Witnesses Accounts and the Reality - Essay Example

Witnesses Accounts and the Reality The information given by an informant may vary significantly with the actual information or what happened on the ground. The most basic question that interviewers, whether in the justice system or in research always grapple with is how to know if the informant is giving the truth (Dean & Whyte 1958). It would be difficult to determine whether this information is the actual absolute truth. However, most interviewers use epistemological approaches to detect the level of truth in the interviewees information. The epistemological studies mainly deal with the study of knowledge. In determining the level of truth of an account, the epistemological studies are related to the belief of the knowledge. Even if the study of knowledge could unveil the level of truth in an interview by coincidence, Navarro (2012) asserts that there is no research that has conclusively detected the amount of truth given by an individual. Witness accounts may also lack a level of truth or may vary from the reality that transpired at the scene of the event. This difference can be motivated by several factors that range from the effects of the environment to psychological factors like perception and long term memory. This essay examines the main reasons that can lead to a distortion of the witness accounts from the reality. Specifically, the paper looks at the deflection of the truth due to perception and the effect of long-term memory on the accounts given by the witness. Laub (1992) examines the effect of age on ones ability to reconstruct the events of the Holocaust. The study concludes that it is on through the precocious ability in early development that one can effectively reconstruct the events at an elderly age. Better still; the study asserts that the reconstruction cannot be as perfect as it would have occurred in an earlier age. The reasoning here is that the reconstruction of the events by a child are free from the knowledge already gained. Another study, Zaragoza, Belli, & Payment (2006), looks at the possibility of the eyewitness accounts being led by the interview questions. Its main point of argument is the fact that the interviewers in forensics or social sciences always have inaccurate information due to the guidance given to the informants. These illustrations point to the fact that the human memory is fallible. To understand how the accounts given are deviated from the truth, the look at the human memory is essential. Most particularly the long-term memory that is relied upon in delivering witness accounts (Green 2009). This study categorizes the long term memory into two; that is the explicit and the implicit memory. While implicit memory contains the human abilities that can be automatically undertaken without a thought, explicit memory contains actions and facts which a human must remember. In order for a human mind to reconstruct an episode or events, the autobiographical memory, a subsystem of the explicit long-term memory is used. This gives the actual physical details of the event or episode stored verbally in the brain. The main reason for the lack of accuracy in accounts given by witnesses is the fact that the long-term memory is not a record but it gives a reconstruction of the episode or event. A witness will reconstruct an event through the use of other sources of information. Within the long term memory, there are two sources of additional information that can be used by a witness to reconstruct an episode. The first source is the pre-existing knowledge and the second source of the information is derived from additional memories. Pre-existing knowledge is usually gained over time or leant by the individual through a cognitive process. A witness will, therefore, fill in the information that is missing from the account that they are giving with cognitive information that is already residual in the long-term memory. The result of the reconstruction of the episode is therefore biased along the knowledge that the witness already acquired and as such cannot be the actual truth of the events that transpired. The cognitive formulation is the term used by (Dean & Whyte 1958) to explain the effect of knowledge on the reconstruction of episodes in human brain. This study explains that the learning experiences gained by an individual and their effect on the development of episodes and concepts amounts to a cognitive formulation. In giving an account of a road accident, for instance, the effects of moving pictures like movies could have an effect on the testimony of the witness. The description given of the event would contain undertones of movie like stunts that are out of the reality which makes these accounts inaccurate. The cognitive formulation can also be explained by the systematic distortion of the events based on the personal memory of an individual. According to Norretranders (1999), "Individuals do not necessarily see what they sense but what is seen is what one thinks they have sensed". The same mistake is likely to be replayed at the time of recording an account of the happenings. The impact of long-term memory on the accuracy of witness accounts can also be viewed from the perspective of subjective perception. The concept of subjective perception has been used by (Buss 2006) to describe the way an individual hears the difference in the tone of the music. In psychology, the concept is related to the physical experiences of individuals and their learning of the world right from an early age. As a result of these experiences, individuals can gain knowledge about their environment in a specific way. The shaping of this knowledge through experiences of persons in their long-term memory is referred to as subjective perception. Experiences are different and in most cases specific to persons. It is, therefore, possible that the way an individual learnt their physical world is different from other peoples. In this case, subjective perception will cause the variation in account given by an individual and the truth that occurred. A prevalent emotion in time also has an effect on the objectivity of the judgment of an individual (Campbell-Sills, Barlow, Brown, & Hofmann 2006). At the time of delivering an account of happenings, the emotional component of the witness is likely to impact on the testimony because this was not present at the time of the occurrence of an event. In criminal justice, jurors are known to be keen on the input of emotions of the witness (Wells & Olson 2003). Before taking a judgment, the level of emotion and its impact on an account is considered by the juror in order to prove the authenticity of the statement. The argument on emotions can take two facets: first it is difficult to give a real simulation of the events that transpired in terms of emotions. Secondly, the impact of the prevailing emotions of other individual could impact on the person’s ability to give an objective and undistorted account free from the input or manipulation of the emotions. Perception