More handpicked essays just for you.
Studies on the validity of eyewitness testimony has shown
Studies on the validity of eyewitness testimony has shown
Penn foster apa research essay on eyewitness testimony
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Elizabeth Loftus, is a psychologist, mainly concerned with how subsequent information can affect an eyewitness’s testimony. Loftus has focused on misleading information in both the difference in wording of questions and how these questions can influence eyewitness testimony. This research is important because frequently, eyewitness testimony is a crucial element in criminal proceedings. Throughout Loftus’s career she has found a witness’s memory is highly flexible and subject to being influenced. The classic study by Loftus and Palmer (1974), illustrates that eyewitness testimony can be influenced by leading questions and ultimately proved unreliable.
It must be noted that eyewitness testimony is rarely given immediately after the traumatic
…show more content…
This is what sparked the use of anatomical dolls in cases of sexual abuse with children. Multiple interviews with children and other witnesses with disabilities can also result in suggestive testimony. The first interviewer may have communicated suggestions to the child which are then repeated as truth in the subsequent testimony. In the past an investigation of child abuse might have the victim interviewed by a detective, a child protective services caseworker, a physician and a prosecutor. When the research indicated a problem with suggestive interviewing, a concern began to develop that the child was parroting to the later interviewers what they believed the prior interviewers desired to hear. This has led to the development of family advocacy centers where a child is interviewed a single time by a specialist and the information provided to appropriate …show more content…
This study was conducted on 30 students, having two versions of film depicting a quarrel between a man and woman passing each other on the street. The only variations of the film was the angle captured from the street camera and one participant watched the video for seven minutes while the other only watched two minutes. Then each participant had a few moments to converse about the events seen. De Puiseau et al. (2012) employed using a method based on the cultural consensus theory, which would account for the differences in each eyewitness’s knowledge. Then each participant had 110 recognition questions ranging topics included crime scene, perpetrator, victim, action, and general information. It was found among all 30 participants answered correctly 83.63% of the 110 item-questionnaire (De Puiseau, et al., 2012). The study also compared the group context model (GCM) to the majority rule, and it was found that the GCM was much higher in correctly estimating the answers (De Puiseau, et al, 2012). This study is important to note as in each crime it is expected that there is at least four eyewitnesses, and most likely when one does not understand the events or wants assurance what they saw, they confer with the others. In extreme cases like the
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...
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
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.
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.
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 child advocacy center model incorporates several different approaches to create one that has been more beneficial compared to other Forensic interviews (Hebert et al, 2016). It combines multidisciplinary teams, evidence-informed Forensic interviewing practices, and victim advocacy (Herbert et al, 2016). This is similar to what has been found to be beneficial when working with victims of human trafficking. Child advocacy centers also offer child-friendly settings in how people interact and how the building looks. Children could be intimidated by certain settings like a police station, a hospital, school, or CPS office and could feel like they are the ones in trouble (Herbert et al, 2016; Jones et al, 2007). A child advocacy center aims to be comforting and be inviting to the child, so they aren’t afraid. It also works to limit the amount of interviews the child undergoes by being multidisciplinary. If a child is constantly having to repeat their story, it increases the likelihood they will change pieces to please the interviewer or will recant altogether (Herbert et al,
did they see a barn (which was not in the incident). Only 2.7 % gave
Eyewitness identification and testimony play a huge role in the criminal justice system today, but skepticism of eyewitnesses has been growing. Forensic evidence has been used to undermine the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the leading cause of false convictions in the United States is due to misidentifications by eyewitnesses. The role of eyewitness testimony in producing false confessions and the factors that contribute to the unreliability of these eyewitness testimonies are sending innocent people to prison, and changes are being made in order to reform these faulty identification procedures.
Examining the entire case and comparing psychological perspective with the eyewitness testimony and that reason for the false confession, I concluded that, the victim husband was under the stress creating due to the trauma of been witness of such horrible crime and the loss of his love one. Other factors such as the weapon effect in which a person pay more attention to the weapon than faces, colors or any other details. In addition, the time crime occurs, the lightness of that location, and that fact that the perpetrator approaches the victim from behind were significant factor for a person to be confused about what real happen during the crime and certainly identify a perpetrator.
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
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.