More handpicked essays just for you.
The credibility of eyewitness testimonies
Eyewitness testimony psychology
The imporatnce of eye witness testimony
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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. One cannot always accurately reproduce information due to the stages of memory processing that occur after witnessing an event. With each stage, the accuracy of the memory decreases. According to Aronson, Wilson, and Akert (2013), the first stage is acquisition. Acquisition is the process by which people notice only certain information in a particular setting because they cannot perceive everything around them. Also, witnessing a crime often occurs quickly, unexpectedly, under poor viewing conditions, or while focus is on another object, such as a gun. These circumstances significantly decrease the amount of accurate information that the observer will acquire, and the likelihood for accurate reproduction of the event in testimony is lessened (Aronson et al., 2013). According to Fradella (2006), acquisition is dependent upon the same individualized factors that are present in perception and expectations. Expectations impact what information an observer seeks out or avoids, ultimately impacting their overall memory (Fradella, 2006). The second stage of memory processing is storage. Aronson et al. (2013) defines storage as the process by which people store the information they just acquired. Unfortunately, memories are affected by incoming information through alteration or reconstruction. This phenomenon is referred to as recon... ... middle of paper ... ...onson, E., Wilson, T.D., & Akert, R.M. (2013). Social Psychology (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. Byrd, S. (2005). On getting the reasonable person out of the courtroom. Journal of Criminal Law. 571-571. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/osjcl2&div=41&id=&page= Fradella, H.F. (2006) Why judges should admit expert testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Federal Courts Law Review. Retrieved from http://www.fclr.org/fclr/articles/html/2006/fedctslrev3.pdf Reasonable person. (2008). In West’s Encyclopedia of American Law (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standard State v. Hendersen. 27 A.3d 872. (2011). Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10528420571023352860&q=faulty+eyewitness+testimony&hl=en&as_sdt=806&as_ylo=2010
In summation, is can be identified in this paper that eye witnesses do not play a constructive role within the criminal justice system. This can be seen through a thorough discussion of the many issues portrayed through this paper. To conclude Schmechel et al. (2006) reiterates that statements this paper has presented and discussed;
Such devastating mistakes by eyewitnesses are not rare, according to a report by the Innocence Project, an organization affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. The Innocence Project uses DNA testing to exonerate those wrongfully convicted of crimes. Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that, “Seventy three percent of the two hundred thirty nine convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony” (Loftus xi). One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong? This paper will identify a theoretical framework that views eyewitness testimony ...
Jurors may spot a witness that is trying to fool them, and diligent cross-examination can be an especially effective tool for ferreting out lies. But, jurors will almost certainly not spot a witness who believes their statements are the truth, but has fooled themselves. When testimony is plausible, how can jurors tell whether it is true or false? Jurors should know the factors that impact eyewitness reliability so that they can make more informed decisions about the trustworthiness of such testimony. Moreover, jurors routinely attribute far greater weight to eyewitness testimony than is prudent, making expert testimony on the issue all the more critical. Louisiana is currently one of two states to apply a per se bar on admitting expert testimony to inform jurors of factors related to eyewitness reliability. This paper contends that expert testimony regarding eyewitness reliability (expert eyewitness testimony) is an effective way of improving jury determinations and should be admissible in Louisiana at the discretion of trial court judges for that
Is eyewitness testimony a reliable source of evidence? Eyewitness testimony was once the best form of evidence available. With the emergence of DNA and other
In this paper, I will look at what can go wrong in eyewitness identification. We will discuss if eyewitness identification can be considered valid evidence for convicting individuals of a crime. And what precautions can be put into place to protect individuals from wrongful conviction and help make the process more trustworthy.
In recent years, the use of eyewitness testimonies as evidence in court cases has been a subject in which various researchers have been interested in. Research suggests that eyewitness testimonies are actually not reliable enough to use as primary evidence in court cases. There have been many cases in which an innocent person gets sent to prison for a crime they did not commit because an eyewitness testified that they were the ones that they saw at the scene of the crime. Researchers’ goal is to improve the legal system by finding out whether eyewitness testimonies should be used in the court of law or not.
