Eyewitness Memory Issues - Coursework Example

Witness Memory Evidence Student’s Full Name University Course Number, Section, and Title Month, Day, Year Introduction In any criminal trial the most important this is reconstructing the past even so as to aid the Trier determine what really happened. Eye witness is a kind of evidence which is used just like any other trace evidence like fingerprints or blood (Krug & Weaver, 2005). A criminal effect does leave an effect trace in the brain of an eyewitness. However, it is worth noting that, just like any other evidence, even memory evidence can be contaminated, lost, destroyed or otherwise be manipulated to produce results that may lead to incorrect reconstruction of what had happened (Behrman,& Davey , 2001). This therefore means that, there is need to have accurate measure to collect and handle this evidence for it has consequences for the accuracy of the results. Eye witness evidence is deemed to be persuasive in nature as well as has substantial danger in misidentification both in the conviction of the innocent and allowing the real criminals to go free, it is very important to collect and use the evidence accurately (Behrman,& Davey , 2001). Literature depict that, there are challenged which emerge in the pursuit of more accurate protocol, none more strict than an historical lack of communication between the scientist and the law enforcers. Empirical research has come to acknowledge that, changes in the procedures can help ensure that the highest quality of eyewitness evidence is collected (Behrman,& Davey , 2001). There is therefore a need to have the policies reviewed so the collection and the use of witness memory evidence can be more accurate and thus result to more accurate results as it is required by the law (Frost, Ingraham & Wilson, 2002). Consequently, there is a need to have the best practices and methods for enhancing the evidentiary value of correct identification and at the same time make sure that errors are reduced to the highest degree. Discussion Minimizing the eye witness errors is crucial and therefore the police department must concentrate on the same. For a long time there have been long standing lineup methods which are engrained in the police culture which need to be changed to the current and more advanced identification procedures so that they can incorporate advances in eye witness memory science (Bradfield, Wells & Olson, 2002). This will be very beneficial for it will allow the implementation of the protocol which in the long run results to more updated procedures to be at par with the science. Just like other trace evidence, witness memory evidence is also prone to contamination. Some of the procedures followed actually increase the risk of false identification which in the long run distorts the final results of the case (Behrman,& Davey , 2001). By making substantial improvements to these procedures then there are high chances that the actual quality of the eyewitness evidence will be improved. These improvements have been successfully implemented in many jurisdictions and this will enable the law enforcers to extract the most reliable evidence from the witnesses to be used in the criminal investigation (Hekkanen & McEvoy, 2002). This changes in the long run helps increase the chances of harnessing the real culprits and protecting the innocent who may be accused of crimes. Reliable eyewitness evidence is very crucial in any criminal investigation and prosecution in actual facts; it plays a vital role in the justice system. Misidentification leads to wrongful conviction and this has brought into question the nature of eyewitness evidence which is used against criminals and the consequences that accompany the use of human memory in criminal investigations (Godert et al, 2005). Research show that, there are several natural psychological phenomena that can undermine the accuracy of eyewitness evidence and if these factors are not dealt with then courtrooms will be flooded with unreliable evidence. Research also depict that, the level of certainty a witness can express in the testimony does not correlate with the level of accurate identification. The confidence that a witness has indentified a victim can fluctuated in regard to factors that the witness is exposed to after the identification and they have much to do with the memory (Mitchell & Zaragoza, 2001). In other words the confidence malleability needs to be considered in such cases, if at all accurate and reliable information has to be gathered. Research on eyewitness memory retrieval have give rise to some positive suggestion for the law enforcement personnel. One involves the ordering of the questions to be asking when interviewing a witness and the phrasing of the questions (Vrij, 2005). The first this that should be noted is that, the witness must be asked to give the evidence in his or her own words before any special questions are asked. In whatever cases, the interview must avoid leading the witness whereby the questioned should be phrased using indefinite articles rather than definite articles. Moreover literature suggests that, there is also witness performance in lineup procedures. Many efforts therefore should be concentrated on how to improve eyewitness performance (Behrman,& Davey , 2001). For over a long period of time, researchers have documented the impact of many factors and procedures that may affect the accuracy of the eyewitness identification. For example, it is deemed that, the presence of a weapon can impair the eyewitness ability o accurately identify the criminals face. This means that, there are possibilities that the witness confidence can be influenced by the post even experiences that are totally not correlated with the identification accuracy. Researchers have in this case investigated on new techniques for interviewing witnesses that would give more accurate reports which will on the other hand be essential in criminal justice (Vrij et al, 2004). The judges and the police need to be educated about the eyewitness factors and procedures which may result to minimizing errors. The reason why there has been many issues in regard to the effectiveness of witness memory evidence is that the legal systems only works towards detecting witnesses who are lying and not those who make erroneous identifications. The legal system dictates that a witness must take an oath to tell the truth and makes perjury a crime (Wells & Olson, 2003). Witnesses are however not