Eyewitness Testimony Is Not Always Accurate - Article Example

Eyewitness testimony Name Institution Date Eyewitness Testimony Introduction The criminal justice system greatly relies on eyewitnesses in order to establish the facts that surround criminal occurrences. Eyewitnesses might recall conversations, remember various details or identify culprits. It is argued that an eyewitness with no intention of lying is considered a strong mode of proof for jurors, particularly in case the eyewitness seems to be extremely confident concerning the recollection. On the other hand, when there is no definitive evidence, the account of an eyewitness is commonly accepted by prosecutors, juries, judges, and police (Zalman, 2006). Even though eyewitness testimony is greatly used by the criminal justice system, this paper discusses why psychological research shows that eyewitness testimony should not be used in the criminal justice system since it is not always accurate. Description of eyewitness testimony It is argued that eyewitness testimony is still a crucial element of the criminal justice system. Since it is the most profuse type of proof, it may be almost impractical to convict people who are guilty without it. The major problem however is that its use has been used negligently, without instituting appropriate controls to make sure that eyewitnesses are not pushed into false or fake recollections, that jurors are not allowed to give eyewitnesses extra power than proper science permits, and that jurors understand the fallibility and limits of human memory (Remijin & Crombag, 2007). Research has shown that eyewitness memory is actually volatile. For a long time, eyewitness identification that is mistaken has been speculated to play a significant role in innocent individuals’ wrongful conviction. An advanced research body is supporting this speculation, implying that eyewitness identification that is mistaken is generally responsible for a lot of innocent people’s convictions compared to every other factor combined (Remijin & Crombag, 2007). Why eyewitness testimony should be used Jurors treat identification of eyewitness as compelling proof in both criminal and civil trials. Eyewitness testimony is accurate and should be used within the criminal justice system as its strength is illustrated through a study that recorded judgment in a mock experiment. Jurors in two different categories heard evidence being different simply by the absence or presence of an eyewitness. Without an eyewitness, just 18 percent of jurors provided guilty verdicts. An increased percentage of guilty verdicts were increased to 72 percent by eyewitness identification’s addition. Furthermore, even when there was impeachment of identification, 68 percent was still the guilty rate. Similarly, various other investigations have established that juries seem to ground their verdict on an eyewitness identification that is confident even when its validity is questioned by different factors like bias or poor visibility (Zalman, 2006). Why eyewitness testimony should not be used Even though jurors heavily rely on identification of eyewitness, there is great proof that identification of eyewitness is greatly imperfect and that the confidence of an eyewitness is a weak channel to accuracy (Wells & Hasel, 2007). One of the examples is a present study that studied the initial forty cases in which DNA cleared people who were wrongfully convicted. Eyewitness identification that was mistaken played a great role as it accounted for 90 percent of all the cases. In one of the cases, five different witnesses recognized the defendant. In another example, 500 convictions that were wrongful were studied and a conclusion was made that mistaken eyewitness identification took place in 60 percent (Wells et al, 2006). Generally this is a remarkably high number because eyewitness recognition is a considerable element in just 5 percent of every trial. Another reason as to why eyewitness testimony should not be used is because psychologists have basically long known human memory’s fallibility. It is argued that relying heavily on the testimony of an eyewitness may possibly result in false convictions. During the 1800s, memory research by the well-known psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus instituted the “Forgetting Curve” that plots the way human recollection weakens over time, starting during minutes of memory creation (Zalman, 2006). Testing by DNA has thrust eyewitness recollection’s shortcomings back into the limelight (Wells et al, 2006). Ronald Cotton and Timothy Cole’s cases in specific have restored the discussion. For instance in 1986 Cole was found guilty of a rape case he did not commit. Despite the fact that in 1995 the actual perpetrator made a confession to the offence and upheld his confession for consecutive years, the name of Cole was not formally cleared until recently. Unfortunately, in 1999 Cole met his death in prison. His family states his asthma could not be well managed while imprisoned. In 1984 Cotton was found guilty of raping Jennifer Thompson who was a college student, due completely to Thompson’s recognition of him within a police lineup. Eventually Cotton was cleared by the DNA testing and the good news is that Thompson and Cotton reconciled and are both advocating for the reform of criminal justice system (Wells & Hasel, 2007). With regards to human behaviour and law, incorrect eyewitness