Psychological research shows, a witness's memory of details during the commission of a crime, has a high probability of containing significant errors. In response to these findings, the question is should witness testimony still be permissible in a court of law? Obviously, the answer to this question is an important one and is debatable. Consequently, what we know is many innocent people go to jail due to eyewitness misidentification. Therefore, it is imperative that all defense attorneys thoroughly evaluate the validity of eyewitness recollection events. Any defense attorney who does anything less is ignoring the findings of the psychological community and its’ study of how the brain functions. As a result, an intense analysis of an
The reliability of eyewitness testimony has become a popular research topic in applied and social psychology since Loftus and Palmer’s study in 1974 (see Steblay, 1997; Wright & Loftus, 1998; Deffenbacher, Bornstein, Penrod, & McGorty, for reviews). Participants viewed videos or slides of traffic accidents (Loftus & Palmer, 1974) or a criminal act (Roediger, Jacoby, McDermott, 1996; Cutler, Penrod, & Martens, 1987) and afterwards were asked several questions about what they had just seen. The manipulation in studies was that the researchers did not ask the same question to all participant, but instead changed the wording of one critical detail in the question. In Loftus and Palmer’s study, some of the subjects were asked “About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”, while other subjects were asked the same question with the verbs smashed, collided, bumped and contacted instead of the verb hit. Loftus and Palmer (1974) showed that changing a single verb induced the different participant groups to give different estimations of the car’s speed, and additionally to produce more false claims of having seen broken glass during later interrogation.
Eyewitness testimony plays an important role in any crime nowadays. It is also one of the most important types of evidence in court cases. However, many researchers have suggested that judges and investigators should know more about how reliable is eyewitness testimony. According to Read (2002) “It is important that we recognize the possibility of several stages or types of processing of event information because the greater the number of stages and cognitive activates involved, the greater the opportunities for error or low reliability”
An eyewitness testimony is when an individual witnessed an evert firsthand and recalls the details. This can be as simple as recalling a time with friends and family at Christmas, or something as serious as a crime that has occurred. Eyewitness testimony has been controversial in court cases for a while. The reason for controversy is because eye witness testimony can be inaccurate or influenced. The judge and jury do not want to make a wrong decision by trusting the eye witness because the eyewitness might not be recalling the event, actions, or descriptions properly, even though the witness does not realize he is doing so. There are numerous ways in which eyewitness accounts can be inaccurate or influenced to make them
This Article thoroughly investigates in great detail many methods that prosecutors should use in order to accurately analyze eyewitness testimonies. These methods will significantly enhance the ability of the criminal justice system and those within it to assess eyewitness accounts and the accuracy of the accounts that are given. These methods will help to reduce and hopefully eventually eliminate wrongful convictions throughout not only the US but throughout all of the world. One of these many methods goes as follows: First, you must come to a personal understanding about whether the law enforcement officers or officials at the scene conducted the eyewitness interviews
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
Goodwin, Kukucka, and Hawks (2013) investigated the relationship between confidence and memory in eyewitness testimony in their study. The goal of an eyewitness is to provide the information to an investigator as accurately as possible. However, eyewitnesses can be pressured into providing information that conforms to someone else’s views and provide wrong answers to fit into the society. Often, researchers discovered that, participants answered more correctly when they were alone versus when they were in a group (Goodwin, Kukucka, & Hawks, 2013). Moreover, confidence is an important part of a witness’s personality. Seventy nine percent of the participants were confident about their statement when they heard similar statements from other witnesses. The purpose of this study is to explain how witnesses’ confidence level rely on other people’s
Eyewitness testimony has long been prized as the highest form of evidence in a courtroom, placing enormous value on the memory of a witness. After all, if someone has observed a crime, the details must be engrained in their memory, right? Well, not exactly. Unlike a fixed and pristine record of time, memory is a complex cognitive process which is not only determined by variables surrounding the actual event, but is also heavily influenced by the perceptions, interpretations, and emotions of the individual (Zaragoza & Mitchell, 1996). In fact, evidence suggests that the simple act of retelling a story alters the original memory, and that the power of suggestion can lead people to not only change the details of an incident, but in many cases,
Valentine, T., Maras, K. (2011) “The effect of cross-examination on the accuracy of adult eyewitness testimony” Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25 (4), 554-661.