Witness payments is a sensitive problem because it is extremely likely to interfere court proceedings. If people, including the parties in the trial, the judges and the jury, know that one particular witness is paid, they might not believe him or her that much. This means that the credibility of the witness is undermined, and the court proceeding will of course be affected and the judicial justice might be questioned as well. In January 1997, the government was urged to pass a legislation to ban payment to witnesses in criminal trials and prevent the media from walking away without punishment. The movement was successful and the government outlawed ‘payments to witnesses relying on the self-regulatory regime to incorporate an absolute ban on paying potential witnesses for stories in active criminal proceedings while payments …show more content…
Payments to eye witnesses can enable journalists to produce juicier story and attract more people to read it, and payments to expert witnesses can possibly induce to give advice or opinions which are in favour of one of the parties. Even the money does not actually affect the witness themselves, the judge and the jury cannot be prevented from having doubt on the particular witness’s words, since any rational person know what magic that money can do, and thus produce bias opinions. Quinn, F said that: 'Theoretically, this could prejudice the trial, since the witness might be tempted to embellish the story to make it more saleable, or to stick to it even if cross-examination suggested it was wrong. this is even more likely if the amount payable is dependent on the result of the case' (Quinn, 2007). It is hardly surprising that paying for information can result in witnesses’ exaggeration and untruthfulness, and the judge and jury’s
The use of eyewitness statements and testimony’s can be a great source of information, but can also lead to wrongful convictions. Due to eyewitness testimony, innocent people are convicted of crimes they have not committed. This is why the wording of a question is important to consider when interviewing witnesses. Due to the fact that eyewitness testimony can be the most concrete evidence in an investigation, witnesses may feel they are helping an officer by giving them as much information as possible, therefore they may tell them information that is not entirely true, just to please them. This is why there are advantages and disadvantages to using open and close ended questioning at different durations of an interview. The way you word a question may impact the memory of a witness, this is because a person cannot completely memorize the exact occurrences of an event.
In summation, is can be identified in this paper that eye witnesses do not play a constructive role within the criminal justice system. This can be seen through a thorough discussion of the many issues portrayed through this paper. To conclude Schmechel et al. (2006) reiterates that statements this paper has presented and discussed;
Pezdek, K. (2012, March). A Preliminary Study of How Plea Bargaining Decisions by Prosecution and Defense Attorneys Are Affected by Eyewitness Factors. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238136.pdf
For example, when the victims want to remember something, or someone, strongly and with high confidence, the witness can still be wrong. The eyewitness is given all the photos of the suspects laid out to identify the person they remember committing the crime. Also the eyewitness is asked to identify each photo whether is the culprit or not. Prosecutors should look over the cases before relying on eyewitness. Prosecutors should not depend on eyewitness testimony because that will lead to wrongful convictions. The wrongful convictions span the criminal justice system from investigation and arrest to prosecution and trail(Ferrero). False conviction makes the justice system stronger and arresting innocent is wrong. And picking out person similar to the murder. Not catching the real suspect might cause the public risky. Public safety be in risk."Wrongful conviction is gravest violation of personal liberty and also poses severe public safety risks, as the real perpetrator could remain on the street," an innocence Project news release said. The real suspect might kill many people or if the eyewitness might be in risk. If the victim is still life might be kill again. Lying about someone is not good thing might have miserable life in their future.
In the last forty years, there has been a shift in courtroom proceedings. Lawyers are not only focusing their evidence on the scientific aspects of an event, but also on those who may have witnessed the actual event as well. Recently, the number of eyewitness appearances in the courtroom has increased, making statements about either a crime or an event that occurred in their presence. But how does the courtroom decide who is a legitimate witness to an event? Too often, age, race, education, and socio-economics play a major role in this decision. Here, we will discuss the age aspect of this problem in terms of child eyewitness testimony and it's implications in the courtroom.
I take into consideration that instead of authorizing the state or professional to ratify and speak their mind, the most relevance to a case the court should take into consideration of what the victim seems fit as a fair punishment or payment in forms of restitution, whether it is labor or monetary to then go along with the judge 's sentence. “The Charter, apart from other things, sets forth that the victim should enjoy the same rights as the culprit. But it is not enough to put this in writing, the law has to be changed in such a way that the victim is not only not deprived of his say, but has rights at least equal to those enjoyed by the accused”. I agree with the previous quote due to the fact that victims should not be deprived from speech and equality. I believe that by having the original parties engaged rather than being driven to the side, society will be more concerned to make sure that everyone is given fair, equal and consistent resolution to a conflict. This would establish that the neighbourhood and state have a set of shared values and goals that they are working towards to support social order. “At present, the role of a victim of a crime is only at the periphery of the criminal justice delivery system. Once the first information is furnished, the only stage at which the victim comes into the picture is when she is called upon to give evidence in court by the prosecution. The victim virtually
Eyewitnesses are primarily used by the criminal justice system for investigating and prosecuting crimes, particularly in circumstances where it is the only evidence available (Wells & Olson, 2003). Their testimony is highly regarded as it allows for police, prosecutors, judges and juries to establi...
The silence has been broken in recent years in federal courts where witnesses detailed the crimes of drug kingpins and many hit men, putting many of Charlestown's d...
Fradella, H.F. (2006) Why judges should admit expert testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Federal Courts Law Review. Retrieved from http://www.fclr.org/fclr/articles/html/2006/fedctslrev3.pdf
Otto, A. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1994). The Biasing Impact Of Pretrial Publicity On Juror Judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 18(4), 453-469.
... In a speech to the House of Lords in 1844 Lord Denman remarked: 'Trial by jury itself, instead of being a security to persons who are accused, will. be a delusion, a mockery and a snare. The question of juror competence remains a recurrent feature in both the research and policy. literature (Horowitz et al., 1996; Penrod & Heuer, 1997). Indeed, in the. 1998 the Home Office invited commentary on whether an alternative to the traditional jury system was appropriate for cases of serious fraud.
The article, “Trial Lawyers Cater to Jurors’ Demands for Visual Evidence,” written by Sylvia Hsieh stresses the importance of visual evidence. Hsieh writes
In keeping within current legislation on the protection and respect of an individuals’ right of anonymity, (Clamp, Gough and Land 2004; Polit and Beck 2007), and to confidentiality, (Burns and G...
For example, the old man that lived beneath the boy and his father testified that he heard a fight between the boy and the father and heard the boy yell, “I’m gonna kill you,” along with a body hitting the ground, and then claims that he saw the boy running down the stairs. With this information, along with other powerful eyewitness testimonies, all but one of the jury members believed this boy was guilty. The power of eyewitness testimony is also shown in Loftus’s (1974) study. In this study, Loftus (1974) found that those who claimed to “see” something were usually believed even when their testimony is pointless. She discovered in her study that only 18 percent of people convicted if there was no eyewitness testimony, 72 percent of people convicted when someone declared, “That’s the one!”, and even when the witness only had 20/400 vision and was not wearing glasses and claimed “That’s the one!”, 68 percent of people still convicted the person. This proves that in 12 Angry Men and Loftus (1974) study, eyewitness testimony is very powerful and influential in one’s decision to convict a
However, eyewitness testimony can play a beneficial part in the criminal justice system if factors such as police procedures are controlled under the strict guidelines. It should be kept in mind though, that even if all the social aspects mentioned are completely controlled, there still remains the possibility that errors will continue to occur due to memory recall errors, and overly emotional witnesses who simply wish to see someone punished for their crimes. But regardless of this fact, there would undoubtedly be a remarkable recovery from the present 45% wrongful conviction rate as displayed within many studies.