is also closely related to the aspect of objectivity in individuals. Coon (2006) illustrates this objectivity role of perception as the ability of one to just recognize and believe what they see. Other sensory stimuli information is also perceived by the brain. The sensory input is first received by the appropriate sensor then taken through the recognition process which utilizes the knowledge that is already owned by the individual. The brain compares the input by the data or information that the individual has learnt over time and selects the closest information that the same individual has of the same input. The mechanism of perception is can also be used to explain the idea behind an illusion. It is common knowledge that illusions are things that can be perceived wrongly. The simplest explanation that can be given in illusions is that the senses send a wrong signal to the brain for interpretation returning a wrong conclusion. The result of illusions can also weigh in on the major differences of witness account as compared to the reality. This is mainly attributed to the wrong interpretation or the ability of an event to have more than one interpretation The comparison mechanism in perception is the main reason there could a difference in the way people see things. It has been known that there are objects which can be perceived in more than one way. A common example of the difference is in the fact that different persons might register a similar colour in two different ways. This condition is usually referred to as colour blindness (Brewer, & Heitzeg, 2008). Colour blindness is a common reason for the difference of the witness accounts in cases where the witness is required to pin point the actual colour of an object. The result is that while the colour could be known in a single by many, a witness could give a different account of the same. In perceptual learning, humans tend to develop a habit or a distinct pattern of learning. These patterns of learning if altered could result to the distortion of the information that is received by the individual. According to Coon (2006), these patterns are imparted by the prevalent norms in a society. It also gives an example of an inverted picture of a human head. It would be difficult to correctly identify the face of a person since the normal is an upright face. From the preceding discussion, the perception mechanism as described in human psychology has two parts that involve the detection of stimuli and the search mechanisms. According to Shiffrin & Schneider (1977), this process can either be automatic or controlled by an individual. Once the attention of a person has been drawn towards some stimuli input, the control of the process is shifted to the brain power. In a controlled perception, the study found out that the mechanism is serialized. It also requires a high level of input by the user which could limit the amount of information one retains in the whole process. In an automatically controlled process, the input of the user is limited and as such much of the processing power of the brain is focused on generating the conclusion of the perception exercise. These two different forms of perception could be the basis of the difference between a witness account and the reality. As notes, if the process were automatically triggered then the witness could end up with much information as it can which could be the truth anyway. However, if the process is controlled by the individual, it is possible that there could be a large amount of information (Shiffrin & Schneider 1977) that is left out in the process. The study further explains that it is difficult to ignore, alter or delete from the long-term memory of a person if the perception was automatically instigated. In conclusion, the level of accuracy in most of the accounts given by witnesses would be varied from the truth. The possible difference can be given by two factors that is; first the impact of the filling in the gaps by long-term memory and the process of perception. During the reconstruction of event episodes, the long-term memory fills in the gaps of the memories using the knowledge that is residual in the brain. The input of other memories and emotions can also further lead to a skewed presentation of a witness account. Perception is also an important aspect (Kuehn1974) of the delivery of a witness account. The main reason which can lead to the difference in the accounts given and the reality include the ability of certain objects to have double perception. A possibility of confusion through the illusion is also a factor that could limit the accuracy of the account. As an individual experiences a world from childhood, the experiences are custom to the person and can also affect the accuracy or the information that is given. It is, therefore, important to have the individuals who verify the accounts of witnesses to take into account the impact of all these factors on the truth value of the account. Bibliography BREWER, R. M., & HEITZEG, N. A. (2008). The racialization of crime and punishment criminal justice, color-blind racism, and the political economy of the prison industrial complex. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(5), 625-644. BUSS, S. (2006). Subjective Perception of Pattern Noise, a Tonal Component of the Tyre/road Noise, and Its Objective Characterisation by Spectral Analysis and Calculating Contours. VDI Verlag. CAMPBELL-SILLS, L., BARLOW, D. H., BROWN, T. A., & HOFMANN, S. G. (2006). Effects of suppression and acceptance on emotional responses of individuals with anxiety and mood disorders. Behaviour research and therapy, 44(9), 1251-1263. COON, D. (2006). Psychology: a modular approach to mind and behavior. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. DEAN, J. P., & WHYTE, W. F. (1958). How do you know if the informant is telling the truth?. Human Organization, 17(2), 34-38. GREEN, M. (2009). Eyewitness memory is unreliable. Visual Expert Human Resources. KUEHN, L. L. (1974). Looking down a gun barrel: Person perception and violent crime. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 39(3), 1159-1164. LAUB, D. (1992). An event without a witness: Truth, testimony and survival. Testimony: Crises of witnessing in literature, psychoanalysis, and history, 75-92. NAVARRO, J. (2012). The Truth About Lie Detection. Psychology Today. NORRETRANDERS, T., J. (1999). The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down To Size, 186-87. New York: Penguin Books. SCHNEIDER, W., & SHIFFRIN, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological review, 84(1), 1. SHIFFRIN, R. M., & SCHNEIDER, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological review, 84(2), 127. WELLS, G. L., & OLSON, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 277-295. ZARAGOZA, M. S., BELLI, R. S., & PAYMENT, K. E. (2006). Misinformation effects and the suggestibility of eyewitness memory. Do justice and let the sky fall: Elizabeth F. Loftus and her contributions to science, law, and academic freedom, 35-63. Read More