How reliable are eyewitness account?
“I believe I saw him!” says the eyewitness. Nowadays, eyewitness account plays a very important part in court, as well as in the investigation of a criminal case. It is often referred to as a reliable source of evidence by the judge and jury. An eyewitness account is a description of the event, for example a criminal activity based on the memory of a bystander. However, how reliable are those descriptions and memories? Statistics done by the Innocence Project researchers have shown that out of 239 convictions overturned by DNA testing, 73 per cent of those were based on eyewitness accounts. It is also proved by scientists that the accuracy of eyewitness account can be easily manipulated by several ways of
…show more content…
In a court, the victim may simply point on an innocent man due to his/her emotion of resentment on the criminal. Thus eyewitness accounts, which capable of being altered by emotions, can appear to be inaccurate. When exposed to criminal cases, the stress and anxiety level can easily affect the accuracy thus reliability of eyewitness accounts. A research done by 1Clifford and Scott (1978, cited in Loftus, 1979) experimented about the ability of eyewitnesses to perceive violent and non-violent events. Forty-eight volunteers with equal number of men and women watched two tapes with the start and end manipulated to be the same, of one involving non-violence and the other one with violence. Then the volunteers were asked to describe each case. In the non-violent case, the characters only assaulted each other verbally and some weak retraining movements were involved, while in the violent version, one character physically assaulted another character. The research has shown that regardless of gender, the level of recall of the violent event was significantly lower then the non-violent one. The eyewitnesses produced higher level of stress and anxiety when they see a more violent case, thus showing that the reliability of eyewitness account can be varied depending on the …show more content…
Take an example, in a study done by 1Yuille and Cutshall (1986) investigates the importance of stress and anxiety experienced by the eyewitness influencing their eyewitness account. They show the volunteers a real life incidents- a gun shooting outside a gun shop in Canada, and found that the eyewitnesses gave remarkable accurate memories and details of the event- the thief stole guns and money, but was shot six times and died. The police interviewed the eyewitnesses, and thirteen of them were re-interviewed five months later. Their recall was still found to be accurate, even after the long time. This study shows that those who experienced highest level of stress, especially those who were involved in the event, will give eyewitness account of higher
Eyewitness accounts play a huge role in general in trials and verdicts, but may be unreliable many times, with certain views placed on evidence provided by children. Unreliability may arise from not being able to recount the identity of the accused, the actions and speech occurring during that time, the relationship of individuals towards the person in question, and many
Followed by the lack of corroboration, which is an important aspect in courtrooms, “corroboration will add credibility to the memory and lack of it may raise doubts about the allegations.” Loftus considers that relying on memory is not a valid way of justice; the legal system needs to improve when eyewitness testimonials are used in the courts. Loftus confides as a psychologist that psychological science has taught them about human memory and that the research has revealed the limits of human memory. Adding on, these research findings need to be incorporated in procedures to improve the court system. She hopes readers will acknowledge the fact that the use of memories in a trial can be problematic since they are “dangerous” and can lead to false
In the book “Picking Cotton”, the former Burlington Police Chief Mike Gauldin, who was the lead detective on Jennifer’s case, was certainly sure that Ronald Cotton was the guy he was looking for after Jennifer picked him twice (Jennifer, Ronald, Erin 80); also, on the McCallum’s case, the polices also chose to trust eyewitnesses when they did not have enough physical evidences. Furthermore, judges can be wrong sometime. Wise and Safer, who are authors of the report “ what US judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony”, surveyed 160 U.S. judges to determine how much they know about eyewitness testimony on a small test( Wise, Safer, 427-432). However, the survey responds the average judges in the U.S. only 55% correct within 14 questions (Wise, Safer, 431-432). Moreover, most of the judges who were surveyed did not know key facts about eyewitness testimony.
Richard miles was wrongfully convicted of murder and attempted murder in 1995 based on eyewitness testimony, false or misleading forensic evidence and official misconduct. The evidence presented at his trial that is useful for this particular research paper is the eyewitness testimony. Thurman the witness in this case identified Miles as the gunman from a photospread that police had given him. Several other witnesses were shown the same photospread but could not identify Miles. Miles was charged with murder and attempted murder.
