Pozer in Creative Process Bystander Evidence - Research Paper Example

Remembering, Creative Process and Eyewitness Testimony Name Institution Name Date This paper has been divided into sections. The first section explains how remembering is a creative process and the second sections elucidates on the ramifications of eyewitness testimony. The paper also explains the importance of eyewitness testimony in the court systems. Recalling of memory refers to re-accessing of events from the past that are encoded and stored in an individual’s brain. Commonly, this is regarded as remembering. When recalling the brain replays pattern of neutral activity, which was initially generated when responding to a certain scenario therefore echoing the perception of the brain regarding the actual event. According to Mastin (2010), he argues that it is likely that false memory can be developed during remembering and it can be carried forward thereafter. Particularly, research on creation of false memory is associated with Elizabeth Loftus in her work in 1970s. Elizabeth Loftus work revealed how the precise wording of any question about memories can affect the recall and re-creation of memories and sometime permanently change the memories for future recalls Mastin (2010). According to Troward (2008), he argues that for one to make use of creative process he must affirm the creative power this implies that he must go to the beginning of the series and start again, remembering is the starting point, and this is what differentiates one’s creative process from cosmic ones. Remembering is a creative process since different people have different abilities to remember anything that had previously been said and it is only through remembering that one can recall what was said or done sometimes before. Noteworthy, remembering is a creative process since people’s remembering capabilities can be corrupted by bias and this will end up affecting their ability to remember since they will give misleading information that can affect the credibility of issues in question. Remembering is a creative process since it is not easy for one to recall everything that had happened sometimes before since it will require him to be very creative to recall anything. Remembering is a creative process since when one is not creative he cannot recall anything that was said or done sometimes before. According to Winslow (n.d), throughout history eyewitness has had a lot of support and weight in delivering testimony in the court system. However, this paper will demonstrate the relevance of not entirely relying on testimony since misidentification is very common than what most societies believes (Winslow, n.d). In any law court, an eyewitness testimony of what transpired can make or break a case, which is presented. An eyewitness confidence when giving a testimony can prompt the unmovable judge to convict a suspect who is innocent. An eyewitness confidence can make the jury believe what the confident eyewitness is saying and make a false impersonation that what is being said is gospel truth. The court assumes that an individual’s memory can be compared to a video since according to them the memory can store memory without prejudice and with precise clarity (Winslow, n.d). It is true that eyewitnesses can put someone who is an innocent bystander in any crime scene or as the accused, even when the person accused is not available that time. Past event, memories can interfere with present event memory. An eyewitness can remember the accused person from a scene, which might have occurred more than four months ago, and still put them as the accused with much confidence. Therefore, everyone ought to take notice that this puts the public at the risk of being accused. This cannot be correct however it stands that the person making accusations will believe through suggestions that the eyewitness is making the right assumptions and most of the eyewitness will exhibit confidence when delivering their statements therefore enabling other people to that what they are saying is gospel truth. This aggravates the case since it will snowball to an extent that the accused person is not a suspect anymore but a criminal (Winslow, n.d). According to Fisher & Tversky (n.d) in a presentation that was sponsored by Stanford Journal of Legal Studies, George Fisher puts Barbara Tversky’s research regarding memory fallibility in the context of jury verdicts, police investigations discussing the importance of the research on the justice system. The American judicial system relies on the honesty of the witnesses during the trial Fisher & Tversky (n.d). According to the presentation, an eyewitness can make an impression that is likely to move a judge. Perjury is a big crime since lying under oath can change the integrity of the trial as well as legitimacy of any judicial system. However, perjury is making a false statement knowingly Fisher & Tversky (n.d). It is worth noting that it is not a crime to misremember anything but it is only a crime when one gives false statement about anything. Furthermore, judges make their determinations on witness veracity and credibility in secrecy without disclosing the logic behind the final judgment Fisher & Tversky (n.d). Understanding that fallibility of the witness memory is pertinent to individuals taking part in any judicial process, because most trial revolves on factual determinations of who to believe. Rarely, a factual question wills a true question lead to a fruitful appeal therefore this will give many party a chance to get justice Fisher & Tversky (n.d). Getting to true result and correct truth is intricate without the possibility that the witness themselves may not be informed of the inaccuracies when giving their testimony Fisher & Tversky (n.d). Various studies on human memory as well as subjects’ propensity to recall erroneously events as well as details, which do not take place. Elizabeth Loftus conducted experiments in mid-seventies showing the effects third party giving false information Fisher & Tversky (n.d). The participants were given a car slide through crossing with a stop sign or yield sign. The experimenters asked the participants several