This research paper will be used to acknowledge the trending factor in our criminal justice system of wrongful convictions. Wrongful convictions socially can be defined as convicting the innocent and punishing the not guilty. In other words, wrongful convictions play a huge part of our flawed Criminal Justice system. In order to fix and come up with a solution, we will have to first come to basis of first understanding the issue, then using this information to gain ideas to which we can apply to access better results to the issue of wrongful convictions. Once we come up with a reasonable solution to this problem then we can conclude that the data will show an eminent decrease in this trend. The causes of wrongful convictions include the “Snitch” Testimony, Eyewitness misidentification, false confessions and much more that I will add during the readings of this paper. Literature Review Causes Eyewitness Misidentification Contributing to most cases of wrongful convictions is Eyewitness misidentification. Eyewitness misidentification not only is the greatest cause of wrongful conviction but it also single handedly creates a huge 75% of convictions to be overturned due to DNA testing. When dealing with eyewitness testimony there is no guarantee that the criminal to which the victim is describing can be narrowed down to a single person. That is where facial and body features such as height, weight, and other personal reference can help victims remember a clearer image. Thus, when the suspects are in the police lineup the victim will either see the criminal, or not. Sadly, the false testimony, or “snitch” testimony come to play. Yes, victims could be telling the truth to whether the criminal is actually in... ... middle of paper ... ... financial losses of our country and yet there are barely any arrests from these big business companies and other crisis’s such as identity thief. Conclusion Wrongful convictions are a growing trend amongst the Criminal Justice system. Justice can never be served completely to the extent of the victim but starting off with a proper conviction is a start. Eyewitness misidentification is one of the main causes for wrongful convictions. We should focus more on identifying victims through reforms and procedures that could help narrow down the perpetrator. Without these solutions there are bound to be consequences. These consequences are posttraumatic stress and the inability to cope to normal society. We need to follow these steps in order to lower the rate of wrongful conviction. I truly believe wrongful conviction can be prevented.
Eye witness testimony can be a very important piece of evidence surrounding criminal cases but not always the most reliable. As discussed in the textbook Criminal Evidence: Principles and Cases, jurors often rely very heavily on eyewitness interpretations of an incident to determine whether or not a defendant is guilty. Since an adult is presumed to be competent, a juror will often make the assumption that the testimony provided is an accurate account of the events that took place. Amongst other factors, the amount of stress the witness is under at the time of the crime, the presence of a weapon, lighting and the lack of any distinguishable characteristics can play a role in creating a false memory. Under that extreme pressure, a witness is more likely not to recall certain aspects of an incident. Their attention may have been drawn elsewhere and they never noticed the suspect’s beard, tattoos or facial features which can be crucial identifiers. The consequences of falsely identifying a suspect due to false memories can ruin an innocent person’s life, have them convicted and cause them to be punished for a crime that they did not commit.
In the adversarial justice system, when the offender admits to the criminal act, there is no further controversy and the case promptly proceeds to sentencing. Physical evidence and victim or witness statements may often be overlooked and not considered. The confession is considered unequivocal evidence of guilt and a conviction is ensured. Indeed, the interrogation process’ sole purpose is to obtain a confession. Zimbardo (1967) estimated that “of those criminal cases that are solved, more than 80% are solved by a confession.” (Conti, 1999) Without the confession, convictions may be reduced significantly. So why does a person falsely confess to a crime if the likelihood of a conviction is eminent? A false confession to any crime is self-destructive and counterintuitive.
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.
A defendant’s guilt is often determined in a single moment of fleeting emotion. A pointed finger, accompanied by the solidifying eyewitness statement “He’s the one!” is enough for a jury to make its final decision in a court case. Although it is understandable, when faced opposite of the individual creating the accusation, to place one’s belief in the accusation made, the credibility of the eyewitness’s account of events are rarely taken into consideration. Psychologists have taken part in research that recognizes the unreliable nature of eyewitness statements used to determine guilt because of the instability of long term memory acquisition and because of this, eyewitness accounts of situations should not be used before a jury in court.
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.
Eyewitnesses are such a powerful tool because, “...eyewitnesses are too persuasive in the sense that their confidence and other qualities of their testimony are greatly exaggerated.”(Wells/Bradfield 1998). This can be a useful tool in any courtroom, heavily turning a case in one's favor. However, this can also be (and often is) a dangerous aspect to using eyewitnesses in a trial, because a witness who strongly believes in their identification of a suspect can solidify a verdict, even if the suspect is innocent. It becomes monumentally more dangerous when you find that the eyewitness’ confidence can be swayed into a desired direction. Researchers Wells and Bradfield had to take into account the different variables that factor into the confidence levels of eyewitnesses spanning the gap between the identification of a suspect and their testimony. To help narrow this window, the researchers employed what they called a “postidentification feedback paradigm”, which through only administering feedback after the viewing and identification processes allows the researchers to assume that any variation of recollection stemming from the use of feedback manipulation would be forms of false recall about the witnessing process (Wells/Bradfield
In this paper, I propose to talk about how all the three parts of the criminal justice system works and also delve a little bit on the issue of racism in context of the criminal justice system as a lot of people believe that the system most of the times acts keeping the individual’s race in mind.
