Memory Research and Reliable Witness Testimony - Essay Example

? The psychological studies of memory November 11, Eyewitness accounts may convict the wrong persons. The research centers on the reliability of the eyewitness accounts. The research also delves on gathering data to prove the reliability of eyewitness accounts. Thesis statement: Psychological studies of eyewitness memory relevantly and usefully ferret out the real eyewitness testimonies from the fabricated. The psychologists can aid determine the relevance and reliability of the eyewitness accounts. The psychologists are useful in determining the acceptance of the eyewitnesses’ memory retrieval of crime scene data. Clearly, psychological studies of memory relevantly and usefully propped up the real eyewitness testimonies and booting out the corrupted eyewitness testimonies. Introduction Eyewitness accounts may convict the wrong persons. The research centers on the reliability of the eyewitness accounts. The research delves on gathering data pertaining to outside influences that corrupt the eyewitness accounts. Thesis statement: Psychological studies of memory relevantly and usefully ferret out the real eyewitness testimonies from the fabricated eyewitness testimonies. Body In terms of assessment, psychological studies of memory are relevant and useful in understanding eyewitness testimony (Ainsworth, 1998). A research showed that witnesses have better memories of a crime compared to the memories of the victims. Often, the eyewitness memory is increased when natural disaster or crime crops up. A research that was conducted indicated that psychologists found the memory of the eyewitnesses failed to bring out the truth. More than 74 percent of convicted felons were victims of wrong eyewitness accounts. The eyewitnesses wrongly pinpointed to an innocent individual as the culprits in the criminal act. The survey was conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom. To counter the wrong memory of the inaccurate eyewitnesses, DNA tests were conducted. The DNA tests offered verifiable evidence that the eyewitnesses were instrumental in convicting the innocent individual. The investigations that were conducted by the police officers, security guards, lawyers, jurors, judges, and the general public failed to ferret out the true criminals of the court cases (Cutler, 2009). Further, the victim would focus more on the gun pointed at the victim, reducing the victim’s gathering details of the attacker’s face and other crime scene details (Ainsworth, 1998). In the case of Timothy, He was convicted for murdering a mother and two children in 1986. The eyewitness pinpointed to Timothy as present within the vicinity of the crime scene. Timothy was sentenced to die. For 2 years, Timothy sat in death row, awaiting his execution. After several years, it was discovered that another person who looked exactly like Timothy was roaming the neighborhood. Timothy was given a second trial. The second trial proved that the eyewitness wrongly pointed to Timothy as the killer. Consequently, Timothy was released. In a related study, respondents were given 30 slides. The experiment included asking the respondents if the car sign stated stop or yield. The research shows that eyewitness often produce distorted information or evidences. Consequently, the wrong eyewitness testimony should be corroborated or disputed. Additional evidences will affirm or destroy the eyewitnesses’ evidences. Relying only on the memory of eyewitnesses may precipitate to the higher conviction of the wrong or innocent person. Some individuals confidently ascribe to the jury that their eyewitness evidences are true and unabridged (Sternberg, 2009). Furthermore, age makes a difference in the witnesses’ capacity to remember crime details (Ainsworth, 1998). Psychologists define flash bulb memory as the eyewitnesses’ ability to recount events that are classified as most significant and unexpected. For example, the audience had flashback memories of the murder of United States President John F. Kennedy. Going back further in time, the 1899 psychology research showed that more than 70 percent of the respondents had vivid memories of the news of the assassination of United States President Abraham Lincoln, more than 32 years after they had heard of the news of United States President Abraham Lincoln’s death. In the Space Shuttle explosions that killed all the NASA pilots on board. The NASA researchers discovered that the eyewitnesses’ emotions did not affect the capacity to retain the details of shuttle explosion news (Kapardis, 2009). In addition, another psychology research on eyewitness testimony sprouted in 1978 (Coon, 2008). Numerous researches in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom were affirmed, disputed, or deepened the findings of the 1978 endeavor. Some findings show that the local police investigator’s poor handling of the eyewitnesses triggered many wrong eyewitness accounts. Consequently, many innocent victims had to suffer the undeserved consequences of wrong eyewitness reports. The investigator’s unprofessional handling of the eyewitness causes some eyewitnesses to present made up, corrupted, or false eyewitness reports. Further, some of the police officers influenced the eyewitnesses to pinpoint to the wrong suspects, forcing the eyewitness to accept the police officers’ suggestions. In their line of duty, police officers often help the eyewitness zero in