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.
Eyewitness Testimony
Eyewitness testimonies rely on the recall of memories
…show more content…
Pozzulo et al. (2015) states, one of the main issues with memories is that they can be very easily changed. Every time they are retrieved, people tend to forget parts and fill in the blanks to make the memories make sense. When a police officer questions an eyewitness they must take into consideration the phenomenon of memory conformity. Memory conformity is what occurs when, “what one witness reports influences what another witness reports” (Pozzulo et al., 2015, p. 128). This is one of the ways that memories can be affected. Another way Pozzulo et al. (2015) states that memories can be influenced is when incorrect or added information is introduced after an event and becomes part of the memory. This is called the misinformation effect. The misinformation effect can happen to a witness when they are exposed to lots of media coverage on the event that happened. There is also third way Pozzulo et al. (2015) describes how memories get corrupted and it is through the wording of a question. For example, the way a police officer words a question to the witness will affect how they recall that memory. The memory conformity phenomenon, the misinformation effect and how a question is worded can all corrupt an individual’s memory and this makes eyewitness testimonies less …show more content…
Richard Rosario was placed in prison after two witnesses, who were not initially able to identify the shooter, identified him through photo array as the man who shot Jorge Collazo in the head. There was no forensic or physical evidence that tied Richard to the crime, the conviction was solely based on the eyewitness identification. The Toronto Star (2016) also explains that Richard provided an alibi saying he was in Florida during the time of the murder and that he listed over a dozen people who had seen him there. Police never contacted those people and his own attorneys did not look into his alibi. There had been a judge approval for sending an investigator to Florida to talk to the people who had seen Richard that day but both attorney’s never followed through. The couple that had Rosario over testified at the trail but since they were friends the judged instructed the jurors to discount them. Once he was imprisoned he applied for many appeals but lost them all. According to the New York Post (2016) the reason Richard believes his case was even considered again was due to his lawyers at the Exoneration Initiative and the digital series on his case by NBC News program
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...
For example, when the victims want to remember something, or someone, strongly and with high confidence, the witness can still be wrong. The eyewitness is given all the photos of the suspects laid out to identify the person they remember committing the crime. Also the eyewitness is asked to identify each photo whether is the culprit or not. Prosecutors should look over the cases before relying on eyewitness. Prosecutors should not depend on eyewitness testimony because that will lead to wrongful convictions. The wrongful convictions span the criminal justice system from investigation and arrest to prosecution and trail(Ferrero). False conviction makes the justice system stronger and arresting innocent is wrong. And picking out person similar to the murder. Not catching the real suspect might cause the public risky. Public safety be in risk."Wrongful conviction is gravest violation of personal liberty and also poses severe public safety risks, as the real perpetrator could remain on the street," an innocence Project news release said. The real suspect might kill many people or if the eyewitness might be in risk. If the victim is still life might be kill again. Lying about someone is not good thing might have miserable life in their future.
(Kennedy & Haygood, 1992; Williams & Loftus, 1994), which is worrying considering the growing and substantial body of evidence from laboratory studies, field studies, and the criminal justice system supporting the conclusion that eyewitnesses frequently make mistakes (Cutler & Penrod, 1995; Huff, 1987; Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin, 1986; Innocence Project, 2009; Wells, Small, Penrod, Malpass, Fulero, & Brimacombe, 1998). According to a number of studies, eyewitness misidentifications are the most common cause of wrongful convictions (Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin, 1986; Wells et al., 1998; Yarmey, 2003) and, through the use of forensic DNA testing, have been found to account for more convictions of innocent individuals than all other factors combined (Innocence Project, 2009; Wells, Memon, & Penrod, 2006).
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
For this book report, I decided to read Hugo Münsterberg's On the Witness Stand. This book contains essays on psychology and crime and eyewitness testimony. Today this book is used as a reference for many issues in forensic psychology. For this report, I focused on two chapters of the book: Illusions and the Memory of the Witness. I am going to first summarize the two chapters I read then talk about what was going on at the time this book was written. I will then report some of the research in the book, and finish with my opinion on how this book has contributed to the literature and how it relates to the current knowledge of forensic psychology.
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.
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.
The officers tampered with evidence and made a false discovery that he was the person and that is how he was convicted (Innocent Project N.D.). Many forensic methods have been implemented in research when looking for evidence, but the methods that are not scientific and have little or nothing to do with science. The result of false evidence by other means leads to false testimony by a forensic analyst. Another issue with forensic errors is that it is a challenge to find a defense expert (Giannelli, 2011).
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 goal of most of these studies is to improve the way eyewitness testimonies are treated rather than completely eliminating them from the legal system. Researchers suggest to inform jurors, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and everyone involved in court cases about the unreliability of eyewitness testimonies and to inform them about how to tell between a credited eyewitness and a discredited eyewitness. The more people that are informed about this issue, the less inaccurate convictions there will
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.
Research has shown that even though information may be committed to memory, what is retrieved can be altered during the encoding process. It has been said that, “the recollection of memory can be manipulated and or large aspects of the event can be confabulated.” (Cain,1997). Moreover, the recollection of past experiences can negatively affect future decisions, opinions, and more significant outcomes such as an eyewitness. This type of impact is due to something called, “false memories.” False memories can be defined as “an recollection of an event that never actually occurred.” False memories are said to be normal occurrences and have little impact on lives. However, Loftus and Palmer argue something different. In 1974, Loftus and Palmer conducted an experiment to test out the theory behind “false memories.” Their aim was to show that language used in eyewitness testimony can alter memory. People in this experiment were asked to estimate the speed of motor vehicles using different ways of questioning. Loftus and Palmer asked questions in regards to vehicle speed because typically that is something that most people are bad at estimating. Therefore these people would be more vulnerable and open to suggestions. The procedure of this experiment involved participants watching a video of cars. Participants were asked what they had seen in regards to how that car came in contact with the other car. Loftus and Palmer used words like “crashed, collided, hit, and smashed.” Their findings concluded that the estimated speed was affected by the verb used to describe the cars’ contact with one another. It seem as if participants saw that the verbs as clues of the speed the cars were going. Loftus and Palmer also came to the conclusion that there could only be two reasons for their findings. Those reasons were Response- bias factors or the fact that the memory representation is alter.
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.
Greenfield, D. (2007). Introduction to forensic psychology. issues and controversies in crime and justice. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 35(2), 201-201-204,105-106.