required to swear that they will only use reasonable care when making any identification, and most importantly there are no sanctions for erroneous identification even when it is obviously reckless. Legal professional and the police believe that consistency indicates truth telling. Research conducted by Wagenaar and Dalderop (1994) compared the consistency in lying and telling of the truth among pairs of adults. Six people were sent into a zoo and six others were advised to fabricate a story about going to a zoo. The popular belief that consistency is a sign of telling the truth, lying pairs was more consistent that truth telling pairs. Lying suspects remember and carefully repeat they story which has been agreed upon before the interrogation. Those giving the truth only provide evidence through remembering the events. Considering the reconstructive nature of memory, plus the fact that they are less concerned with appearing consistent, undermines within pair consistency for telling the truth. In the police investigations, anticipated questions do not have any measures of the pre questioning discussions of lying witnesses (Behrman,& Davey , 2001). In some cases, the police are forced into using the show ups, which are procedures which the eyewitness is given a single person so that he/she can identify the person as a criminal. This can be useful if the victim matches the perpetrator spotted at the scene of crime. One of the serious considerations that must be adhered to is that this must happen between 1 and 2 hours for the crime. The reason why this procedure of collecting evidence should be changed in the fact that, t is very suggestive. This means that an innocent person in such a situation may be misidentified. Consequently, when the innocent is wearing similar clothing as the real criminal, then the risk is higher. One issue that must be apprehended effectively is that witnesses should be given actual information so that they can understand their role in the investigation process. This helps decrease the pressure on witnesses which may result to misinformation. In the same case, even after the witness has made his/her report, the police should continue with investigations to ascertain the same. Recent studies depict that, eyewitness and human memory is much more like any other trace evidence for it is left in the mind of the witness. Recent research have stated that, there are some psychological factors that can cause witnesses to make and the way these witnesses are conducted can help address these factors and reduce errors. Memory errors are correlated to two psychological factors. Unintentional suggestion to witness and relative judgment process, in this case, when the real perpetrator is not in the array, then there are high chances that relative judgment process can lead to misidentification. To curb these issues, then the police need to utilize non suspect fillers chosen to minimize any suggestiveness that might point towards the suspect. The witnesses should be given instructions that real perpetrators may not or may be present and that whoever is administering is not in any way aware of the suspect. Unintentional suggestion can lead to a witness identifying an individual in a lineup (Terrance et al, 2000). When an individual maybe stands out from the others due to composition of the lineup that chances are that he/she might be pinpointed and maybe he/she is not a victim. Research show that when human beings are conducting a certain investigation or experiment in a context where they know the desire or correct outcome, there are tendencies of misinterpreting the results of the experiment based on their knowledge of the desired outcome (Zaragoza et al, 2001). Scientific and medical research states that, the person conducting the experiment must be blind to the desired outcome if at all the results have to be reliable. Stress and trauma which can occur during an event in question can affect the encoding of the memory (Wells & Olson, 2003). When a witness has been exposed to some traumatic events, then there are chances that the memory will be repressed out of conscious awareness. For example, research have shown that, a case involving child sexual abuse may result to an inability to access the repressed memory. This means that, the law enforcers need to emphasize on the mental state of an individual who is witnessing a crime for there may be many issues which hinder memory performance (Lane et al, 2001). This calls for many interventions so as to aid the retrieval of the desired information. Therapy is one intervention that can be implemented in such a case because it is believed that, repressed memory come out during psychological therapy. However, the memory is recovered through therapy; any outside influence can affect the accuracy of the report. In some instances children are witnesses, research depict that, children can be accurate witnesses under certain conditions, and can be inaccurate under other circumstances. Researcher have discovered that, those factors that are determinants of the same are child age and individual differences, social circumstances, developing techniques that will encourage the child to be accurate in the report (Mitchell & Zaragoza, 2001). When interviewing a child, it is very important to remain objective and use open ended questions to improve child accuracy. The child should be given a chance and space to think freely in response to the questions which must be open ended and non leading at all. It is also worth noting that, forensic interviewer should always use socially supportive interviewing techniques with the inclusion of building rapport with the child, giving chance for emotional warmth support throughout the entire interview (Wade et al, 2002). Law enforcement agencies use the same methods in indentifying a victim, live and photo lineups are the commonly used without a blind administrator as mentioned earlier and with no accurate information that will lead to the realization of the desired results (Lindsay et al, 2004). These results to stressing the victims and the eyewitnesses are prone to making mistakes. These mistakes may be as a result of memory gap or a desire to make identification at whatever cost. It is worth noting that, these errors are however preventable and can be avoided. The following are some of the changes in the policies that can be included in the running of evidences which have much to do with the memory of an individual (Wells & Olson, 