on the possible culprit. The police officers had good intentions. However, some eyewitness may be influenced to point to the wrong attacker in order to please the desire of the police officers. The research showed that consequent false convictions became a historic reality within the three research areas. The three research areas are United States, Canada, and United Kingdom. For example, Canada’s justice system caused the wrong conviction of Donald Marshall in Nova Scotia, Guy Paul Morin of Ontario, and David Milgard in Saskatchewan (Coon, Psychology: A Journey, 2009). Similarly, older witnesses’ age reduces memory retention and data gathering, compared to the younger witnesses (Ainsworth, 1998). In addition, occupation plays a vital role in eyewitness testimony. The police officers and security guards have better crime scene memory, when compared to persons belonging to other professions. The police officers and security guards are trained to take details of possible crime scenes. On the other hand, other professionals are too busy with other mundane details that they do not retain accounting of a criminal act (Ainsworth, 1998). In the same manner, children are often considered unreliable witnesses. The children are more susceptible to eyewitness corruption. The police investigators can easily coach the child to make a statement that will convict or free the suspected criminal. Some children can create false memories to by inputting suggestions from non-eyewitness individuals, including the parents, friends, police officers and other individuals to please them. Many children delve in the guessing game, during their testimony preparation. However, the children’s memory increases as the child grows older (David, 2009). In the same manner, many Jury members are convinced by witnesses who confidently present their eyewitness accounts of the crime (Ainsworth, 1998). On the other hand, jury members often doubt witnesses who are nervous or show doubt in the presentation of their eyewitness accounts. In the same manner, a person’s personality will influence the jury’s reliance on eyewitness accounts (Ainsworth, 1998). On the other hand, a person’s worry-tainted personality may create doubt in the jury’s decision to accept the eyewitness testimony. In addition, women are better eyewitnesses, compared to male eyewitnesses (Ainsworth, 1998). To counter the high errors in the eyewitness accounts, psychologists recommend the use of Cognitive interview Technique (CIT) enhances the investigative officers’ gathering of eyewitness details (Ainsworth, 1998). The method increases the eyewitnesses’ capacity to recall crime scene details. The investigative officers’ investigation process may spell the difference between successful or failed eyewitness detailed accounts of a criminal act (Ainsworth, 1998). For example, a female police officer will increase the rape victim’s confidence to give details of the criminal act, when compared to a male investigative officer. Sometimes, eyewitnesses prefer not to recall the horrible feelings or images of a recent criminal act (Ainsworth, 1998). Moreover, another research states that the interference theory postulates that prior learned knowledge or newly acquired knowledge triggers memory disruption (Nevid, 2012). Facts that are learned often fades into oblivion, including information gathered from the crime scene. In addition, decay theory indicates that as an individual grow older, one’s memory starts to slow down or fade into oblivion. This is true especially when the individual suffers from Alzheimer’s Syndrome. In addition, the memory’s failure to encode the pertinent facts into the brain’s memory section may produce long lines of wrong eyewitness accounts or testimony. To bring the point across, another research shows that different individuals have different memory retention capabilities. Interference significantly influences the person’s capacity to remember important details. The details include the principle that the average person can only save few data that affects the eyewitness (Rathus, 2010). The eyewitnesses’ shock from personally observing an intruder shoot a friend to death may prevent the eyewitness to recall the details of the murder. To increase the data gathered, the crime scene investigator must make the eyewitness both comfortable and trustful of the investigating officer (Ainsworth, 1998). The eyewitness who is at ease can easily recall all pertinent details of the crime, especially a murder case or a rape case. To boot, the key to improving the eyewitnesses’ providing crime details is establishing a friendly or comfortable relationship during the investigation (Ainsworth, 1998). The investigator must create a good relationship between the eyewitness and the investigating teams. Forcing the eyewitness to recall crime details may not be favorable. The eyewitness has to have more time to recall forgotten crime details. Sometimes, eyewitnesses cannot recall the crime facts at the time of the investigation. The shock of the crime often blocks the eyewitnesses’ brains from temporarily releasing relevant information. To allow the brain to unleash the hidden facts, the investigator must not pressure the eyewitness. On top, creating rapport with the eyewitness and allowing the witness some time to recall the facts is one of the best benefits of the psychological process called Cognitive interview Technique (Ainsworth, 1998). The technique includes letting