testimony accounted for 77% of the 230 unfair convictions in a study represented by DNA proof over the past decade (Wells & Hasel, 2007). It is important to note that the exonerations’ number has increased from the time the study was carried out. Of course these are just those cases where there was availability of DNA testing, which are generally rape and murder cases, offences for which; in general, there is normally availability of other evidence. In offences where examiners are more expected to depend solitary on eyewitnesses, muggings or robberies, for instance, it is expected that the predicament is even very much pronounced (Wells & Hasel, 2007). Criminologists and psychologists are aware of these issues with eyewitness testimony as it started long before DNA testing advancement (Wells et al, 2006). However it is even very much troubling to think that eyewitnesses appear to become very confident during their recognitions with positive response. A study done by Amy Bradford and Gary Wells who are Iowa State researchers indicated participants rough video footage of an actual where a security guard was shot and killed while robbing a store (Wells et al, 2006). Later they were given a five pictures’ spread, and informed that the criminal was included within the set of photos. Each of the participants stated they could identify the criminal positively. However all of them were wrong. The criminal’s photo had deliberately been removed from the lineup by the researchers. More disturbing still, when a group of participants was offered positive response from the investigators, that cluster became very much confident in their recognitions. Half of the cluster claimed they were now very sure of their recognition. Additionally those participants stated they would actually be more ready to testify not in favour of the suspect. Another study took Bradford and Wells’ experiment even deeper. Psychologists Saul Kassin of John Jay College and Lisa Hasel of Iowas State University staged a theft of a laptop before a cluster of students. Later the students were shown a possible suspects’ lineup. The actual robber was not included in the lineup. The students were told to select the suspect once they identified him. Later they were told to rate their selection’s confidence from 1 to 10. Only 33 students accurately stated that the photos did not match the suspect; from the entire lineup 173 recognized a suspect (Megreya & Burton, 2008). After two days the researchers brought back the students. A couple of the learners were informed that one suspect had confessed. ½ the learners who formerly (and accurately) declined to identify a suspect from that lineup had a change of mind, now claiming that the individual who made the confession was actually the individual they saw (Megreya & Burton, 2008). Of the students who recognized the suspect that confessed later, their level of confidence during their recognition rose from 6 to 8.5. It is imperative to remember that the learners were not told to rate their level of confidence in the guilt of the suspect, just in their capacity to recognize him from their memory (Megreya & Burton, 2008). Although memory weakens with time, their recollection was increased by the incorrect confession as they became more confident. In conclusion, I think eyewitness testimony is not always accurate but through adoption of certain practices, it can still be a useful tool for the criminal justice system. This is so because the above research under why eyewitness testimony should not be used should actually tell us that reforms in the criminal justice practices should be instituted. Even understated, unintended feedback from prosecutors or police can result in false identifications. Photo lineups and witness need to be double-blind, in that neither the witness nor the officer carrying out the lineup knows who the suspect is. In addition, lineups should involve individuals that the police or prosecutor know are not guilty. In case a witness chooses an acknowledged innocent person, prosecutors and police will thereafter establish that specific witness’s memory is actually not sufficiently reliable to be adopted as evidence. Use of the orderly procedure, as well as obtaining a statement of confidence from an eyewitness prior to influence by external factors on an individual’s confidence is also an important reform. Reference Zalman, M. (2006). Criminal Justice System Reform and Wrongful Conviction. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17(4), 468-492. doi: 10.1177/0887403406292740 Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness Evidence Improving Its Probative Value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(2), 45-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00027.x Remijin, C. A., & Crombag, H. F. (2007). Heuristics in causal reasoning and their influence on eyewitness testimony. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13(2), 201-211. doi: 10.1080/10683160600711688. Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2008). Matching faces to photographs: Poor performance in eyewitness memory (without the memory). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(4): 364–372. doi:10.1037/a0013464 Wells, G. L., & Hasel, L. E. (2007). Facial composite production by eyewitnesses. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(1): 6-10. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00465.x Read More