Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Eyewitness testimony in the criminal justice system
The role of an eyewitness
Eyewitness testimony in the criminal justice system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Eyewitness testimony in the criminal justice system
In criminal cases there are many people, tools, and techniques used to determine who the culprit of the crime actually is. One of most difficult, but useful thing to actually use in criminal cases are eye witnesses. Witnesses are those who were part the crime scene somehow, whether it be just seeing the crime occur or actually experiencing it. One would think that having a witness means that the case is automatically solved because someone was there to identify the criminal and in some cases this is true. However, when a cases actually has an eye witness they have to make sure that the person is telling the truth and is a valid source of information. This is one of major reasons why people think children don’t make proper eye witnesses. They believe that they are not capable of providing such vital information, solely on the fact that they are a child. It is true that maturity does play a vital role when determining if a witness is valid or not , but there have been many studies that have point out how some children can be as …show more content…
The majority of cases that involve children witnesses are cases that are prosecuting domestic or sexual abuse (Thomson, 1991). This means that the child could either be a person who simply witnessed the crime or someone who was affected by it. This is important because in previous studies people have measured the accuracy of children who just witnessed a crime and those who were involved in it and found that children who had some involvement in it provided more accurate statements (The citation that can be found on your MAC). This is because the child feels some sort of attachment to the case and what actually occurs the culprit of the crime. So when determining whether a child is capable of testifying in a case, looking at the case in whole can let you know if the child qualified to provide a
Psychological research shows that eyewitness testimony is not always accurate, therefore it should not be used in the criminal justice system. Discuss.
“With the language in J.D.B. as a guide, there is now an open door that litigators can walk through to make a variety of challenges when a seasoned law enforcement officer questions an immature child” (Tepfer). Even Justice Samuel Alito agreed with the previous statement, adding that in future cases dealing with children the court should consider age and additional characteristics that could affect the person under interrogation. Because there is not a written rule that can be applied to all cases, there have still been many issues dealing with children subjected to police questioning. In the case People v. White, the primary focus was whether the officer should have known that the suspect was at an understanding of the Miranda warnings or if the suspect was in a position to make a self-incriminating
The reliability of children’s eyewitness testimony is a controversial issue. Opinions range from proponents believing that children are virtuous in every detail to those who are more skeptical. In actuality, child testimony falls somewhere in between the two divergent views. Though children may not intend to intentionally distort the truth, they do seem to be very vulnerable to suggestibility. Therefore, certain comments and the form of questions can influence testimonials.
There has been considerable debate worldwide, regarding the accuracy of eyewitness testimony in the criminal justice system. Particularly, arguments have surrounded wrongful convictions that have resulted from incorrect eyewitness evidence (Areh, 2011; Howitt, 2012; Nelson, Laney, Bowman-Fowler, Knowles, Davis & Loftus, 2011). The purpose of this essay is to consider psychological research about the accuracy of eyewitness testimony and its placement in the criminal justice system. Firstly, this essay will define how eyewitnesses and their testimonies are used within the criminal justice system and the current debate surrounding its usage. Secondly, the impact of post-identification feedback will be used to show the affect on the confidence of a witness. Thirdly, studies around gender related differences will show how a witnesses gender can affect memory recall and accuracy. Fourthly, empirical studies will be used to highlight how a psychological experience called change blindness can cause mistakes in eyewitness identification. Finally, the effect of cross-examination will be used to explore the impact on eyewitness accuracy. It will be argued, that eyewitness testimony is not accurate and highly subjective, therefore, the criminal justice system must reduce the impact that eyewitness testimony is allowed to have. Developing better policies and procedures to avoid wrongful convictions by misled judges and jury members can do this.
In recent years, the use of eyewitness testimonies as evidence in court cases has been a subject in which various researchers have been interested in. Research suggests that eyewitness testimonies are actually not reliable enough to use as primary evidence in court cases. There have been many cases in which an innocent person gets sent to prison for a crime they did not commit because an eyewitness testified that they were the ones that they saw at the scene of the crime. Researchers’ goal is to improve the legal system by finding out whether eyewitness testimonies should be used in the court of law or not.
