Eyewitness Testimony In Today's Criminal Justice System
In today’s criminal justice system, eyewitness testimony is one of the most commonly used pieces of evidence by a jury. It plays a crucial role in criminal court casesas it is relied on heavily for investigating and prosecuting crimes. Eyewitness testimony refers to an account given by a person of an event they have witnessed (McLeod, 2009).Whether a person is convicted of a crime or not can ultimately depend on how reliable a person’s recollection of a crime is. When correct, eye witness testimony can be helpful in solving many crimes. However, when incorrect it can cause to severe damage and can lead to innocent citizens being convicted of crimes they did not commit.There is empirical evidence looking at the influence of three main factors
…show more content…
(individual differences, situational factors and external factors) on the eyewitness’ memory and therefore it should not be trusted in a legal setting.Researchers have found that “more innocent citizens are wrongfully tried and convicted on the basis of eyewitness evidence in Great Britain and North America than by any other factor within the legal system" (Smith, Stinson, & Prosser, 2004, p. 146). Psychologists (Loftus & Palmer, 1974)were particularly interested in the impact of the external factors such as questioning techniques and how certain information is conveyed can influence an eyewitness’ recollection of an event. Other researchers (Clifford & Scott, 1978) examined how situational factors such as the time delay before identification, type of crime and time of day can all influence how a person perceives a crime. This research may be considered valuable to society and the law as it could lead to improvements of how evidence is viewed in the criminal justice system and the way suspects are trialled to prevent further innocent people being falsely convicted.
Eyewitness testimony can be unreliable simply due to the mental processes involved when acquiring, retaining and attempting to retrieve information (Loftus, 1979). The reliability of eyewitness identification can depend on a number of external factors. The way in which information is given by others including questioning techniques used by the police or jury to retrieve information from the eyewitness can also have a great impact. Elizabeth Loftus conducted several studies was particularly examining the reliability and validity of the accounts provided by a person’s memory. Loftus’ (1974) study observed the effects of leading questions on participants witnessing a car crash. The term leading question refers to a question phrased to influence the person to giving a suggested answer (Bradshar & Dodd, 1980). Participants in the study were asked to watch video footage of road accidents involving several different cars and were then asked to explain what had taken place as they would as a real witness. Furthermore, participants were split up into groups and each group was asked a series of specific questions about the events in the video clips such as “About how fast were the cars going when they smashed each other” and “About how fast were the cars going when they bumped eacher other”. The key word being “smashed” and “bumped”. The results from the study indicated that the information presented in each of the questions systematically affected the way in which the participants perceived the scene in the video. When people involved in the study were questioned one week after viewing the clip whether they saw any broken glass in the video, people in the “smashed” group were more likely to say yes even though there was no broken glass in the clip. This shows that leading question encouraged them to perceive and recall the vechile as travelling faster in the video. This research suggests that an eyewitness testimony should not be trusted in a legal setting as it can easily be distorted using questioning techniques. Even questions posed by a judge or police can distort an eyewitness’ recollection of an event even if they did not intend to do so as new external information can merge with existing memory to cause an innacurate reconstructive memory.
There are many different types of situations in which a crime can take place making each crime different from one another. Therefore factors such as what type of crime is being committed, the seriousness of the crime, time of day and also the amount of time the eyewitness spent viewing the event must be taken into account when exploring the reliability an eyewitness’ account of a crime. Researchers (Clifford & Scott, 1978) conducted an experiment examining the effect of violence on eyewitness recall accuracy. They used to video tapes: one video was of a violent incident and the other was a similar but non voilent incident and asked participants to complete a questionanaire which was used to test the accuracy od testimony. The video was of two policemen looking for a criminal and eventually finding him with the help of a third unwilling person. In the nonviolent video, the reluctance of the third person resulted in a verbal exchange amongst the three people in the video. In the violent film, the unwillingness of the third person lead to a physical confrontation between the two police and the third person. The study found that recall of details from a voilent situation was significantly worse compared to recall of a nonviolent incident also finding a significant difference in gender as females performed more poorly than males in this condition. This suggests that an arousing aspect of an incident can have a repressing effect on the accuracy of accounts which can be generalised to the whole event. This was demonstrated by the fact that recall was poorer for the violent film compared to the nonviolent film of both physical actions and descriptions despite the fact that both films were identical in terms of physical desciptions.
