Hugo Münsterberg became the first psychologist to use his education, training, and tools to step into the judicial realm of the courtroom. As we learned in our reading, Münsterberg had written many articles regarding how psychology could be used to assist with legal issues (Hothersall, 2004). In his book On the Witness Stand, Münsterberg detailed how eyewitness reports were often invalid due to what he called “subjective and objective truth” (Hothersall, 2004). According to Münsterberg, when one takes an oath on the witness stand to tell the truth they it is not a guarantee to tell the objective truth (Hothersall, 2004). His main issue with eyewitness testimony was regarding memory and how it is difficult to recall something clearly that happened …show more content…
Due to Münsterberg’s previous work he was invited by the then Idaho governor to forensically test Harry Orchard, a person on trial for the murders of eighteen people (Fancher & Rutherford, 2012). During a period of seven hours Münsterberg tested Orchard using a variety of devices he used in his own laboratory. After the testing was complete, Münsterberg was positive Orchard was being honest regarding his crimes and those who were also involved (Hothersall, 2004). Unfortunately for Münsterberg, he was met upon his arrival home by a particularly aggressive reporter who was able to discover the results of Orchard’s testing. The reporter published the test results before the trial was finished and raised the anger of lawyer’s across the nation for interfering with the judicial process (Fancher & Rutherford, 2012). The concept of using psychology to determine innocence or guilt has distinct possibilities in theory, but in practice there are a few fundamental …show more content…
Each time a memory is accessed that particular memory is distorted minutely, but even minimal distortion can lead to an unintentional faulty memory. One faulty memory could mean the difference between the guilt and innocence of another human being. When someone’s life is at stake, eyewitness testimony should not be the only factor considered during deliberation. Given the knowledge we now have for eyewitness testimony it appears Münsterberg was ahead of his time with his research findings. Still another fundamental flaw is found in the concept of admitting to a crime one did not commit. If the specifics surrounding the crime were given in enough detail, someone innocent of the crime seeking notoriety may be able to convince the legal system of their guilt. Münsterberg believed he could tell if someone were lying by monitoring their “eye movements, respiration, heart rate, blood pressure, hand tremor, and electrical resistance of the skin” (Hothersall, 2004). How would psychology combat this if the supposed criminal is a gifted liar? It has been shown time and again results from polygraph testing are inadmissible in court due to their insufficient proof of accuracy. If courts have deemed polygraph testing as inadmissible Münsterberg would have not been able to use any of his findings in court. Yet another fundamental flaw would be crimes committed by a
This paper will consider eye witness testimony and its place in convicting accused criminals. Psychology online (2013) defines “eye witness testimony” as a statement from a person who has witnessed a crime, and is capable of communicating what they have seen, to a court of law under oath. Eye witness testimonies are used to convict accused criminals due to the first hand nature of the eye witnesses’ observations. There are however many faults within this system of identification. Characteristics of the crime is the first issue that will be discussed in this paper, and the flaws that have been identified. The second issue to be discussed will be the stress impact and the inability to correctly identify the accused in a violent or weapon focused crime. The third issue to be discussed is inter racial identification and the problems faced when this becomes a prominent issue. The fourth issue will be time lapse, meaning, the time between the crime and the eye witness making a statement and how the memory can be misconstrued in this time frame. To follow this will be the issue of how much trust jurors-who have no legal training-put on to the eye witness testimony, which may be faltered. This paper references the works of primarily Wells and Olsen (2003) and Rodin (1987) and Schmechel et al. (2006) it will be argued that eye witness testimony is not always accurate, due to many features; inter racial identification, characteristics of the crime, response latency, and line up procedures therefore this paper will confirm that eyewitness testimonies should not be utilised in the criminal ju...
Memory is not reliable; memory can be altered and adjusted. Memory is stored in the brain just like files stored in a cabinet, you store it, save it and then later on retrieve and sometimes even alter and return it. In doing so that changes the original data that was first stored. Over time memory fades and becomes distorted, trauma and other events in life can cause the way we store memory to become faulty. So when focusing on eyewitnesses, sometimes our memory will not relay correct information due to different cues, questioning, and trauma and so forth, which makes eyewitness even harder to rely on. Yet it is still applied in the criminal justice system.
The rates for false-negative classifications, on the other hand, have been much higher, especially in the field, with up to 58% of undetected guilty subjects (Elaad, 1990). However, the study referred to is critically discussed, as the CIT was carried out under subpar conditions and substantial differences between laboratory settings and real-life situations exist. The perception and memory of crime related details is different as optimal conditions that can be provided in laboratory settings are not given in the field. Various factors may interfere with the test, such as that some relevant information might be overlooked especially during strong excitement. In experimental setups information to which subjects are exposed to can be controlled. In order to address this issue, only items that seem plausible and recognized by most people (at least 80%), whether they possess crime knowledge or not, should be used (Lykken, 1981). Therefore, to receive lower rates on false-negative classifications, the CIT conditions in the field should duplicate the laboratory settings as closely as possible. Another point of criticism was the use of a single measure as an indicator of deception. Studies have shown that combined physiological measurements amount to superior results over individual measurements (Gamer, Verschuere, Crombez & Vossel,
Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277-295.
