When and why does credibility become an issue in criminal cases - Essay Example

?When and why Does Credibility Become An Issue In Criminal Cases? When and why does credibility become an issue in criminal cases? Introduction Credibility is an objective and subjective component which determines the believability of any source of information or witness. The two aspects are categorized into trustworthiness and expertise with all having the objective and subjective components. Credibility has been used both online and traditionally. Different people have different credibility and therefore the experts involved in the case will determine extend or the trustworthiness of a witness. The witness to be approved for credibility can be approached from different ways. One is that the person may be approached by an individual expert who will determine the trustworthiness of the person. The other one and the most effective one is whereby a group of experts approach a witness to determine the trustworthiness of his evidence. When the source of information is credible it becomes easy and firmer to make decisions. Some general characteristics of a credible person are unselfish, caring, fair, experienced, qualified and trustworthy. People who are charismatic become more than credible since they are extroverted, composed and also sociable. It is not always guaranteed that an expert will be competent with witness. If he becomes competent depending on the context then it will be quick and accurate to make fair decisions. There are different aspects of life which require credibility. These vary from marketing to other things like criminal cases. In criminal cases credibility has become one such aspect which sees to it that there is fair judgment in all what happens in the process of the cases. One aspect which is very important to get from the witness is credibility. There are many things which may influence a person’s credibility and they vary from one person to another. Things that influence a person’s credibility Social influence This occurs when external factors intervene and change or control you. This may be in effect to your thoughts, feelings or actions which will be affected extrinsically by people. Social influence takes into consideration many forms like socialization, peer pressure, obedience, persuasion and even leadership. This is technically and widely discussed in social psychology. A person may be influenced socially due to the minority influence. This happens when the majority is influenced to accept the beliefs of the person in the case or the group. This mostly happens through informational social influence. When many people take a certain direction then it is psychological that you will be confronted to take the same direction. Many will always feel that the majority group is the right one and they will therefore act in favor of the majority leading to poor credibility (Garvev, 2003). Also when the group acting is perprating and consistent, then this may influence your credibility. The stronger the social influence then the more it will affect your personal credibility. Despite this you can take your own personal stand and believe by what you know, saw or were involved in rather than relying on what you hear from other people. You can also use your own understanding of a situation or a given scenario to extent your credibility. Therefore credibility should be effective when it is internalized rather than externalized (Foot, 1973). Personal stand Your personal stand plays a key role in determining your trustworthiness in a given scenario. You should have your own personal stand rather than the group or majority stand. This may be achieved by believing in what you know and doing thorough research. You ought to follow some rules like I know because I know. A personal stand if publicized may have a lot of impact on your credibility (Brain, 2011). Behavior One of the things that may make control of your credibility is behavior. Your behavior will be determined more by obedience. Human beings will always behave differently in different occasions. For people who are obedient then it becomes easy to justify their credibility since the more they interact with other people the more they will get their behavior trimmed. This is one good aspect which is easy to identify thus it is very easy to use to determine the credibility of a person. Many will always believe that people with good moral value are likely to be more credible. This is psychologically proven since these people can control their rightness or wrongness on a given phenomena (Hornsev, 2010). Persuasion This is one aspect that may greatly influence the credibility of a person. Persuasion is the process of making oneself towards adopting attitudes by use of symbolic means. Attitude change is the key factor in this since they will control your motives and emotions. For people who have good attitudes then it is more likely that they will have more credibility. If the attitude is negative then it is more evident that the credibility of the person will be negative. Attitudes therefore act as a way of persuasion to influence your credibility (Foot, 1973). Credible witness It is not always guaranteed that a witness will have high credibility since some are affected by the above factors. When the credibility of a person is affected negatively by the factors discussed above then it becomes hard to measure the credibility of the witness and in many occurrences it is said to be low. In many criminal cases the rules of evidence say that a testimony must be given by the witness. The credibility of the witness is determined by his own knowledge on the case. Also it is determined by whether the person was in the incident when the crime was committed. This is usually the best way of demining credibility since judges can read between the lines to measure the trustworthiness of the witness. If the witness had paid much attention to the scene then he will be more informed of the crime and he will justify it making the decision making process easy and quick (Brain, 2011). The number of witnesses will not matter since one can just be enough. After giving their testimonies, then the decision is left for the judies. The decision is likely to be fair if the witnesses were credible than when they are not. This is why credibility becomes important in criminal cases (Garvev, 2003). James Hanratty case study Hanratty was a professional car thief who was accused and convicted of murdering Michael Gregsten in 1961. This happened in England. The murder The victim, Michael, J. Gregsten was a scientist who worked in a laboratory. His assistant was Valerie Storie. The two had some affairs and then one day Gregsten’s body was found in the lay-by on the A6 at Deadman’s hill. This was around six and then Valerie’s body was also found there but was still alive. Later the following day another body was found lying in the place. Since Valerie was not dead, she acted as the witness since she had been a victim of the crime (Woffinden, 1999). Testimony of Valerie Stories In her testimony she said that it all began in Dorney where the two had been in their car and then somebody banged one the window of the car. A man who was fully armed with a revolver commanded them to follow all the instructions he gives. The man commanded Gregsten to drive the car to the field and then stop there. They went around London not knowing what the man was intending to do. The car came to halt at a milk vending machine where Gregsten was commanded to go and get some cigarettes. They then moved to the