When two people experience an event, their recollections and memory of the event will often differ. The accuracy of eye witness testimony can be simply due to the fact that every human being is different. Memory of events can vary due to individual differences such as age, race, gender and also many other psychological differences. These variances will invariably occur in terms of the extent to which their memories are likely to be distorted and also in terms of level of accuracy. Studies (Barkowitz & Brigham, 1978) have been conducted on college students examining whether or not there was a racial bias in facial recognition and eyewitness identifications. Participants in the study were asked to identify which of a series of facial photos they had seen earlier. The study found that subjects were significantly more accurate in identifying photos of their own race compared to photos of people of other races. This could particularly be a problem in a line up procedure where the people invovled may not be the same race as the eyewitness. A line up procedure refers to the eyewitness being presented with several persons including the suspect and is asked to identify which one they believe committed the crime. In a separate study (Dobson & Markham, 1993) researchers explored the relationship between individual differences in anxiety and eyewitness performance amongs undergraduate psychology students. The study found that those who scored high on the Test Anxiety Scale (TAS; Sarason, 1972) were less accurate in the eyewitness task than those who scored low on the anxiety scale. Low-anxous subjects seemed to have the potential for increased effor when faced with the threat of failure compared to high-anxious subjects who appeared to limit the possibility of an increase in working memory capacity because of their predisposition for irrelevant worry. An
eyewitness can be unreliable caused by the anxiety of being put on the spot and asked to give their account of the crime.
Through the use of research and analysis, it can be concluded that eye witness testimoney is an unreliable source of evidence and should not be trused in a legal setting due to a number of external, situational and individual factors.
Given that human memory can be manipulated and distorted using questioning techniques, it is worthwhile to consider other methods of obtaining evidence. Eyewitness testimony should however be used in conjunction with other methods of evidence such as DNA testing to obtain the most accurate evidence to use in a court case. Provided the severe consequences of false memory on eyewitness testimoney, courts should give a great ammount of consideration to the possibility of false memory before charging someone. Otherwise, eyewitness testimony may continue to place innocent citizens behind bars and therefore remain as an impediment to …show more content…
justice.
Overall, very well done.
References
Barkowitz, P., & Brigham, J.
C. (1978). Do "They all look alike?" The Effect of Race, Sez, Experience, and Attitudes on the Ability to Recognize Faces. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 306-318.
Berger, J. D., & Herringer, L. G. (1991). Individual Differences in Eyewitness Recall Accuracy. The Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 807-813.
Bradshar, J. M., & Dodd, D. H. (1980). Leading Questions and Memory: Pragmatic Constraints. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 695-704.
Clifford, B. R., & Scott, J. (1978). Individual and Situational Factors in Eyewitness Testimony. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(3), 352-359.
Dobson, M., & Markham, R. (1993). Individual Differences in Anxiety Level and Eyewitness Memory. The Journal of General Psychology, 343.
Loftus, E., & Palmer, J. (1974). Reconstruction of auto-mobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 13, 585-589.
McLeod, S. (2009). Eye Witness Testimoney. Retrieved from Simply Psychology: http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitness-testimony.html
Sarason, G. I. (1972). Experimental approaches to test anxiety: Attention and the uses of information. Anxiety: Current Trends in Theory and Research, 2,
381-403.
(individual differences, situational factors and external factors) on the eyewitness’ memory and therefore it should not be trusted in a legal setting.Researchers have found that “more innocent citizens are wrongfully tried and convicted on the basis of eyewitness evidence in Great Britain and North America than by any other factor within the legal system" (Smith, Stinson, & Prosser, 2004, p. 146). Psychologists (Loftus & Palmer, 1974)were particularly interested in the impact of the external factors such as questioning techniques and how certain information is conveyed can influence an eyewitness’ recollection of an event. Other researchers (Clifford & Scott, 1978) examined how situational factors such as the time delay before identification, type of crime and time of day can all influence how a person perceives a crime. This research may be considered valuable to society and the law as it could lead to improvements of how evidence is viewed in the criminal justice system and the way suspects are trialled to prevent further innocent people being falsely convicted.
Eyewitness testimony can be unreliable simply due to the mental processes involved when acquiring, retaining and attempting to retrieve information (Loftus, 1979). The reliability of eyewitness identification can depend on a number of external factors. The way in which information is given by others including questioning techniques used by the police or jury to retrieve information from the eyewitness can also have a great impact. Elizabeth Loftus conducted several studies was particularly examining the reliability and validity of the accounts provided by a person’s memory. Loftus’ (1974) study observed the effects of leading questions on participants witnessing a car crash. The term leading question refers to a question phrased to influence the person to giving a suggested answer (Bradshar & Dodd, 1980). Participants in the study were asked to watch video footage of road accidents involving several different cars and were then asked to explain what had taken place as they would as a real witness. Furthermore, participants were split up into groups and each group was asked a series of specific questions about the events in the video clips such as “About how fast were the cars going when they smashed each other” and “About how fast were the cars going when they bumped eacher other”. The key word being “smashed” and “bumped”. The results from the study indicated that the information presented in each of the questions systematically affected the way in which the participants perceived the scene in the video. When people involved in the study were questioned one week after viewing the clip whether they saw any broken glass in the video, people in the “smashed” group were more likely to say yes even though there was no broken glass in the clip. This shows that leading question encouraged them to perceive and recall the vechile as travelling faster in the video. This research suggests that an eyewitness testimony should not be trusted in a legal setting as it can easily be distorted using questioning techniques. Even questions posed by a judge or police can distort an eyewitness’ recollection of an event even if they did not intend to do so as new external information can merge with existing memory to cause an innacurate reconstructive memory.