This means that individuals under stress may recall events less accurately, but still have high confidence in their recollections. This is evident with eyewitness Maillard as she was present during the shooting, which means it is plausible that she may have experienced trauma and even stress during the investigations as she had to live through the traumatic experience again, especially when telling officers her experience. This might have played a role in her judgement and accuracy of recalling what happened that night, but she was also quite confident that it
Part One is very informational and contains the bulk of the book’s research. The information was presented in a thesis format; Loftus stated a claim and then supported her ideas with research and quotations from experts in the field of law and memory. Part One is helpful for psychologists, attorneys, and interested law people. The major principles concerning the errors in eyewitness testimony are supported by research and are accepted by psychologists (Kassin, Ellsworth, & Smith, 1989). Part One will contribute to the future of psychology by showcasing how the memory works and the different ways it is manipulated and changed: this will allow jurors and lawyers to become more wary when dealing with a traumatized
Are You Sure? Why have more than two-thousand people exonerated for crimes they didn’t commit? Eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions in the U.S. Memory can be influenced by anxiety, stress, reconstructive memory and other factors possibly affecting the testimony of the eyewitness and in turn, misleading the jury. I think that when subjects witness a crime they will struggle to remember important details of the event, and their recollection could be easily altered. This is because the reconstructive memory can be influenced by factors such as stress, anxiety, and verbal cues.
Relying on eyewitness can cause an innocent person to go to jail for the rest of their life. As it stated in the article the man was arrested for so long and then at the end he was innocent and it was because of eyewitness. People don’t always recall what happened and sometimes they can make up stuff.
This creates a major issue within a judicial system. It takes a few eye witness testimonies towards the prosecuted individual to incarcerate them, even if they did not commit the crime. It is because of this reason that Scott Fraser chooses to speak out against eye witness testimonies. In his speech, he argues that memory is fallible and should not be as heavily relied upon within the judicial system.
Furthermore, there can be several factors at play when a wrongful conviction occurs and each case is unique. Three of the more common and detrimental factors that will be explored in this essay are eyewitness error, the use of jailhouse informants and professional and institutional misconduct. Firstly, eyewitness testimony can be a major contributor to a conviction and is an important factor in wrongful conviction (Campbell & Denov, 2016, p. 227). Witness recall and, frankly, the human emory are not as reliable as previously thought. In fact there has been much research showing the problems with eyewitness testimony such as suggestive police interviewing, unconscious transference, and malleability of confidence (Campbell & Denov, 2016, p.227).
Eyewitness identification is ineffective and unjust. Studies have shown that 40% of eyewitness identifications are wrong (Vrij, 1998). Eyewitness identification has great importance in the legal system. This requires the best eyewitness testimony procedure. This essay examines the three main types of eyewitness line-ups; the showup, the sequential and the simultaneous line-up.
Eye witness identification involves selecting an accused perpetrator from a police line up, sketch or being at the crime scene during the murder time. After selecting a suspect, witnesses are asked to make a formal statement confirming the ID of the suspect (s) or other surrounding details which the eyewitness can testify in court. Eyewitnesses are always required to testify in court but eyewitnesses with psychological disorders, substance dependancy are at a higher chance of identifying the wrong suspect therefore wrongfully assisting convict the perpetrator in the wrong (Hal Arkowitz, Scott O. Lilienfeld, January 1, 2010). Anxiety or stress is always associated with crimes involving traumatic events that have previously taken place.
1 page of how you know something is credible or not when talking about evidence in the courtroom In the courtroom a lie can send someone to their death. With this in mind it is very important that a jury member can identify whether a witness, or piece of evidence is credible. Many instances of bad evidence or false witnesses have been recorded in the history of law, so we must make an effort so that no more people get charged for crimes they did not commit. It may come to surprise many people that a witness testimony might not always be accurate. There are are many reasons for this as witnesses may “change”their memory when they are revealed new information about the crime.
, (2003) study. Gabbert investigated the effect of post event discussion on the accuracy of eye witness testimony; where participants
Accuracy is important because the statement needs to have direct versions of the events which took place. The words being used in the statement needs to be directly linked to the meaning and intention of the witness. There should be no question or confusion in terms of what the witness is trying to say. Accuracy also includes the use of the correct words, sentences, names and titles. Using full sentences in a logical sequence in terms of events which has occurred is also important to give the best idea/picture of what has happened.