Background and Perspective into Account When Seeking Information - Essay Example

Is It Important to Take the Victims Or Witnesses Background and Perspective into Account When Seeking Information? Table of Contents Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 Importance of Sensitivity to Witness/Victims-----------------------------------------------------2 Witnesses/Victims’ Cognitive Processing Methods ------------------------------------------3 Understanding Witnesses/Victims’ Expectations-----------------------------------------------4 Ethnic Diversity and Perspectives of Witnesses/Victims----------------------------------------6 Conclusion -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 Introduction It is largely presumed that a sound criminal justice system is dependent on the formulation of stringent and appropriate laws that take into account all possible avenues of meting out justice (Davies, Francis and Greer, 2008). However, the existence of laws and policies alone cannot ensure that the criminal justice system will deliver. It is essential that the execution and the operational part of the system should also function at its efficient best (Karmen, 2004). The effectiveness and efficiency of the agents of the system in searching for and collecting, and integrating and recording this evidence is therefore important. The accuracy, quality and quantity of the evidence provided by the victims or the witnesses play a crucial role in developing the case and the ultimate outcome of the investigations (Davis et al., 2007). This paper evaluates if the criminal justice system agents need to take into account the background and perspectives of the victims or the witnesses. It discusses the related research background and evaluates available evidence on the importance of including the witness background and perspectives. It starts with a discussion on sensitivity to emotive and cognitive processing style, expectations and ethnic perspectives of witnesses. Importance of Sensitivity to Witness/Victims A large amount of research and scholarly work has been undertaken on the subject of criminal justice system’s sensitivity (or lack of it) toward the victims or the witnesses. This ‘sensitivity’ is, however, studied from the point of view of the victims or the witnesses. The underlying theme is that the criminal justice system officials may inadvertently indulge in a further ‘victimization’ of the witnesses/victims during their investigations (Goodey, 2005). This is attributed to a plausible lack of empathy with the witness and the focus of the officials on getting the crime solved (Mawby and Walklate, 1994). As such, much research has gone into developing programs for educating the criminal justice system agents in being humane, patient and empathic to the victims (Lamb et al., 2008).For example, a research by Bollingmo, Wessel,  Eilertsen and Magnussen (2008) found that police officers tend to undermine the credibility of victims’ accounts if the victim appears to be calm and controlled and does not look harassed or desperate. However, it is more of a personality issue that some people may remain relatively calm under duress while others may become desperate with even little discomfort (Maguire and Pointing, 1988). But the investigating officers’ tendency to stress more the credibility of the witness or the victim who appears intense or who is crying indicates that the crime officers may not really understand the reasons for the victim’s behaviour during investigation. This calls for developing a deeper understanding among the crime investigators of the possible stereotyping that they may be indulging in. Witnesses/Victims’ Cognitive Processing Methods However, in addition to the fact of understanding the emotional or mental state and empathising with the victims, there is much more that can be gained by understanding how the victims or the witnesses operate cognitively. This is one area where research seems to be lacking or is limited to few empirical studies. For example, there is one study that evaluated the cognitive process that the witnesses undergo when they give evidence (Paterson and Kemp, 2006). This research found that witnesses gave different accounts of the same occurrence when they had read media stories about them and when they had heard another witness talk about it or discuss it. This research indicated that witnesses were greatly influenced by the co-witnesses’ accounts and tried to streamline their own versions with those of their co-witnesses. This tendency was further enhanced when the co-witness was highly educated or when he or she was considered to be an expert on the subject (Paterson and Kemp, 2006). The above study indicates that witnesses are not always objective and they rarely narrate the actual evidence that they saw first-hand. There is a scope of contamination and mis-remembering of the facts as a result of the witnesses’ susceptibility to accept others people or experts’ versions as the true one. As such, this