There are many different types of situations in which a crime can take place making each crime different from one another. Therefore factors such as what type of crime is being committed, the seriousness of the crime, time of day and also the amount of time the eyewitness spent viewing the event must be taken into account when exploring the reliability an eyewitness’ account of a crime. Researchers (Clifford & Scott, 1978) conducted an experiment examining the effect of violence on eyewitness recall accuracy. They used to video tapes: one video was of a violent incident and the other was a similar but non voilent incident and asked participants to complete a questionanaire which was used to test the accuracy od testimony. The video was of two policemen looking for a criminal and eventually finding him with the help of a third unwilling person. In the nonviolent video, the reluctance of the third person resulted in a verbal exchange amongst the three people in the video. In the violent film, the unwillingness of the third person lead to a physical confrontation between the two police and the third person. The study found that recall of details from a voilent situation was significantly worse compared to recall of a nonviolent incident also finding a significant difference in gender as females performed more poorly than males in this condition. This suggests that an arousing aspect of an incident can have a repressing effect on the accuracy of accounts which can be generalised to the whole event. This was demonstrated by the fact that recall was poorer for the violent film compared to the nonviolent film of both physical actions and descriptions despite the fact that both films were identical in terms of physical desciptions.
When two people experience an event, their recollections and memory of the event will often differ. The accuracy of eye witness testimony can be simply due to the fact that every human being is different. Memory of events can vary due to individual differences such as age, race, gender and also many other psychological differences. These variances will invariably occur in terms of the extent to which their memories are likely to be distorted and also in terms of level of accuracy. Studies (Barkowitz & Brigham, 1978) have been conducted on college students examining whether or not there was a racial bias in facial recognition and eyewitness identifications. Participants in the study were asked to identify which of a series of facial photos they had seen earlier. The study found that subjects were significantly more accurate in identifying photos of their own race compared to photos of people of other races. This could particularly be a problem in a line up procedure where the people invovled may not be the same race as the eyewitness. A line up procedure refers to the eyewitness being presented with several persons including the suspect and is asked to identify which one they believe committed the crime. In a separate study (Dobson & Markham, 1993) researchers explored the relationship between individual differences in anxiety and eyewitness performance amongs undergraduate psychology students. The study found that those who scored high on the Test Anxiety Scale (TAS; Sarason, 1972) were less accurate in the eyewitness task than those who scored low on the anxiety scale. Low-anxous subjects seemed to have the potential for increased effor when faced with the threat of failure compared to high-anxious subjects who appeared to limit the possibility of an increase in working memory capacity because of their predisposition for irrelevant worry. An
eyewitness can be unreliable caused by the anxiety of being put on the spot and asked to give their account of the crime.
Through the use of research and analysis, it can be concluded that eye witness testimoney is an unreliable source of evidence and should not be trused in a legal setting due to a number of external, situational and individual factors.
Given that human memory can be manipulated and distorted using questioning techniques, it is worthwhile to consider other methods of obtaining evidence. Eyewitness testimony should however be used in conjunction with other methods of evidence such as DNA testing to obtain the most accurate evidence to use in a court case. Provided the severe consequences of false memory on eyewitness testimoney, courts should give a great ammount of consideration to the possibility of false memory before charging someone. Otherwise, eyewitness testimony may continue to place innocent citizens behind bars and therefore remain as an impediment to …show more content…
justice.
Overall, very well done.
References
Barkowitz, P., & Brigham, J.
C. (1978). Do "They all look alike?" The Effect of Race, Sez, Experience, and Attitudes on the Ability to Recognize Faces. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 306-318.
Berger, J. D., & Herringer, L. G. (1991). Individual Differences in Eyewitness Recall Accuracy. The Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 807-813.
Bradshar, J. M., & Dodd, D. H. (1980). Leading Questions and Memory: Pragmatic Constraints. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 695-704.
Clifford, B. R., & Scott, J. (1978). Individual and Situational Factors in Eyewitness Testimony. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(3), 352-359.
Dobson, M., & Markham, R. (1993). Individual Differences in Anxiety Level and Eyewitness Memory. The Journal of General Psychology, 343.
Loftus, E., & Palmer, J. (1974). Reconstruction of auto-mobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 13, 585-589.
McLeod, S. (2009). Eye Witness Testimoney. Retrieved from Simply Psychology: http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitness-testimony.html
Sarason, G. I. (1972). Experimental approaches to test anxiety: Attention and the uses of information. Anxiety: Current Trends in Theory and Research, 2,
381-403.