Every day a child is called on to testify in a courtroom. Children who have to testify in open court are easily influenced by outside sources. This paper will show the reasons children should not be used as witnesses in a courtroom. I will show all the different influences that a child receives and prove them uncredible. The interview process can influence a child greatly. Ceci and Bruck (1995) found a study that shows that child witnesses may be questioned up to12 times during the course of an investigation. The questioning process can take up to a year and a half to be completed. Children are not capable of remembering exact details for that period. Their answers to questions will change each time he or she is asked. This is because they do not retain information in the same way as an adult. Most studies have shown that children start to lose their ability to recall an event accurately only 10 days after the original event has happened. Another factor in a child’s ability to recall an event is stress. A child can go into a shock stage and repress all memories of what has happened to them. These memories may not resurface for many years. This affects a child’s ability to identify the suspect in photo and live line-ups. The amount of stress a child goes through affects their ability to answer questions in an interview, if they cannot remember what has happened, how are they supposed to answer the myriad of questions the interviewer will ask them.
The use of eyewitnesses has been a constant in of criminal justice system since its very beginning. Unfortunately, people do not make the best witnesses to a crime. The person may not have seen the actual criminal, but someone that looks similar to them. The witness may lie about what he or she may have scene. Also the witness can be influenced by the police as to who or what they saw at the time of the crime. The witness or victims memory of the person may have faded so that they don’t remember exactly what had seen, which could be disastrous for the accused.
Truth be told, eyewitnesses always play a crucial role in the judgment process. In the present justice system, the testimony from eyewitnesses could possibly be one of the most reliable evidences and influence jurors on judging corresponding perpetrator. In psychology, researchers use eyewitness memory instead of any other expressions.
The Forensic interview technique is a result of the increasing awareness of child abuse and neglect cases in the United States in the last quarter of the 20th century (Newlin et al, 2015). Forensic interviewing has come a long way from when it was first being developed and has continuously evolved to have the best outcome for children. The purpose of Forensic interviewing is to be more child friendly, to consider the age and development of the child, and to be cognizant of a child’s trauma which is specified in the “Purpose of the Child Forensic Interview” and “Considerations Regarding the Child” sections of the Newlin article. Forensic interviewing has become more specialized and developed since it first began to be utilized. It has developed
The issue of children’s veracity is not new to the courtroom. There were cases in Puritan times in which youngsters’ testimony was responsible for the imprisonment and execution of a number of individuals accused of being witches (Meyer, 1997). Because of this, for both theoretical and practical reasons, many child psychologists, legal professionals, and others have long sought to understand more fully the extent to which young children are able to recall their experiences and to report on them accurately. As part of this effort, there has also been a great interest in learning more about the developmental course through which young children acquire the capacity (Stern, Stern, & Lamiell, 1999).
When thinking about memory, people usually have the misconception that it is like a filing system. People believe that we can choose any date or experience to go over and be able to remember every single detail of that event accurately. However, this is a false belief. People are influenced by many elements everyday; People are influenced by society and other external influences. Therefore, if people can be influenced by external factors, memories can be altered and make them inaccurate. In the criminal justice system, eyewitness testimonies are extremely valuable in a case. So knowing that memories can be altered and humans are known for error, is it possible that the witnesses testimonies can make an innocent person be held accountable for a crime they did not commit? The answer is yes. There are outside factors that can change the memory of an eyewitness. Consequently, it is important to not convict someone guilty solely based on eyewitness testimonies and more on the actual facts of the case.
Children between 10 and 14 years of age may be found guilty of a crime
These numbers demand the public’s attention. The pain of just one child should be more than enough to cause a person to jump up and help, much less the pain of more than six thousand children. The U.S. Department of Justice calls children the “perfect victim” for six major reasons. Firstly, since children are typically not emotionally or physically mature, they will try to avoid talking about the abuse. The second reason that they provide is that often times the child does not want to betray the person who is abusing them due to the fact that, many times, the abuser is someone close to them or even related to them. Thirdly, many times there is not enough medical evidence or reliable eye witness accounts for the police to persecute a sexual predator. Unfortunately, the child’s testimony is easy for most any defense attorney to strike down. Two more reas...
A report issued by Amnesty International in 1998, based on data from the Department of Justice and from individual states, estimates that as many as 200,000 youth under the age of eighteen, some as young as thirteen, are prosecuted in adult court annually. The action of sending children into the adult criminal justice system contrasts greatly with the traditional view that delinquent children need help to turn their lives around in order to succeed in their futures. Judges are said to refrain from giving the younger children harsh punishments, even if they commit the exact same crime as someone eighteen or older. Additionally, there are problems with trial by jury in regard to the juvenile cases; juries are just regular citizens and most of them tend to sympathize with kids who are being tried severely. Lastly, offenders who are tried in adult court before legally being considered adults will face many hardships when their release date comes, leading to likely failure to flourish in the rest of their lives. Transferring juveniles to criminal court puts unnecessary strain on the already fearful child and therefore if the offender is 18 or younger, they should stay in juvenile court to receive their sentence and become free citizen who can have a positive impact on their community and society as a whole.
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