked to stand trial against the perpetrator the witness’s memory could not be fully correct anymore. You could forget important things or get mixed up with things you’ve seen somewhere else, like in a movie. Another reason they are unreliable is Because individuals with certain psychological disorders, like antisocial personality disorder and substance dependence, are at high risk for criminal involvement, they are also at high risk for false identifications by eyewitnesses.

A study done in 2005 showed that when 30 statements regarding eyewitness issues, jurors disagreed with memory experts in 87% of the issues, and judges disagreed with 60% of the issues (Benton et al. 117). Therefore, even though jurors and judges agreed with memory experts on more statements regarding “memory myths” than did jurors, their understanding of these memory myths still greatly deviated from memory experts; which shows the uninformative nature of juror and the

Although eyewitness testimony can be significant when displaying it to a judge or a jury, years of supportive social science research has sustained that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. As the Innocence Project website illustrates, studies show that the human mind is nowhere near like a ‘tape recorder’ and we as humans do not record events exactly as we see them. Instead, witness recollection is just like any other evidence at a crime scene and must be preserved carefully and sensibly retrieved or it can be considered as contaminated.

There has been considerable interest and study in the accuracy or inaccuracy of the use of eyewitness testimonies in the current criminal justice system. Results collated by several studies add to the bulk of literature suggesting that the current usage of eyewitness testimony by the legal system is far from ideal. Currently, high emphasis is being placed on reviewing and reconsidering eyewitness accounts (Leinfelt, 2004). In particular, recent DNA exoneration cases have substantiated the warnings of eyewitness identification researchers by showing that mistaken eyewitness identification was the largest single factor contributing to the conviction of innocent people (Wells & Olson, 2003). In this essay, the use of eyewitness testimony in the criminal justice system will be explored, with a particular focus on the impreciseness of this practice.

For centuries, even before the rise of modern law and judicial practices, eyewitness testimony has been a crucial part in reaching verdicts in court. The opinions and observations of bystanders or active participants in a crime scene are often considered to be very valuable in determining the guilt or innocence of accused individuals. However, there has been a large amount of scrutiny in the law world concerning both misappropriated and untrue testimonies administered in courts of law. Although the testimony of individuals can simply be misinterpreted or forgotten due to a variety of reasons, eyewitnesses also provide information that can purposefully incriminate or exonerate a defendant. Ultimately, despite its benefit in putting deserving persons behind bars, the use of eyewitness testimony can absolutely be a dangerous monster for the innocently accused in different scenarios.

In 1907, Hugo Munsterberg published ‘On the Witness Stand’, in which he questioned the reliability of eyewitness identification. When Yale Law professor Edwin Borchard studied 65 wrongful convictions for his pioneering 1932 book, ‘Convicting the Innocent’, he found that eyewitness misidentification was the leading contributing factor of wrongful convictions. Research illustrates that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. In eyewitness identifications, witness memory is impacted by a variety of factors that occur from the time of the crime onwards, and their memories can be easily contaminated. This is linked with the concept of ‘false memories’ they are events recalled by a witness that did not actually happen.

Credability of Eyewitness Testimony Is Eyewitness testimony reliable and accurate? Include case studies to back this up. EWT refers to evidence supplied by people who witness a specific event or crime, relying on their own memory. Statements often include descriptions given in a criminal trial and subsequent identification by individuals who were present at the crime scene. EWT is likely to dependent on reconstructive memory(Bartlett,1932) which describes how memory is more than a passive recall.

A defendant’s guilt is often determined in a single moment of fleeting emotion. A pointed finger, accompanied by the solidifying eyewitness statement “He’s the one!” is enough for a jury to make its final decision in a court case. Although it is understandable, when faced opposite of the individual creating the accusation, to place one’s belief in the accusation made, the credibility of the eyewitness’s account of events are rarely taken into consideration. Psychologists have taken part in research that recognizes the unreliable nature of eyewitness statements used to determine guilt because of the instability of long term memory acquisition and because of this, eyewitness accounts of situations should not be used before a jury in court.

There are many reasons on why eyewitness accounts may be inaccurate. The main reasons I believe is because of reconstructing memories, familiarity effect, source amnesia and weapon focus . Reconstructing memory is when the original memories can be altered. By any little thing can change one’s memory into believing something that is false about the original memory. We may add or omit details based on an influences. For example in the study of Elizabeth F. Loftus asked two different groups to watch a car accident but groups were asked a how fast the cars were going in a different way. The question was “how fast did the cars hit/smashed into each other” , the group that was told the word smashed believed the cars went fast. Later, the eyewitness for that group clam to see broken glass at the scene but there wasn’t any. Influences can change or exaggerate certain aspects of the event. Witness will believe someone committed a crime due to familiarity effect. They may think they seen that person before so therefore they believe that the person who did. Source amnesia is when the eyewitness knew the crime happen but can’t remember when, how or when. In court that would not help at all. Weapon focus play a part in it too because if the time of the scene the eyewitness could have been

The reliability if an eyewitness testimony is questionable. The witness may be so certain that the person that thy are pointing out is one hundred per cent the suspect or they could be so certain when it comes to retelling the incident, although these people are so sure on what it is they are doing, their testimony cannot always accurate. Due to the lack of accuracy with eyewitness

Messages become shorter when passed from one person to the next. Memories can be modified to fit one’s personal social experiences (i.e., conventionalization). Memory is unreliable, sensory stimuli are not stored as is but are actively transformed by the brain for storage depending on individual factors such as personal relevance and expectations. The most essential information is better remembered, but what is considered “most essential” may depend on an individual’s experiences. This suggests memory does not function as a video recording, but is a highly complex process that is influenced by an individual’s levels of attention, motivation, expectations, experiences, emotional state, etc. It also suggests that memory is an active process that involves constructing narratives out of events rather than passively recording

In the excerpt, Loftus describes experiments are focused on “lists of words or sentences” but do not encompass everyday memories. Unlike the information asked to recall in the current experiments of Loftus’s time, everyday memories are much more complex because of the speed at which they happen and their large visual content. And though rarely sought out, those memories are needed in certain serious situations, such as in court. According to Loftus, this is why the study of eyewitness is so important. The accounts will determine the fate of the accused and other parties. So then, due to its serious nature, eyewitness memory is a, “concern to the law,” when concerning its, “completeness, accuracy, and malleability.” In other words, the more

Eyewitness Identification may be more reliable than we believe, if they are handled and assessed correctly. Eyewitness testimonies are often used by law enforcement officers to identify suspects and play a huge role in getting convictions. If witnesses identify the wrong person, an innocent man could be punished for something they had no involvement in. There are many theories to explain why witnesses may identify the wrong person as the perpetrator of a crime. The different ways we retrieve memories affects what we remember. Other theories have to deal with how lineups or photo arrays are displayed to the witness and the effect they have on the result. All of the different theories of how our memories can be influenced, cause people to argue

Memory is a fickle of a thing, often when recalling memories, as one does not completely recall the whole truth. Often, we stretch the truth or lie about certain memories. In addition, memories can be used to can access memories and relive moments. Memories are important as they are often what shape us and serve as a reminder of our former self. [add transition] Memories often serve as parts of us that make our current self, but when recalling memories often the true is distorted to look more interesting.