questions, falsely introducing ‘stop sign’ in the question instead of them referring to yield sign participants had seen. Likewise, the experimenters falsely substituted the word “yield sign” in the questions directed to the participants that had actually seen stop sign slide Fisher & Tversky (n.d). The outcome showed that the subjects recalled seeing the misleading image. During initial parts of the conducted experiments, the subjects could also view the slides that showed car accident. Some of the subjects were asked what the speed of the car was the moment they hit each other and other participants were asked what the speed of the car was the moment they “smashed.” The subjects who were questioned with the word “smashed” had a high chance of reporting that they saw a broken glass in the initial slide (Fisher & Tversky, n.d; Winter, 2013). Introduction of false cues changed the participant’s memories. Nonetheless, lawyers, police officers as well as courts are aware of the fact that third parties can introduce false memories when giving witnesses Fisher & Tversky (n.d). Consequently, lawyers cross examine the validity of the witnesses memories as well as about the possibility of having any help from others when developing their memories. Nonetheless, psychologist have identified that gap filling as well as reliance on assumptions are fundamental in our present society. For instance, if someone could not assume that he will catch a bus or train when going to work by going to the terminus or the florist will continue to supply flowers, people would be quite different than they do. Mostly people filling the gaps in their memory and interpret things they hear. For example, when one is on a subway he may hear garbled words like “train,” “transfer,” and “next.” Developing on our knowledge and assumptions, one can put join the words to a statement that might be misleading (Fisher & Tversky, n.d; Winter, 2013). A witness can distort his own memory without assistance from the examiner, lawyer or police officers. Rarely can one recount an event or tell a story without any objective. The act of telling as well as retelling is targeted a specific listener (Fisher & Tversky, n.d; Winter, 2013). One cannot expect one to get all the details of his morning commute therefore; it is a common for individuals to edit extraneous materials. When one is telling a story, it puts another layer of distortion that affects the main memory of an event. That is the reason why a fish story that grows with retelling eventually can result in the teller trusting it (Fisher & Tversky, n.d; Winter, 2013). The moment a witness tells his story in a specific way or identify a specific individual as a perpetrator in most cases, they are not willing or not able to reconsider their original understanding. The moment any witness identifies any person in any line up the witness is more likely to identify that the person is not the perpetrator. Even though decision-makers and juries put much emphasis on the identification of eyewitness in most cases, they are not aware of dangers of perjury Fisher & Tversky (n.d). Experiments carried out by Elizabeth Marsh and Barbara Tversky corroborates the vulnerability of man’s memory to bias. In a group of studies the participants were given “Roomate Story,” it entails description of events that involve her fictitious roommates. The instances were grouped as neutral, socially “cool,” or annoying Fisher & Tversky (n.d). Afterwards, the participants were asked to recount neutrally the events with a roommate, to write a recommendation letter of the roommate’s applications to the sorority or fraternity or to the students housing requesting removal of roommate. Later on when asked to recount the main story, participants who had penned biased letters remembered more incriminating facts and attributed wrongly details among the suspects more than the participants that had wrote neutral recounting Fisher & Tversky (n.d). According to Tversky and Fisher in their presentation, they argue that bias creeps in one’s memory without his knowledge or awareness. While accuracy and confidence are correlated and when any information is given the confidence of, the witness is higher than for incorrect information than for correct information. This prompts many people to question competence of a person so that the credibility of the issues being presented can be determined. Credibility of any issue is supposed to be established by the juries since they are supposed to be fact-finders. This prompts another question, are juries equipped to establish credibility of information presented. Expert testimony cannot be instrumental and the act of developing memory establishes distortion. It is intricate for any person to unravel the “truth” in one’s statements (Fisher & Tversky, n.d). Courts high reliance on the witness is developed on the judicial system common-law and reliance is put in check by advocates right to cross-examine and law’s trust of jury’s common sense. Fixation of witness depicts the weight given on personal testimony. In case the counsel is not bright, enough he cannot find the faults in the presentation that was given by the eyewitness this means that the suspects may end up becoming a criminal. On the other hand, eyewitness are very instrumental in any court case since they are the ones who are able to give witness to everything that happened without them judges would not be able to make good judgments which may end-up victimizing the suspect who may be innocent. Reference Fisher, G & Tversky, B. (n.d). The Problem with eyewitness testimony. Retrieved from http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/images/pdf/engelhardt.pdf Mastin, L. (2010). The human memory. Retrieved from http://www.human-memory.net/processes_recall.html. Troward, T. (2008). The creative process in the individual. Rockville: Arc Manor LLC. Winslow (n.d). The effects of eyewitness testimony in today’s judicial system. Retrieved from http://people.eku.edu/winslowm/psylaw/eyewitnesspaper.html Winter, S. (2013). Eyewitness testimony: The effects of co-witness misinformation and self-esteem on memory. New York: John Jay College of Criminal Justice Read More

