Reliability of Eyewitness Identification - Essay Example

Reliability of Eyewitness Identification Name Institution Course Date Is Eyewitness Identification Reliable? Eyewitness testimony is a legal term that is used to refer to an account that is provided by individuals on a circumstance or event they have witnessed (Chambers, 2001). An eye witness gives a description of an account which includes the recognition of the perpetrators as well as the information of the scene of the crime to name a few. Eyewitness is considered a very important area of cognitive psychological research as well as human memory (Chambers, 2001). Juries in the court of law often tend to depend on these identifications as a reliable source of information although research conducted on this matter has indicated that eyewitness identification can be affected by psychological factors such as anxiety, reconstructive memory, weapon focus and leading questions to name a few (Bornstein et al., 2008). According to Bartlett and Memon (2003) eyewitness identification depends entirely on the capacity of an individual to recount an incident accurately. In addition, in cases where very little material evidence can be collected, eyewitnesses can be a basis for getting to a verdict. Allan and Gabbert (2008) argue that since eyewitness testimonies are greatly dependent on the fallible memory that can be subjective to various factors, it should not be completely relied upon. The contention of this essay is to describe and evaluate the degree of this claim by identifying and assessing factors that impact eyewitness memory and by revising case studies to reach a conclusion on this matter. Memory and hence eyewitness reliability have been considered a matter of importance due to the high occurrence of errors in both identifying as well as prosecuting accused persons (Bornstein et al., 2008). Therefore, the reliability of testimonies given by eyewitnesses and their effects ought to be reviewed. Allan and Gabbert (2008) terms memory as a type of repository where factual information may be held over a certain period of time. Decades of research indicate that eyewitness memory is neither precise nor fixed. For example, we would anticipate an instance of high stress in order to center the mind and recollect although the opposite is true (Bornstein et al., 2008). Aspects such as violence, stress and the presence of a weapon during a circumstance weakens an individual’s memory. Often, inaccuracies of memory are considered the key matter with eyewitness testimony. Witnesses, most at times, have no proper recollection of the incidences they have encountered (Berkowitz et al., 2008). This often occurs when there exists a time-lapse in getting the statement from the witness which can stretch their recall memory. Over time, the memory of the incident may be interfered every time it is retrieved from a witness and therefore, new information can replace the old information (Berkowitz et al., 2008). Furthermore, eyewitness identification is termed unreliable because once the witness has the initial information, he or she can either communicate with other witnesses or watch the incidence over the news thus distorting the original information by filing their brain with memory of the conversation (Berkowitz et al., 2008). Therefore, at this level, the degree of accuracy lowers with each altered version which is deemed unreliable to be utilized as an eyewitness testimony. Consider a case study of Ronald Cotton. In the year 1984, a lass by the name Jennifer Thompson was assaulted by an individual who broke into her place during the late hours of the night (Allan and Gabbert, 2008). During her incident, Jennifer Thompson attempted to get a glimpse of the man who was assaulting her, hoping to pick out the individuals to the police if she was to survive (Allan and Gabbert, 2008). After a few months, she was able to pick out a man on a police lineup, testified against him and the man, Ronald Cotton, was sentenced to life imprisonment with an added 54 years. Although, after serving 10.5 years in prison, DNA evidence of the actual assailant indicated that Ronald Cotton wasn’t the rapist and thus led to his exoneration (Allan and Gabbert, 2008). Later, Bobby Poole, the actual assailant, was able to be apprehended and convicted of the crime. This case study clearly showed how unreliable eyewitness identification is since Jennifer Thompson identified the wrong person (Allan and Gabbert, 2008). Another case study involved 22 witnesses who observed a murder of 1 person and another seriously injured. All the witnesses were interrogated by the police and among the 21, 13 of the witnesses were between the ages of 13 and 52 years (Bornstein et al., 2008). These 13 witnesses were interrogated 4 months later. The research interviews were assessed and results indicated that the witnesses were quite accurate over the 5 months although there were a bit of inconsistencies regarding the age, height, weight estimation as well as the colour memory. The eyewitnesses refused leading questions and their degree of stress at the time of the crime seemed to have no negative impact on their memory (Bornstein et al., 2008). Although, the outcomes fluctuated with numerous laboratory studies of eyewitness memory. This vividly indicated how eyewitness identifications cannot be used as a reliable source of evidence. There are various factors that affect the eyewitness memory of an individual are time since the event and age among others (Chamers, 2001). First and foremost, the time since the event is one of the major factors that affects the eyewitness’ memory. The accuracy of the information decreases as the amount of time between seeing the perpetrator and identifying him/her increases. For example, Berkowitz et al. (2008) worked with undergraduates to test their capability of correctly recognizing a previously viewed face of another individual. The interval set between seeing the individual and identifying the individual varied between two days and seven days. This study indicated that the accuracy of recognition of faces decreased after long periods (Berkowitz. 