Eyewitness error - Assignment Example

Since, the attained information is either inadequate or poorly collected whereby those who facilitate the entire process before litigation commences present questions to the interviewee towards a certain direction when interrogating eyewitnesses (Wise, Dauphinais & Safer, 2007). This prompts eyewitnesses to err while delivering the essential information meant to help judges and those arbitrating the case impose unnecessary charges on the defendant (Tillman v. State, 2011). Therefore, information collection as well as representation during ligation process ought to consider proper legislative process, which this study seeks to present based on certain given cases (Kenneth Adams v.

State, 1993). Mainly, this legislative action entails eliminating eyewitness errors coupled with considering essential issues that characterize criminal cases, for instance, crime control and due process (Wise, Dauphinais & Safer, 2007). To eliminate eyewitness errors, legal system ought to adopt the most effective method meant to extract the required information. This will ensure the convicted serve just sentences. In addition, it will ensure the entire process observes the involved parties’ rights, which the law dictates despite their role pertaining to the case.

Therefore, this entails utilizing proficient officers to interrogate eyewitness and not excluding the service of eyewitness experts, for instance, psychologists (Tillman v. State, 2011). However, psychologists ought to be proficient in their field to the extent of being able to proffer the required information based on reliable scientific background and pertinent to the case supposed to undergo litigation process (Tillman v. State, 2011). In my opinion, the best solution or approach in eliminating numerous eyewitness errors that characterize litigation process is by employing Tripartite solution (Wise, Dauphinais & Safer, 2007).

In this solution, the initial step entails considering eyewitness’ testimony during the litigation process, which is also supported in the Tillman v. State case (Tillman v. State, 2011). Since, this enables the jury and those arbitrating cases to understand essential facts that may be difficult especially in the field judges are not conversant with, for instance, psychology (Martire & Kemp, 2009). Therefore, the eyewitness expert ought to be capable of proffering adequate information coupled with being proficient in the field, which will help him or her deliver reliable and pertinent informatio, hence deliver information or essential facts regarding the eyewitness from psychological perspective which may pose a task especially to the law enforcement officers.

This is evident in Tillman v. State’s case though Dr. Malpass failed to present clear and convincing facts intended to prove the testimony he claimed to have a strong scientific base and be pertinent to the case (Tillman v. State, 2011). Therefore, to ensure reliability of any information by eyewitness expert, the proponent ought to prove his or her (1) expertise employed is legitimate, (2) testimony lies within the required scope, and (3) uses the field’s principles (Tillman v. State, 2011).

The second step entails adopting effective procedures when extracting the required information to act as eyewitness evidence (Wise, Dauphinais & Safer, 2007). This is via employing scientifically proven procedures that will not only encourage the eyewitness to deliver the