petrol station and added fuel. They now found that this was nothing but crazy and they therefore offered to give the gunman all the money they had but he refused. They offered to give him the car and they go bur the man wanted to be with them (Foot, 1973). They continued with their ride along the A5 then at last they were in A6. This was around half past one. The man then said that he wanted a ‘kip’ which is to mean a sleep. Gregsten drove under some orders of the man and then at Deadman hill he was told to pull into a lay bay. Gregsten was perturbed by this command and he tried to resist but was threatened with the gun. The man now wanted to sleep and therefore he opted to tie the two captives. He tied their hands together then he commanded Gregsten to give him a bag that was at the rear of the car. As he tried to pick the bag he was shot two times in the head and he died there by then. The reason the man gave to Valerie was that Gregsten had frightened him by turning very fast. The man then got hold of Valerie as she lied on the dead body and then raped her. He then told Valerie to remove the dead body out of the car. He wanted Valerie to show him how to drive. It was hard and she did not do this. She was ordered to move next to the dead body. She pleaded for her life but the man shot up seven times with five bullets falling on Valerie’s body. She fall next to the dead body and pretended to be dead too. The man then drove off. They were then discovered the next day at around six by a farm laborer who then called for assistance from other people (Hornsev, 2010). The investigation Valerie said all she remembered and then was written to the police. Investigations began and the gun that was used recovered under the set of a 36A London bus. There was also a handkerchief which was attached to it. The police put appeal for the bus operators to report any suspicious guests. Later a hotel manager made a report of a man who had remained in one of the rooms for five days after the incident. Police got this man and the first crime he did was cheating them that he is Frederick Durrant while it was found that his real names are Peter L. Alphon. This man claimed that he had spent that night when the murder occurred with his mother. This was later confirmed and then the guy was released. More suspects were interrogated and the final one was Hanratty. Valerie Storie identified him from a parade and this turned out to be the murderer (Brain, 2011). Trial of Hanratty This began in 1962 where Hanratty was accused of murder. In the first case he claimed that he was in Liverpool in the night of murder however he later changed and said that he was in Rhyl in North Wales. It was not easy to conclude however the blood group of the murderer was of the same type with Hanratty’s. The question then arose who killed Gregsten (Garvev, 2003) Who killed Gregsten? More interrogations where carried out concerning the two suspects. Later in 1991 samples of DNA tests which had been done before where discovered and then in 1999 the DNA appeal began. In 2001 it was found out that the mucus which was in the handkerchief matched with Hanratty’s DNA. This was enough evidence to make decisions on the case. Therefore it was concluded that Hanratty murdered Gregsten in 1961 (Foot, 1973). Credibility in Hanratty’s case Credibility in this case was in both sides of evidence. The physical witness of the murder who was Valerie Storie was in the incident where Gregsten was murdered. Her testimony explained all they went through that day. This was a credible witness since she was physically present in the case. It was trustworthy since it occurred in Valerie’s mind vividly. External factors also did not influence her in giving the testimony since no one had already been suspected. Between the lines the judge saw that this was true and thus had some evidence to aid in the final judgment (Hornsev, 2010). This helped very much in carrying out investigations of the murder. The expert evidence was also credible. The mucus that was found in the mucus was tested and the outcome of the test revealed that the mucus was had similar DNA with Hanratty’s blood. This was credible since DNA tests are always the best and accurate evidences since no one has same DNA with the other. The judge was now free to make decisions since the evidence that was there was enough. Credibility therefore becomes necessary when doing investigations of a criminal case. Credibility is of importance on both ides of witness (Woffinden, 1999). Credibility also becomes important when making the final judgments. It makes it easy and quick judgments of a criminal case when the witness is credible than when not. This is why the judge in Hanratty’s case was quick to make decisions after the witness were found trustworthy. With the credible witness the judgments are made fair and more humane (Brain, 2011). Judges duty The judges act as the finalists of the cases. They make decisions on what to be followed or to be done after the case. To make fair judgments they need special skills to be able to analyze the credibility of a witness. If they find any witness physical or expert with no credibility then they should discard it (Foot, 1973). Judges are also obliged to compare the different types of witness availed and get the best one which is more trustworthy and the use it to make the final decision. Decision making is not easy in murder cases where the seriousness deserved is attached to it. Judges ought to be more careful in handling the witness which is availed and not to make decisions out of rush without good research (Garvev, 2003). Conclusion Credibility is one key aspect which is of great importance in criminal cases. The why and when of credibility in criminal cases is shown in Hanratty’s case. It becomes of great importance to instill credibility so as to find the trustworthiness of the witness. If the witness is credible then it becomes easy and quick to make the right judgments. Criminal cases are very serious cases and they drawbar attention of many people and thus credibility should be instilled. The witness should be credible both objectively and subjectively. The testimony by the witness should not the source of credibility but should be used as a way to credibility. The evidence is the most important and the believable one unlike the others. Evidence in Hanratty’s criminal case was of great importance since it made expert witness to be credible. No one could say that this DNA is not the same to that since it was there for all to see. Despite the fact that other evidences in the case did not match Hanratty; the DNA results were enough to make the expert witness trustworthy. In all criminal cases there must be defined witnesses to help in making judgments. The number of witnesses makes no difference since in Hanratty’s case there was only one physical witness and was found to be credible. Judges should use their knowledge; skill and experience to determine extend of credibility of a witness. If a witness I not trustworthy then other options can be put into use to reach the final decision. Reference Brain, T.D (2011), A history of policing in England and Wales from 1974: a turbulent journey. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Foot, P. (1973), Who Killed Hanratty? London: Panther. Woffinden, B. (1999), Hanratty. The Final Verdict, London: Pan Books. Garvev, S.P (2003), Beyond repair? America's death penalty, Durham: Duke University Press. Hornsev, R.G (2010), The spiv and the architect: unruly life in postwar London, New York: U of Minnesota Press. Read More