In the court of law, eyewitnesses are expected to present evidence based upon information they acquired visually. However, due to memory processing, presenting this information accurately is not always possible. This paper will discuss the reliability of eyewitness testimony, its use in a relevant court case, and how the reasonable person standard relates to eyewitness testimony.
Elizabeth Loftus and John palmer teamed up with a master plan to prove that” the language in eyewitness testimony can alter memory.” “Their main goal was to show that leading questions could distort eyewitness testimony reliability and so have a confabulating effect, as the account would become distorted by hints used in the question. “ (Mcleod 2014)
People do not realize the witness perception of the event took place can be reconstructed which makes it hard for the jury to filter out the false details in the testimonies. Smalarz and Wells (2014) investigated that giving confirming feedback to accurate and mistaken eyewitnesses would harm the abilities of testimony evaluators to discriminate between accurate and mistaken testimony. They conducted a two phase paradigm where the witnesses were given accurate or mistaken identification and then was randomly assigned to get the feedback or none. Phase 2 included the evaluators/participants had to make a judgement on the testimonies stating if they were accurate or not. They found that feedback eliminated evaluators’ abilities to discriminate between the testimony of accurate and mistaken witness. This finding suggest that judgements can be tampered by
The insanity defense presents many difficult questions for the legal system. It attracts attention beyond its practical significance (it is seldom used successfully) because it goes to the heart of the concept of legal responsibility. ‘‘Not guilty by reason of insanity’’ generally requires that as a result of mental illness the defendant was unable to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the crime. The many difficult and complex questions presented by the insanity defense have led some in the legal community to hope that neuroscience might help resolve some of these problems, but that hope is not likely to be realized. (Smith 475)
Have you ever been an eyewitness at the scene of a crime? If you were, do you think that you would be able to accurately describe, in precise detail, everything that happened and remember distinct features of the suspect? Many people believe that yes they would be able to remember anything from the events that would happen and the different features of the suspect. Some people, in fact, are so sure of themselves after witnessing an event such as this that they are able to testify that what they think they saw was indeed what they saw. However, using an eyewitness as a source of evidence can be risky and is rarely 100% accurate. This can be proven by the theory of the possibility of false memory formation and the question of whether or not a memory can lie.
Eyewitness testimony is the evidence given in a court or in police investigations by an individual who has witnessed a crime or offense (Loftus, 2003). Eyewitness testimonies rely heavily upon a human’s memory. “Given the complex interaction of perception, memory, judgment, social influence, and communication processes that lead up to an eyewitness’s story of what happened, it should hardly be surprising that such testimony often is a faulty version of the original event (Wells, 1987)." Eyewitness testimonies play an intricate part within the Criminal Justice System. In some cases, a jury may tend to evaluate what witnesses say more favorably and associate confidence level with how accurate their identification can be held in a court of law (Bradfield & Wells 2000).
Eyewitness testimony is especially vulnerable to error when the question is misleading or when there’s a difference in ethnicity. However, using an eyewitness as a source of evidence can be risky and is rarely 100% accurate. This can be proven by the theory of the possibility of false memory formation and the question of whether or not a memory can lie. For instance, a group of students saw the face of a young man with straight hair, then heard a description of the face supposedly written by another witness, one that wrongly mentioned light, curly hair. When they reconstructed the face using a kit of facial features, a third of their reconstructions contained the misleading detail, whereas only 5 percent contained it when curly hair was not mentioned (Page 359). This situation shows how misleading information from other sources can be profoundly altered.
Eyewitness testimony is defined as, “an area of research that investigates the accuracy of memory following an accident, crime, or other significant event, and the types of errors that are commonly made in such situations.” Much emphasis is placed on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony as often-inaccurate eyewitness testimony can have serious consequences leading to wrong convictions. Eyewitness testimony is a powerful tool within any field, particularly that of justice, as it is a readily accepted form of evidence that allows for convictions. However, Tests conducted by Loftus have shown an enormous swing from a non-guilty verdict, to guilty within the same case, simply through the introduction of an eyewitness. This alone displays the importance of eyewitness testimony, and accentuates the theory that jurors tend to over believe, or at least rely heavily on such accounts.
Perri, F., & Lichtenwald, T. (2009). WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE: Criminal investigative analysis, forensic psychology, and the timothy masters case. Forensic Examiner, 18(2), 52-52-69.
In Samuel Baum’s Lie to Me episode “Blinded” Cal Lightman and his team investigates a copycat serial rapist by interrogating the original rapist. This episode discusses topics such as the psychological theory of crime, criminal personalities, psychopathy, and interrogation methods of police officers. However, in Jerry Bruckheimer’s CSI: Miami episode “Just One Kiss” Horatio’s team investigates the murder of a young bartender and the rape of a young woman. This episode discusses topics such as alibis, interrogation methods, and evidence. Both episodes deal with a different dynamic of psychology and the law, so it is important to look at both methods.
Eyewitness testimonies are a well-known evidence around the world to seek out people. It has been used in numerous cases and many people have been convicted with eyewitnesses alone. The problem is that such testimonies alone can be very inaccurate and lead to wrongful convictions. Our memory and our ability to remember is very corruptive by many factors. Some factors can be emotions, event, personal experience, stress level, and the will to help. In this assignment I will discuss what I learned about the questioning that happens during an interview, and how it impacts the response a witness may give.When we learn something new we store that information so that we won’t forget it. How much or how good we remember something is how we measure