Fear of Victims
Most of the time people wonder why the victim fear to testify in court of law, and people also imagine what might happen to victim that testify in the court, but to find out the answer, we must first look at the definition of a victim. A victim is a person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed by someone else (Mariam Webster). The victim may be a witness and have to give evidence.
More generally, research made it obvious that victims don’t want to testify in court because they fear what may happen to them or their loved ones before, during or after witnessing. Victims feel insecure because it has been indicated that there had been cases of attacks or attempted attack of victim on their way to court. This may include shooting or any aggravated assault. Many at times, had been threatened with violence in several cases and this may involve the threat that they or members of their families would be killed.
Furthermore, it has been indicated that there had been other actions by one of the parties involved in the cases such as, visiting their house, making remarks, or a person pointing, staring or laughing at them. For some people, having contact with the accused could be intimidating. Also, some may feel having to testify in court is frightening and fearful. The fear could be based on concerns about what happens as a result of their being a witness.
Moreover, victims that have to testify in court are usually filled with fear of the unknown. Most are concerned that family and friends of the accused would do something to them, or that their house would be burnt down. Victims could also be worried about the possibility that has accused might be acquitted and then victimize ...
... middle of paper ...
...ecial measures in place for victim. For instance, most victims or witnesses are afraid of being in media even though courts are public places and reporters are normally free in the trial court. However, the courts can also put restrictions in place to limit what the media can report in other cases.
Be summing up, victims have a vital role to play in bringing criminal to justice. By having the courage to stand up and be a witness you can prevent further crimes happening and protects others from becoming a victim. And as many criminal justice official acknowledge that victims are central to effective crime investigation and prosecution. Although several initiatives have been developed to make court more friendly to witnesses; and there is still a need for them to be more responsive to the wellbeing victim’s family and all that concerns them and not just the victim.
Also they may think that the police won't take them seriously or if the case. goes to court, they might want to avoid humiliation. It might also be a private matter and people might not want to involve the police, such as sexual abuse within the family. In such incidents as this, the victim and the family won't want to publicise the matter. so that everyone is aware of it.
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...
The Supreme Court developed the laws governing Victim Impact Statements based on what they thought was a constitutional conflict where the punishment may be enhanced when a statement made by the victim or family may have more of an impact on the sentencing authority than the severity of the crime (Stevens 2000). Or that the victim impact statement may draw the juries attention away from the evidence at hand and the case being decided through emotional not evidence based means. The Eighth Amendment requires that no excessive bail be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted.
With jury bias we examined that the perspective taking, victim impact statements and race of the victim had no main effects with ps > 0.26 and no significant interactions either with ps > 0.64.
In the last forty years, there has been a shift in courtroom proceedings. Lawyers are not only focusing their evidence on the scientific aspects of an event, but also on those who may have witnessed the actual event as well. Recently, the number of eyewitness appearances in the courtroom has increased, making statements about either a crime or an event that occurred in their presence. But how does the courtroom decide who is a legitimate witness to an event? Too often, age, race, education, and socio-economics play a major role in this decision. Here, we will discuss the age aspect of this problem in terms of child eyewitness testimony and it's implications in the courtroom.
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.
Taylor, N & Joudo, J. 2005. “The impact of pre-recorded video and closed circuit television testimony by adult sexual assault complainants on jury decision-making: an experimental study”, Research and Public Policy Series, No. 68, Australian Institute of Criminology.
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.
Even proof of innocence can destroy someone’s life or reputation when accusations of that some sort are made. Many people who are accused of something they did not do, are victims of what could be revenge
Every day a child is called on to testify in a courtroom. Children who have to testify in open court are easily influenced by outside sources. This paper will show the reasons children should not be used as witnesses in a courtroom. I will show all the different influences that a child receives and prove them uncredible. The interview process can influence a child greatly. Ceci and Bruck (1995) found a study that shows that child witnesses may be questioned up to12 times during the course of an investigation. The questioning process can take up to a year and a half to be completed. Children are not capable of remembering exact details for that period. Their answers to questions will change each time he or she is asked. This is because they do not retain information in the same way as an adult. Most studies have shown that children start to lose their ability to recall an event accurately only 10 days after the original event has happened. Another factor in a child’s ability to recall an event is stress. A child can go into a shock stage and repress all memories of what has happened to them. These memories may not resurface for many years. This affects a child’s ability to identify the suspect in photo and live line-ups. The amount of stress a child goes through affects their ability to answer questions in an interview, if they cannot remember what has happened, how are they supposed to answer the myriad of questions the interviewer will ask them.
...T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of retrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1215-1226.
The current anxiety about the validity of children’s testimony in court stems mostly from heavily publicized cases of child molestation during the 1980’s (Meyer, 1997). As a result of society’s reaction to dramatic increases in reports of abuse and neglect, children increasingly are being admitted as witnesses in juvenile and criminal proceedings (Ceci & de Bruyn, 1993). Each year hundreds of thousands of children in North America become entangled in the legal system. Often these children testify about the alleged actions of a parent, teacher, baby-sitter, relative or neighbor. And when this happens, the case is often decided on the basis of the relative credibility of the child versus the defendant. Regardless of whether such testimony is made in forensic interviews, during preliminary hearings, or at trial, it may result in life altering decisions for all involved (Ceci & Bruck, 1995).
When the victim does not fit the ideal victim attributes which society has familiarised themselves with, it can cause complications and confusion. Experts have noticed there is already a significant presence of victim blaming, especially for cases involving both genders. The fear of being blamed and rejected by the public is prominent in all victims. Victim blaming proclaims the victim also played a role in the crime by allowing the crime to occur through their actions (Kilmartin and Allison, 2017, p.21). Agarin (2014, p.173) underlines the problem of victim blaming is due to the mass of social problems and misconceptions within society. The offender can have “an edge in court of public opinion” if victim blaming exists, resulting in the prevention of the case accomplishing an effective deduction in court (Humphries, 2009, p.27). Thus, victims will become more reluctant to report offences because of their decrease in trust in the police and criminal justice system, leading to the dark figure of
Generally, the study of crime mainly focused on the offender until quite recently. In fact, Shapland et al (1985) described the victim as ‘the forgotten man’ of the criminal justice system and ‘the non-person in the eyes of the professional participants’. A new perspective was brought with victimology, an expanding sub-discipline of crimin...
However, eyewitness testimony can play a beneficial part in the criminal justice system if factors such as police procedures are controlled under the strict guidelines. It should be kept in mind though, that even if all the social aspects mentioned are completely controlled, there still remains the possibility that errors will continue to occur due to memory recall errors, and overly emotional witnesses who simply wish to see someone punished for their crimes. But regardless of this fact, there would undoubtedly be a remarkable recovery from the present 45% wrongful conviction rate as displayed within many studies.