It is my belief that eyewitness testimony should be inadmissible in a court of law due to the many dilemmas’ in our memory and our inability to recollect certain details from specific memories without them being distorted. Studies have been conducted showing the extent to which eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate, one being the Wells and Bradfield (1998). This study instructed participants to watch a video of a robbery (8 seconds long), after they were given slides of possible robbers. All participants identified a robber, although the actual person in the video was not present in the slide. It is the shown that errors of mistaken identity and constructive nature of memory, such as this that make eyewitness testimony an unreliable source to be used in a court of law.
Forensic psychology covers many different topics such as detecting deception, interrogations, criminal profiling, and eyewitness testimony to name a few. Eyewitness testimony is a key element in regards to the criminal justice system and crime evidence. It uses the recall of memories but these memories can be corrupt along the way which impacts eyewitness testimony. There are many different research findings in this area of study and these different studies have been conducted to understand how accurate eyewitness testimony and identification can be. In a real world example a man is wrongfully convicted because of two eyewitness testimonies stating he was the culprit.
Eyewitnesses play a dynamic and important role when trying to expose the truth about a crime. “Even the most honest and objective people can make mistakes in recalling and interpreting a witnessed event”. (Reno, 1999) Every evidence a witness proves can be critical in sentencing suspected criminals. But yet there is one way to obtain the most accurate and reliable evidence that investigators follow and is to keep an eye on procedures in their investigations. The Technical Working Group for
Eyewitness account testimony remains an important part of the justice system. Individuals who are victims of crime or witness a crime are asked what they say and who was the perpetrator of a crime. However, eyewitness testimony has been shown to be false in many cases. In the case shown, a man was falsely imprisoned for two rapes. His one victim memorized the perpetrator during the rape. She stated that she made a conscious effort to remember anything possible about the man who raped her. She wanted to help the police in catching the man. However, the wrong man was put in jail. The man repeatedly denied his guilt. After the OJ Simpson trial, the convicted person asked for a DNA test. The DNA test exonerated him. He was released from prison after eleven years.
The accuracy of eye-witness testimony is a prevalent yet controversial topic within the criminology field. Over the last 20 years, scientific psychology and research pertaining to eye-witness testimony has made great advances in discovering the factors that affect witness identification of suspects. It is considered that due to the fact that eye-witness testimony is often believed to be inaccurate, through applying certain recommendations, its accuracy can be enhanced, thus allowing it to become remarkably more reliable and continue to be admissible evidence within the criminal justice system. This essay will examine and define eye-witness testimony and its accuracy through: firstly, how human memory and perception are negatively impacted on
Eyewitness testimonies do not yield an exceptionally high validity, however they are a fairly effective way of gathering information. The Criminal justice system should take notice of the fact that they can be misconstrued since memories are fallible and can be easily influenced.
Eyewitness testimony plays a very large role in the American court system. It has been proven that a courts decision regarding the guilt of an accused person often depends on an eyewitness’ testimony and identification (Aronson, Wilson & Akert, 2010). To a jury eyewitness testimony is one of the most convincing forms of evidence is (Goldstein, 2008). When an eyewitness testifies and identifies a person as the criminal, his testification is given a lot of weight, and it is likely that the person identified will be convicted. This is true even when there is other evidence indicating that the accused is not guilty (Aronson et al, 2010). Furthermore, the more confident an eyewitness appears when testifying and identifying a criminal, the greater the likelihood of the jurors believing him (Aronson et al, 2010; Goldstein, 2008).
Andre Hatchett was convicted of murder in 1991. However, there was no DNA evidence linking him to the crime. Only a single eyewitness said that he saw Hatchett attack the women in a park. During the trial, the eyewitness had testified and Andre Hatchett was charged with murder and was put in jail for 25 years. But 25 years into his sentence it was found that he was wrongly convicted and the eyewitness had testified for having a burglary charge dropped against him. An eyewitness was responsible for putting Hatchet in jail. Eyewitnesses are able to put a suspect behind bars for simple misdemeanors to serious felonies. Eyewitnesses can be incorrect which can lead to the wrong people being put in jail. Eyewitness’s memories