finding highlights the need of the criminal justice system to understand the logical reasoning process the victims’ indulge in while deciding what information is credible and what is not. This victims’ reasoning process is again dependent on their own background, personality and their socio-cultural perceptions (Armstrong et al., 2006). There have been numerous studies that have explored the impact of witnesses’ cognitive processing on the accuracy of their evidence (Spalek, 2006; Newburn, Williamson and Wright, 2007; Walklate, 2007). An early experimental research conducted in the UK found that there were several ways through which the crime related memory of the witnesses can get distorted (Trankell, 1972). These included temporary amnesia where the witness may have no recollection of the event at all. However, in most cases it is found that witnesses’ memory is distorted based on their perceptions. The witness’ perceptions are in turn a result of the complex interaction of their age, gender, educational background, family background and their socio-cultural status (Trankell, 1972). This research was one of the earliest results that used the psychological perspective on criminology and showed the impacts of the victims or the witnesses’ background and perception on the credibility of evidence. A more recent research has highlighted several factors that can lead to a victim’s retaining only a partial or a selective memory of the crime event. Davis et al. (2007) found that the schematic and inferential processing had a direct impact on the selective retention or loss of a significant memory. The schematic processing involves an individual trying to make sense of new information by matching it and fitting it with what he or she already knows. An individual already has diverse ‘schemas’ made up of ‘known truths’, stereotypes, social categories and expectations. The new information is distorted to fit in with the already available schema. As such, the victim or the witness does not recount the evidence objectively but only after he or she has already passed it through the lens of his own schematic processing (Smith and Tilney, 2007). This is, therefore, a possible source of error in evidence recording. However, the schemas are themselves developed in a complex manner throughout the person’s life and are dependent on his upbringing, family and other relationship interactions, and academic and social background. It is, therefore, evident that the witnesses’ personal background is a crucial factor in the accuracy of the evidence and the criminal system needs to take into account the personal and socio-cultural factors of the witness (Davis et al., 2007). Understanding Witnesses/Victims’ Expectations Another factor that can impact the credibility of evidence provided by the witness is the expectations of the witness or the victim from the criminal system. It is also possible that the expectations of the victims and that of the criminal system agents be at cross purposes. For example, a victim may want reimbursement or restoration of his or her loss, while the criminal system is concerned about finding the criminal and bringing in a prosecution (Newburn, Williamson and Wright, 2007). In such a scenario, the victim may believe himself or himself to be harassed or intimidated by the police if asked to repeatedly participate in the identity parades. Moreover, the failure of the crime investigation officers to accept the perspective of the victims may ultimately result in the witness withdrawing his complaints or providing disinterested information (Karmen, 2004). The expectations of the victims from the criminal system are formulated largely on the basis of their past experiences with the system or on the basis of their education and upbringing. This is because people who are from a high socio-economic status and highly educated may understand that justice is essential to maintain the society and that their case is not exclusive. Such individuals may expect to face in-depth cross-questioning or repeated interactions with the officers. On the other hand, people from a low socio-economic status or lower educational background may have a different perspective or expectations from the criminal justice system. They may be narrow focused and may consider the restoration of their property or loss as the prime issue, rather than the rendering of the justice at the generic level (Memon, Vrij and Bull, 2003). Ethnic Diversity and Perspectives of Witnesses/Victims This is also true in the case of the ethnic differences between the criminal justice agents and the victims or the witnesses. Several researchers have studied the impact of the racial and ethnic differences on the credibility of the evidence. For example, in the context of African Americans, it is found that there are a much larger number of convictions than in the case of Whites or other ethnic minority groups (Phillips and Bowling, 2002). While the predominantly accepted assumption is that African Americans’ low