2008). The lengthier the delay between exhibitions of the stimulus and consequent identification, the greater the probability of false recognition. Therefore, matters of race doesn’t affect the accuracy of identification rather, the longer an individual goes without coming in contact with a face, the harder it is to remember that particular face (Berkowitz. 2008). The other factor that affects eyewitness memory is age. A number of studies have been conducted showing the correlation between age and recall and there have been a familiar pattern that propagates through every one of them (Bornstein et al., 2012). The capacity to remember an unfamiliar face increases progressively from childhood through adolescence, climaxing between 14 and 17 years of age (Bornstein et al., 2012). The memory begins declining gradually and eventually, dropping sharply at the age of 50 years. Studies have shown that older adults function poorly in distinguishing a prior viewed individual’s face from a completely unfamiliar face. This can have a significant effect in the utilization of lineups as well as the treatment of elderly eyewitnesses (Bornstein et al., 2012). Therefore, it is essential to assess age-related inconsistencies in eyewitness identifications. In addition, a study carried out by Bartlett and Memon (2007) demonstrated that kindergarteners’ accuracy in recognizing a face ranged between 35 – 40 percent; 6 – 8 year olds between 50 – 58 percent; 12 – 14 year olds between 70 – 80 percent. On the other hand, older persons between 40 to 49 years of age had an accuracy of 42 percent, whereas older adults between 60 to 72 years of age had an accuracy of 25 percent (Bartlett and Memon, 2007). In another study, a test was conducted in two groups; elementary children mostly of 8 years of age and college students. Both groups were instructed to identify a culprit of a simulated offense and the results indicated no difference in their identification accuracy, although the elementary kids were more vulnerable to altering their lineup options (Bartlett and Memon, 2007). Therefore, this study clearly showed the developmental trends in the facial recognition accuracy. Therefore, age plays a major role in accuracy in facial identification. Therefore, age can affect the final eyewitness testimony, especially children and the elderly. A biased interviewer can change the memory of a child or an elderly by using misleading queries as well as repetitive questions (Bartlett and Memon, 2007). This can lead the child or elderly to alter their story as it proposes to them that they are wrong. Also, time since the event affects the overall outcome of an eyewitness’ testimony because before reporting the incidence, the eyewitness has to go through three stages of eyewitness memory which include: witnessing the incident, waiting period before giving evidence and finally, giving the evidence (Bartlett and Memon, 2007). During these stages, the information may become distorted especially when it takes a longer time to be presented before the court of law resulting to the offering of wrong information. Therefore, eyewitness identification is not very reliable source of evidence since its accuracy is being questioned in numerous ways. Its reliability is called into question with regard to how much the eyewitness is capable to accurately remember every piece of information particularly when experiencing high quantities of anxiety as well as stress (Bartlett and Memon, 2007). In addition, factors such as race-factor and the line-up interviews play a huge role in misleading the witness. Therefore, eyewitness testimony will constantly remain to be an imperative source of evidence, although its use ought to be carefully evaluated so as to evade any form of false information or even mistaken conviction since it can destroy another individual’s life (Bornstein et al., 2012). Therefore, it is important to educate the jury of the factors involved in assessing the accuracy of eyewitness testimony before the trial commences. To sum up, this essay assessed the magnitude of accuracy of the claims that eyewitnesses’ testimony ought to be relied upon. This was done by concentrating on the various factors that affect human memory such as time since the event and age, and in relative, eyewitness testimony as it is essentially based on memory. Therefore, eyewitness testimony is a powerful and quite convincing to the jurors although it is not specifically reliable. Errors occur in identification and this can result to individuals being falsely accused and convicted. Eyewitness memory can therefore be corrupted by age and also time since the event happened. Therefore, psychology assists in understanding the various issues that lead to the unreliability of eyewitness’ testimony through the various extensive researches conducted on numerous individuals. Furthermore, psychological research helps identify the various issues that cause inconsistencies in how information flows from the scene of the crime to giving of evidence in court. References Allan, K., & Gabbert, F. (2008). I still think it was a banana: Memorable “lies” and forgettable “truths”. Acta Psychologica, 127(6): 299–308. Bartlett, J., & Memon, A. (2007). Eyewitness memory in young and older adults. In: M.P. Toglia, J.D. Read, D.F. Ross, & R.C.L. Lindsay (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology: Volume II: Memory for people (pp. 309–338). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Berkowitz, S. R., Laney, C., Morris, E. K., Garry, M., & Loftus, E. F. (2008). Pluto behaving badly: False beliefs and their consequences. American Journal of Psychology, 121(3): 643–660. Bornstein, B. H., Deffenbacher, K. A., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2012). Effects of exposure time and cognitive operations on facial identification accuracy: A meta-analysis of two variables associated with initial memory strength. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 18(4): 473–490. Chambers, K. (2001). A case of mistaken identity?: The psychology of eyewitness memory. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(12), 66-69. Read More