Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
good eyewitness testimony validity
problems with eye witness testimony
eye witness testimony credibility essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: good eyewitness testimony validity
Eyewitness Testimony
Elizabeth Loftus has conducted many studies on eyewitness testimony
(EWT).
In 1974 she worked with John Palmer to look at the ways that memory
can be distorted. The studies general aim was to explore the accuracy
of memory after witnessing a car accident. In particular it was to
find out if leading questions distort the accuracy of eyewitness’s
immediate recall. It also aimed to see if it was true that people were
open to hints, as people are extremely bad at estimating the speed of
moving cars.
45 students were shown 7films of different traffic accidents. After
each film, participants were given a questionnaire asking them to
describe the accident and then answer a sequence of specific questions
about it. The questionnaire contained one critical question ‘about how
fast were the cars going when they hit each other’. This was given to
1 group of participants. The other 4 groups were given different verbs
to replace the word ‘hit’.
Loftus and Palmer found that the group given the verb ‘smashed’
estimated a higher speed than the other groups. The group given verb
‘contacted’ estimated a lower speed than the other groups.
This research study shows us that leading questions can effect the
accuracy of memory.
An additional explanation is that the shape of question actually
alters the participant’s memory account of the accident, which guides
them to give a higher or lower estimate.
One criticism of this study is that it is not true to life. A
laboratory experiment may not signify real life, as people may not
take the experiment seriously and/or they are not emotionally aroused
as they would ...
... middle of paper ...
... for witnesses to accurately
recall a person or event. Geiselman et al. developed an interviewing
technique called the cognitive interview, which was based on verified
psychological principles regarding effective memory recall. Though
there are some problems with this technique, it does have a tendency
to produce more detailed and accurate information than a standard
police interview.
Overall, research has shown EWT to be very unreliable due to its
accuracy. From looking at research by Loftus I feel that EWT is indeed
undependable, and should therefore not be used as often as it is.
However, Geiselman et al. have shown us a way in which we can improve
it. Taking this into consideration, we are unable to come up with one
single conclusion that states whether or not EWT deserves its frequent
use and credibility.
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.
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.
What Psychological Research Has Told Us about the Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony L and P = Loftus and Palmer Pps = Participants EWT = Eyewitness testimony Despite the considerable importance juror’s place on EWT, psychological research has shown that EWT tends to be unreliable. This unreliability can be explained in terms of the reconstructive nature of memory (schema theory).
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.
video. In one version, a man pointed a gun at the cashier and she 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.
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.
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.
There have been several cases in which eyewitness testimony led to the conviction of an innocent person. In one notable case, Raymond Towler was wrongly convicted in 1981 of the rape, kidnap, and assault of an 11-year old girl based on eyewitness testimony in which the victim and other witnesses identified him from a photo. Towler had been serving a life sentence and was released in 2010 after serving nearly 30 years until DNA evidence proved that he did not commit the rape (Sheeran, 2010). In another case, Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl near Baltimore in 1984. Five different eyewitnesses testified that they saw him at the scene of crime. After serving nine years in prison on death row, he was released and paid compensation after traces of semen found in the victim’s underwear excluded him as the person responsible for the crime. Although he was released, he was not formally exonerated for another decade until the real killer was found, Kimberly Shay Ruffner. Ruffner was already incarcerated for unrelated crimes and was identified after the DNA sample from the crime scene was added to state and federal databases and came back as a match for him. Despite the fact that Bloodsworth was a completely different height and weight than Ruffner, five eyewitnesses testified that they saw him at the murder scene (Marshall, 2009).
Often, previous or new knowledge of an experience will alter our memories. That is why the use of Eyewitness testimony in judging a suspect is highly controversial. Many people believe that eyewitness testimony can be highly unreliable. On the other hand, many believe eyewitness testimony to be the most trustable and accurate way in deciding on the final verdict.
Eyewitness testimony has long been viewed as important evidence in court cases. The general population believes eyewitness identification more than any other evidence, even if the witness account is conflicting with the other evidence presented. Studies show that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and yet it is still considered the most important form of evidence. People think that if a person says they saw something then it must have happened. Currently there are no universal guidelines on how to obtain and present such evidence. The purpose of this paper is to explain why eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and discuss the proposed guidelines on how law enforcement agencies should gather identifications, as well how the courts should handle such evidence. The author will begin by providing a history of eyewitness testimony and the studies that have been done regarding the validity of eyewitness identifications. Next, she will discuss eyewitness identifications and why they are unreliable. Finally, she will address the proposed universal guidelines for law enforcement agencies and the courts.
Eyewitnesses are often needed to help solve a crime and find the identity of a culprit. Eyewitness testimony is used in the legal system and refers to people recalling an event they have witnessed. However research that I will mention in this essay, has shown that we should not rely on only eyewitnesses to identify a culprit. “I saw it with my own two eyes” is a common expression used to underline that someone has witnessed something and can recall it exactly like it happened. Memories are commonly mistaken for exact scripts of previous events. What most people do not seem to realise, is that memories can be reformed. This means, that you might think you remember something accurately, but it turns out that it actually did not even happen.
Eyewitness evidence is critical for solving a crime, and can often be the main source of evidence in determining who the perpetrator is. However, it is estimated that every year, approximately 4,500 wrongful convictions have happened in the United States alone, based on inaccurate or mistaken eyewitness testimonies. Studies have consistently shown that the leading cause for wrongful convictions is invalid eyewitness testimonies, as this has been a major source of convicting innocent people, who have been later proven innocent by forensic DNA.
During the identification and prosecution of a suspect, eyewitnesses are of the utmost importance. They provide crucial information that determines the fate of the criminal, whether their memories are true to the event or slightly altered. Many eyewitnesses, being the victims of these crimes, have strong emotions related to the event. It has been found that emotions play a role in the accuracy and completeness of memories, especially in eyewitness testimony (Huston, Clifford, Phillips, & Memon, 2013). When emotions are negative in content, accuracy increases for memory of an event (Storbeck & Clore, 2005; Block, Greenberg, & Goodman, 2009). This finding holds true for all types of eyewitnesses, including children. There is no difference in memory between children and adults for aversive events, suggesting that the child eyewitness is just as capable as the adult eyewitness to give an accurate testimony (Cordon, Melinder, Goodman, & Edelstein, 2012). For my research paper, I will focus on the role of emotion in children’s eyewitness testimony.
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.