socio-economic status may be the cause of a greater tendency to criminal activity, there are also concerns that this group may not be the victim of harsher behaviour and insensitive treatment at the hands of the criminal justice system (Hall, 2005). It is possible that stereotyping and lack of understanding of the background and socio-cultural sensitivities about the ethnic groups may lead to the victims’ or the witnesses’ inability to give credible evidence (Perry, 2003). It is nevertheless essential that the criminal justice officers be sensitive to the racial and ethnic perspectives of the people from diverse backgrounds. Conclusion The need for accuracy and credibility of witnesses’ evidence is well-established for the criminal justice system to function soundly. Numerous manuals and books and academic research based programs help in teaching sensitivity to the criminal system agents. However, little information is available on how the victims’ personal background and perspective can impact the evidence (Bull and Milne, 1999). While it is recognised that the cognitive processing style of the victim/witness is important, there is little research that deals with understanding the factors that can inadvertently distort or change what they narrate as the truth. Often, officials may use stereotyping or biases which restricts their ability to understand the perspective of the witnesses. This problem is exacerbated when the victim/witness is from different ethnic background. The cognitive processing styles, the expectations, and the perspectives of the witnesses/victims are therefore factors that may distort the evidence. However these above may be a direct result of the personal and socio-economic-cultural background of the witness. The direct linkage between the witness/victims credibility and his or her background has nevertheless not been established by adequate research (Crawford and Goodey, 2000). It is recommended that a further exploration of the factors that impact evidence be made. The research contends that these factors are rooted in the background of the witnesses. References Armstrong, A-H., Shepherd, E., Gudjonsson G. H. and Wolchover, D. (2006).  Witnesses background, education and perspective into account when seeking information. NY: Oxford University Press. Bollingmo, G. c., Wessel, E. O., Eilertsen, D. E. and Magnussen, S. (2008). Credibility of the emotional witness: A study of ratings by police investigators. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14(1), pp. 256-267. Bull, R. and Milne, R. (1999). Investigative interviewing. Psychology and Practice. Chichester: Wiley  Bowling, B. and Phillips, C. (2002). Race, crime and criminal justice. Harlow: Longman. Crawford, A. and Goodey, J. (Eds.) (2000). Integrating a victim perspective within criminal justice. Aldershot: Ashgate. Davies, P., Francis, P. and Jupp, V. (2003). Victimisation: theory, research and policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Davies, P., Francis, P. and Greer. C. (2008). Victims, crime and society. London: Sage.  Davis, D., Loftus, E. F., Toglia, M. P., Read, J. D., Ross, D. F. And Lindsay, R. C. L. (2007). The handbook of eyewitness psychology, Volume I: Memory for events. Mahwah, NJ, US. Goodey, J. (2005). Victims and victimology: Research, policy and practice. Harlow: Pearson Hall, N. (2005). Hate crimes. Cullompton: Willan. Karmen, A. (2004). Crime victims: An introduction to victimology. London: Thomson.  Lamb, M.E., Hershkowitz, I. Orbach, Y. and Esplin, P.W. (2008). Tell me what happened: Structured investigative interviews of child victims and witnesses. Chichester: Wiley. Mawby, R.I. and Walklate, S. (1994). Critical victimology: International perspectives. London: Sage.  Maguire, M. and Pointing, J. (Eds) (1988). Victims of crime: A new deal? Open University Press. Memon, A. A., Vrij, A. and Bull, R. (2003). Psychology and law second edition: Truthfulness, accuracy and credibility (Wiley series in psychology of crime, policing and law). NY: Wiley-Blackwell  Newburn, T., Williamson, T. and Wright, A. (Eds.) (2007). Handbook of criminal investigation. Cullompton: Willan. Paterson, H. M. and Kemp, R. I. (2006). Comparing methods of encountering post-event information: the power of co-witness suggestion. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20 (8), pp. 1083–1099. Perry, B. (2003). Hate and bias crime. London: Routledge. Phillips, C. and Bowling, B. (2003). Racism, ethnicity and criminology: Developing minority perspectives. British Journal of Criminology, 43 (2), pp. 269-290. Smith, K. and Tilney, S. (2007). Vulnerable adult and child witnesses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Spalek, B. (2006). Crime victims: Theory, policy and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.  Trankell, A. (1972). Reliability of evidence: Methods for analyzing and assessing witness statements. Oxford, England: Beckmann. Walklate, S. (ed.) (2007). Handbook of victims and victimology. Cullompton: Willan. Read More