Eyewitness Testimony - Essay Example

An Experiment to Investigate the Accuracy of Evidence in Eyewitness Testimony Every judicial process involves the use of eyewitness as one of the methods of clarification of evidence. In psychology, there are several evidence illustrating how many people ends up being victimized unfairly just because of reliance to eyewitness accounts. Scientists and genetic evidence have given comparative result showing that most of the innocent victims have ended up behind bars for no good reason because of such kind of evidence. As a result, psychological researchers have made an alarm of concern that, most eyewitnesses have mostly been a subject of unfair judgment due to the sacristy and error brought about by the memory of an individual and social influence with a determination of how easily a person socialize with each in groups. Psychologists have since condemned the use of eyewitness in any criminal proceeding because several variable has since recorded failure through the use of witness accounts as part of the evidence. Introduction In the United States, so many people have been unfairly convicted by the court of law due to unfair scrutiny of witness accounts of vents. Therefore, the eyewitness is of deep concern in law practice because most of the judicial conclusions end up after the assessment of the credibility of the eyewitness count. According to the reports of the Human rights commission of the United States of 2012, over 2000 innocent victims are being convicted annually due to unjustified or wrong eyewitness evidence being passed on by the jury. Through public research and media sensitization, there is enough evidence that the use of eyewitness is a subject of risk in any judicial proceeding (Loftus, E 1996). However, very little effort is being used to determine eyewitnesses psychological status instead, people have been silent about the risks involved by the eyewitness testimony. Too often, the judiciaries have been resentfully ignorant in making up judgments on the fate of eyewitnesses. The main objective of this experiment is to investigate the level of accuracy of in eyewitness testimony. In any criminal incidence, eyewitnesses have been always invited to give an account of what they understand about a criminal occurrence, this often take place without them trying to envision the level of accuracy and sense of mind of the witnesses. Psychologists argue that before an eyewitness is brought to testify before the court of law, he should be medically tested and his memory level of accuracy ascertained as this would help to avoid conflicting accounts, which may lead into wrong judgments. According to the Berlet’s theory of memory reconstruction, personal interpretation of eyewitness accounts is mostly driven by cultural norms, societal values, anxiety and stress that a person has gone through. Science has also dismissed the use of eyewitness accounts on the ground that the level of accuracy and memory of a person is susceptible to antisocial disorder and witnesses under such conditions are capable of giving false accounts (Loftus, E 1996). In an experiment carried out by Levesque 2005, to determine the level of eyewitness accuracy, two groups were chosen to identify a mock-thief robbing from a hotel. The incident was recorded in a telegraphic video and later showed to the participants. Afterwards, the witnesses were brought eight different people in public for identification. Unfortunately, the actual person who participated in the mockery theft was not amongst the victims. The eyewitness, however, identified wrongly of the persons who were never engaged in the clip. They were then asked to rate their level of accuracy by separating them into two groups as a way of determining the level of accuracy where one of the groups was perceived to be right while the other was not. The two groups were then later requested to rate their level of accuracy. One of the groups highly rated their level of accuracy than the corresponding group. This made a clear indication that the use of eyewitness has been never accurate in any judicial proceedings. Moreover, it also gives supportive evidence in, how is it exemplary the accuracy levels of eyewitness is not right in the positive identification of suspects who are engaged in crime (Levesque 2005). Method The research method was based on observations made by 7 football players chosen from a football club in Mississippi. All the 7 participants were allocated a room where the researcher gave a brief illustration about the study and made everybody aware what the experiment that the experiment was purely meant to investigate the level of the curacy of a witness in any judicial proceeding. The participants were then given time to request for further explanation concerning what was not clear about the experiment process. They were then given a questionnaire to fill in for further chronological accounts and analysis after the experiment (Levesque 2005). Design and the Participants This study constituted seven participants who were drawn from a football pitch, then divided into two groups of 3 and 4 respectively per group. Both groups represent independent variable (IV). The dependent variable in this study was represented by the belief that he participant correctly identified the thief represented in the video clip and then recorded based on the following three assumptions as the respective dependent variables. a) The highest level of asurerity on the choice (choice A) b) The second level of asurerity, not very sure (choice B) c) The undecided lot (choice C) All the participants were then given chances to watch a recorded video clip repeatedly for a period of 30 minutes while being given enough time to change their initial choices they may need to. Later, they were allowed to record their relevant choices in the questionnaires provided for further analysis and tabulation of data (Albon 2007). Materials To ascertain the level of accuracy of eyewitnesses through this experiment, the following materials were availed in time. Questionnaires: These were presented in the form of hard copies containing the dependent variable choices where participants were to select by marking the check boxes. It also contained sample questions and illustrations just to enlighten for those who may have not received the concept information (Albon 2007). HP laptop: The laptop contained the video file that was shown to the participants. Projector: This was used to eliminate the video file to the white board to enhance the visibility to all the participants. Pen and paper: Were used by then participants for recording notes to the questionnaires to record an alternative in case a participant were not satisfied with any of the choices . Results After the time for the experiment had elapsed, the participants were allowed to hand in their questionnaires pertaining their choices had been recorded. Surprisingly enough, none of the participants were able to identify the thief in the mock clip. However, the participants who opted for (choice A) was found to be very close to the answer because the dress code of their choice was more similar to the one, which had been put on by the thief on recorded in the video. Further statistical representation indicated that (choice A) participants were found to be very close to the answer with an average score of 60%. This is because their shared some similar traits with the ones contained by the mock thief in the clip. The second group followed closely by 30% whiles the remaining 10% was recorded as undecided late (Albon 2007). Dependent variable Estimated score in % Choice A 70 Choice B 40 Choice C 10 The graph below represents the results of the experiment Discussion From this research, there is adequate proof of evidence that the level of accuracy of any eyewitness can be subjected to distortion. The result indicated that over 70% of the participants who formed the majority mistook the chief in the mock video to a wrong individual. This was followed closed closely by the second group with a marginal difference of only 30%. This is sufficient evidence on how the eyewitness cannot sustain the level of accuracy in their chronological accounts in a judicial proceeding. Considering that this was just an experiment then putting it into a real life situation gives an illustration that a lot of mess is being done by engaging eyewitness in court proceedings, especially without considering medical tests to ascertain their level of accuracy (Emanuel 2007). Conclusion For a long period, the judicial process has been overreliance on eyewitness accounts to ascertain the reality on the incidence. However, possible experiments have dismissed this reliance as bias conflicting without logical ground. Through this report, we have seen how eyewitness observation can slightly modified to give us different interpretations. In conclusion, eyewitnesses who take any judicial process should have their memory tested before they are allowed to make testimonies. Bibliography: Albon, A. 2007. Introducing psychology through research. Maidenhead [u.a.]: McGraw- Hill/Open University Press. Emanuel, S. 2007. Evidence. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers. a Levesque, R. 2005. The psychology and law of criminal justice processes: cases and materials. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Loftus, E. 1996. Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press. Read More