2003). First is lineup composition fillers who are included in the lineup should look alike with the descriptions of the suspect. The suspect should not standout from the others. At the same time, literature depict that, suspects should never be in multiple line ups (Wells & Olson, 2003). Secondly, confidence statements should follow the line up procedure where the witness is given a chance to record a statement, in his own words which will be a platform to determine his/her level of confidence in indentifying a suspect. Additionally, the report or the whole procedure should be videotaped so as to protect the innocent suspects from any misconduct by the administrator and this will also be prove that the whole process was legitimate and thus whatever information that is gathered can be relied upon (Lindsay et al, 2004). Finally, research and experience dictate that, risk of misinformation or misidentification can be curbed of the interviewer is not aware of who the suspect is. This therefore means that, in many instances the law enforcers should chose those officers who are totally unaware of the victim and thus they will not lead to any speculation of creating any awareness which my result to the witness giving the wrong evidence (Bernstein & Loftus, 2009). Conclusion Conclusively, it is a point worth noting that blind administrator and unbiased instruction are vital in the realization of untainted evidence which is very important in any justice system. When dealing with a memory evidence, much care needs to be adhered to because eye witness evidence is deemed to be persuasive in nature as well as has substantial danger in misidentification both in the conviction of the innocent and allowing the real criminals to go free and therefore, it is very important to collect and use the evidence accurately. One thing that the law enforcers must ensure is that, they must have the best practices and methods for enhancing the evidentiary value of correct identification and at the same time make sure that errors are reduced to the highest degree. In actual facts, many natural psychological phenomena betray the accuracy of eyewitness evidence and therefore much needs to be done. The level of certainty a witness can express in the testimony does not correlate with the level of accurate identification. The confidence that a witness has indentified a victim can fluctuated in regard to factors that the witness is exposed to after the identification and they have much to do with the memory and therefore using the right procedures is the best option. These are the main changes that must be implemented; one composition fillers who are included in the lineup should look alike with the descriptions of the suspect. The suspect should in no way standout from the others. Then the witness should be given a chance to record a statement, in his own words moreover, report or the whole procedure should be videotaped so as to protect the innocent suspects from any misconduct by the administrator and this will also be a prove that the whole process was legitimate and finally, risk of misinformation or misidentification can be curbed of the interviewer is not aware of who the suspect is. References Behrman, B. W., & Davey, S. L. . (2001). Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: An archival analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 25 , 475-491. Bernstein, D. M., & Loftus, E. F. . (2009). How to Tell If a Particular Memory Is True or False. PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE , 370-374. Bradfield, A.L., Wells, G.L., Olson, E.A. (2002). “The Damaging Effect of Confirming Feedback on the Relation between Eyewitness Certainty and Identification Accuracy.”. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 , 112-20. Frost, P., Ingraham, M., & Wilson, B. (2002). Why misinformation is more likely to be recognised over time. A source monitoring account. Memory, 10(3) , 179–185. Godert, H. W., Gamer, M., Rill, H.-G., & Vossel, G. (2005). Statement validity assessment: Inter-rater reliability of criteria-based content analysis in the mock-crime paradigm. Legal and Criminological Psychology , 225–245. Hekkanen, S. T., & McEvoy, C. . (2002). False memories and source-monitoring problems: Criterion differences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, , 73–85. Krug, K. S., & Weaver, C. A., III. . (2005). Eyewitness memory and metamemory in product identification: Evidence for familiarity biases. Journal of General Psychology, 132 , 429 445. Lane, S. M., Mather, M., Villa, D., & Morita, S. K. . (2001). How events are re-viewed matters: Effects of varied focus on eyewitness suggestibility. Memory &Cognition, 29, , 940–947. Lindsay, D. S., Hagen, L., Read, J. D., Wade, K. A., & Garry, M. . (2004). Truephotographs and false memories. Psychological Science, 15, , 149–154. Mitchell, K. J., & Zaragoza, M. S. . (2001). Contextual overlap and eyewitness suggestibility. Memory & Cognition, 29 , 616–626. Mitchell, K. J., & Zaragoza, M. S. (2001). Contextual overlap and eyewitness suggestibility. . Memory & Cognition, 29 , 616–626. Terrance, C. A., Terrance, C. A., Matheson, K., Allard, C., & Schnarr, J. A. . (2000). The role of expectation and memory-retrieval techniques in the construction of beliefs about past events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, , 361-7. Vrij, A. (2005). CRITERIA-BASED CONTENT ANALYSIS A Qualitative Review of the First 37 Studies. . Psychology, Public Policy, and Law , 3-41. Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. . (2004). Detecting Deceit Via Analyses of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior in Children and Adults. . Human Communication Research , 8 41. Wade, K. A., Garry, M., Read, J. D., & Lindsay, S. (2002). A picture is worth a thousand lies: Using false photographs to create false childhood memories. . Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, , 597-603. . Wagenaar, W. A., & Dalderop, A. (1994). Remembering the zoo: A comparison of true and fals stories told by pairs of witnesses Unpublished manuscript. Department of Experimental Psychology. The Netherlands: Leiden University. Wells, G.L. and Olson, E.A. . (2003). “Eyewitness Testimony.”. Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 54 , 286-289. Zaragoza,M.S.,Payment,K.E.,Ackil,J.K.,Drivdahl,S.B.,&Beck,M. . (2001). Interviewing witnesses: Forced confabulation and confirmatory feedback increase false memories. Psychological Science, 12, , 473–477. Read More