Eyewitness Testimony, Helpful or Hinderance

Eyewitness evidence can be fundamental when it comes to solving crimes, however, with the increasing number of cases now being exonerated by DNA evidence, the questions lies, what degree of confidence should be placed on the evidence of the eyewitnesses alone? Countless factors are associated with the accuracy and consistency of eyewitness evidence, such as line up content, line up instructions, the questioning techniques of interviewers and notably the gender and/or age of the witness. Eyewitness testimony may not always be accurate, but despite its weaknesses, by using empirical studies to guide reforms, eyewitness testimony can be an extremely beneficial instrument in the criminal justice system. Inaccurate evidence is not necessarily due to the individual’s testimony. Inaccuracy stems from the processes and methods used by the justice system to elicit the evidence from the eyewitness.

A great deal of research has been completed in relation to the accuracy of the eyewitness testimony given by children. This research is based largely on the issue of children’s memory and suggestibility. Peterson and Biggs (2006) ran a study that involved a selection of 90 children, aged between 2 and 13 years old. The study concentrated on the complications that can occur with specific questions being asked of children when they are in the midst of trauma, and the effects that obscurity can have on the accuracy of the evidence. “Researchers have long noted the problems with children’s understanding of the task demands” (Pg. 287) and if interviewers are permitted to take advantage of a child’s vulnerability with suggestive and misleading questions, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to deem that the results gathered would lack consistency and accuracy. A problematic factor that is inherent in child interviews is the nature of specific questions that are asked of children as there is “serious ambiguity in terminology and methodology among researchers” (Pg. 280). The results of this