The Inaccuracy of Eyewitness Testimony According to Research
Eyewitness testimony is the evidence provided in court by a person who
witnessed a crime, with a view to identifying the perpetrator. The
accuracy of eyewitness recall may be affected during initial encoding,
subsequent storage and eventual retrieval. There are three stages of
‘eyewitness memory’; encoding, retention and retrieval. Throughout
these stages the memory is distorted, lost, modified, interfered with
and reconstructed.
Elizabeth Loftus has conducted many studies concerning eye witness
testimony – one in which she worked with Palmer (1974) to see if
leading questions distort the eyewitness’s immediate recall. A
leading question is a question that ‘either by its form or content,
suggests to the witness what answer is desired or leads him to the
desired answer’. After being shown films of traffic accidents,
students were asked one critical question: ‘About how fast were the
cars going when they hit each other?’ The word ‘hit’ was replaced
with ‘smashed’, ‘collided’, ‘bumped’ and ‘contacted’ for different
students. The students who were asked with the word ‘smashed’
estimated the highest speed, whereas the group asked with the word
‘contacted’ estimated the lowest speed. These findings tell us that a
leading question can greatly affect the witness’s answer. It also
shows that eyewitnesses are easily influenced by just one word.
Other factors influencing eyewitness memory include the extreme level
of stress in the situation, the presence of a weapon, the length of
time that the person sees the perpetrator, whether it was dark, the
way witnesses might talk to one another after the event, possible
influence by media reports and the race of the witness and
perpetrator. Many studies have now found that there is an average of
about 15 percent difference between the accuracy rates of identifying
people of your own race compared with identifying people of a
different race.
Elizabeth Loftus (1979a) identified the weapon focus as a key factor
in eyewitness memory. From her experiment she found that if a weapon
In the magic of the mind author Dr. Elizabeth loftus explains how a witness’s perception of an accident or crime is not always correct because people's memories are often imperfect. “Are we aware of our minds distortions of our past experiences? In most cases, the answer is no.” our minds can change the way we remember what we have seen or heard without realizing it uncertain witnesses “often identify the person who best matches recollection
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.
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.
During the identification and prosecution of a suspect, eyewitnesses are the most important. Eyewitness testimony needs to be reliable as it can have serious implications to the perceived guilt or innocence of a defendant. Unfortunately, the reliability of eyewitness testimony is questionable because there is a high number of eyewitness misidentification. Rattner (1988) studied 205 cases and concluded that eyewitness misidentification was the factor most often associated with wrongful conviction (52%). Eyewitness testimony can be affected by many factors. A substantial literature demonstrates own group biases in eyewitness testimony. For example, the own-race bias, in which people are better at recognizing faces of their own race versus another
Eyewitness reports are not reliable in court. There are many reasons why eyewitness reports are unreliable. Some reasons are that people don't have a good memory and mistake the real criminal, another reason is that people don't have a perfect eyesight and even the mind plays tricks on you. on a report in 1984 there was a report that jennifer was raped. jennifer picked ronald cotton out of a photo and a physical lineup. she was sure that ronald was the rapist but a decade later dna proved that ronald wasn't the real rapist. elizabeth loftus said that “jennifer did not recognize the real rapist because she picked ronald first and in her mind she thought he was the real rapist” so her mind was set on ronald and no one else.
The situation that I have thought of is, when I was on the jury for juveniles who committed first offenses. While I was listening to the lawyers depend these kids, I looked on the list and saw a familiar name. The name was a person I went to kindergarten with. She was being convicted of shoplifting. I could not believe it. All the thoughts of that soft, kind-hearted person went out the window. My behaviors were changed by the environmental influences. My thoughts were overcome with coldness. I felt that she choose her situation. Somewhere along she became part of the wrong crowd and never changed her situation. I also think that the situation changed what I thought of her.
Valentine, T., & Maras, K. (2011). The effect of cross-examination on the accuracy of adult eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 554-561. doi: 10.1002/acp.1768
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.
This essay is going to look at eye witness testimony. It will discuss whether or not it is reliable and studies will be looked at and evaluated to either back up or refute eyewitness reliability.
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.
There are many factors that can contribute to faulty eyewitness testimony, including own-race bias, focus on a weapon, stress, length of exposure to the stranger, eyewitness confidence, and events that occur after the incident, such as suggestive police procedures (V...
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.
From a legal standpoint, eyewitness memories are not accurate. Though they all illustrate the same concept, each paper described different ways eyewitness memories were altered. One’s memory can be misleading by their own attributions towards the situation, what they choose to see and not see, and if the individual has been through a single event or repetitive stressful events. As human beings, our memories on all matters are not concrete. When retelling stories, we tend to modify the situation and tailor certain events, making the information provided unreliable. An eyewitness testimony changes the track of a trial and information that is given to the court can be ambiguous and can cause bias towards the circumstances. Eyewitnesses can even be confident in their retelling of a situation and explain a complete event, when in fact, that particular event never