the eyewitnesses have all the time in the world to recall crime details. The method allows the eyewitnesses to recall data that is currently classified as tip of the tongue data. To clarify the issues, another research indicated that psychologists found eyewitnesses often pinpoint the wrong suspects as the culprits. Mistaken identity and other circumstantial evidences trigger wrong convictions. The error can be blamed to the brain’s memory process. The memory process includes the encoding, storage, and retrieval of crime scene data. Eyewitness errors can occur at the crime scene, encoding, storage, and retrieval activities. Most jurors overestimate the reliability of the eyewitnesses, convicting the wrong person (Greene, 2010). Also, trauma often prevents the victims and eyewitnesses from revealing hidden data (Ainsworth, 1998). Further, the investigator should allow the eyewitnesses to relax, prior to the start of the investigation. The investigators should not force the eyewitness to divulge crime details when the eyewitness is currently nervous, anxious, or under the state of trauma. To remove unwarranted pressure on the eyewitnesses to pinpoint the possible culprit, one successful technique is asking the eyewitness how he or she feels about the crime. This method effectively refocuses on the person’s feelings and not the crime scene itself. By letting the eyewitness have unlimited time to express one’s feelings, the eyewitness will slowly and surely start to recall the pertinent details of the crime scene, without any on the person’s part to force one’s memory to release hidden or forgotten crime details. To enhance memory recall, the investigator should focus on the visual, tactile, auditory, and other sensory facts of the criminal act, compared to focusing on the recalling the general information of the illegal acts (Ainsworth, 1998). Further, it is very important that the investigator should not cut short the eyewitnesses during their presentation or recalling of crime details (Ainsworth, 1998). In addition, the investigator should not question the witnesses’ presentation of conflicting details. When this happens, the investigator will just record all accounts. Casting doubt or questioning the eyewitness details may discourage the eyewitness to divulge everything the eyewitness knows. Consequently, some of the hidden, blocked, and forgotten crime details may never crop up. Such unrevealed data my significantly cause the losing of a court case, letting the criminals escape punishment. In a related 1974 experiment, the psychologists planted the incriminating evidence, a gun, at the scene of the crime to mislead the eyewitnesses. The incriminating evidence was enough for 18 percent of the jury to convict the suspected felon. Revising the research, the psychologists inserted the statement that the store clerk witnessed the suspect killing the victim. Consequently, more than 70 percent of the jury convicted the incarcerated criminal. Adding a twist, the psychologists stated that the eyewitnesses had poor eyesight. Despite the poor eyesight, the jury convicted the felon because of the eyewitness’ confidence in pinpointing the suspect as the perpetrator of the crime. Consequently, 68 percent of the jurors accepted the eyewitness account and convicted the incarcerated suspect (Cohen, 2008). Further, the investigator must exercise patience during the entire investigation process (Ainsworth, 1998). The investigator should combine the testimony of two or more witnesses. Sometimes, the first eyewitness may recall some details that were not mentioned during the first witness’ presentation of evidence. However, the same eyewitness may start recalling tidbits of forgotten information after hearing the testimony of another eyewitness (Ainsworth, 1998). For example, the eyewitness may not recall the attacker’s car plate number. However, asking why the eyewitness noticed the attacker’s plate number, the eyewitness may state that the plate number’s last three digits are the same as the eyewitness’ birthday. With this questioning technique, the eyewitness indirectly recalls the attacker’s plate number. Conclusion Summarizing the above discussion, the eyewitness accounts may convict the innocent individuals. The psychologists can help determine the relevance and reliability of the eyewitness accounts. The psychologists are useful in determining the acceptance of the eyewitnesses’ memory retrieval of crime scene facts. Clearly, psychological studies of memory relevantly and usefully implement investigation strategies that will lead to picking out the real eyewitness testimonies from the corrupted eyewitness evidences. References: Ainsworth. P. (1998), Psychology Law and eyewitness testimony. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Press Coon, D. (2009). Psychology: A Journey. London: Cengage Learning Press. Cutler, B. (2009). Expert Testimony on the Psychology of Eyewitness Identification. London: University Press. David, R. (2009). Developmental Psychology. London: Cengage Learning Press. Greene, E. (2010). Psychology and the Legal System. London: Cengage Learning Press. Kapardis, A. (2009). Psychology and Law. London: University Press. Nevid, J. (2012). Psychology: Concepts and Applications. London: Cengage Learning Press. Rathus, S. (2010). Psychology: Concepts and Connections. London: Cengage Learning Press. Sternberg, R. (2009). Cognitive Psychology. London: Cengage Learning Press. Read More