According to Winslow (n.d), throughout history eyewitness has had a lot of support and weight in delivering testimony in the court system. However, this paper will demonstrate the relevance of not entirely relying on testimony since misidentification is very common than what most societies believes (Winslow, n.d). In any law court, an eyewitness testimony of what transpired can make or break a case, which is presented. An eyewitness confidence when giving a testimony can prompt the unmovable judge to convict a suspect who is innocent.

An eyewitness confidence can make the jury believe what the confident eyewitness is saying and make a false impersonation that what is being said is gospel truth. The court assumes that an individual’s memory can be compared to a video since according to them the memory can store memory without prejudice and with precise clarity (Winslow, n.d). It is true that eyewitnesses can put someone who is an innocent bystander in any crime scene or as the accused, even when the person accused is not available that time.

Past event, memories can interfere with present event memory. An eyewitness can remember the accused person from a scene, which might have occurred more than four months ago, and still put them as the accused with much confidence. Therefore, everyone ought to take notice that this puts the public at the risk of being accused. This cannot be correct however it stands that the person making accusations will believe through suggestions that the eyewitness is making the right assumptions and most of the eyewitness will exhibit confidence when delivering their statements therefore enabling other people to that what they are saying is gospel truth.

This aggravates the case since it will snowball to an extent that the accused person is not a suspect anymore but a criminal (Winslow, n.d). According to Fisher & Tversky (n.d) in a presentation that was sponsored by Stanford Journal of Legal Studies, George Fisher puts Barbara Tversky’s research regarding memory fallibility in the context of jury verdicts, police investigations discussing the importance of the research on the justice system. The American judicial system relies on the honesty of the witnesses during the trial Fisher & Tversky (n.d). According to the presentation, an eyewitness can make an impression that is likely to move a judge.

Perjury is a big crime since lying under oath can change the integrity of the trial as well as legitimacy of any judicial system. However, perjury is making a false statement knowingly Fisher & Tversky (n.d). It is worth noting that it is not a crime to misremember anything but it is only a crime when one gives false statement about anything. Furthermore, judges make their determinations on witness veracity and credibility in secrecy without disclosing the logic behind the final judgment Fisher & Tversky (n.d). Understanding that fallibility of the witness memory is pertinent to individuals taking part in any judicial process, because most trial revolves on factual determinations of who to believe.

Rarely, a factual question wills a true question lead to a fruitful appeal therefore this will give many party a chance to get justice Fisher & Tversky (n.d). Getting to true result and correct truth is intricate without the possibility that the witness themselves may not be informed of the inaccuracies when giving their testimony Fisher & Tversky (n.d). Various studies on human memory as well as subjects’ propensity to recall erroneously events as well as details, which do not take place.

Elizabeth Loftus conducted experiments in mid-seventies showing the effects third party giving false information Fisher & Tversky (n.d). The participants were given a car slide through crossing with a stop sign or yield sign. The experimenters asked the participants several questions, falsely introducing ‘stop sign’ in the question instead of them referring to yield sign participants had seen. Likewise, the experimenters falsely substituted the word “yield sign” in the questions directed to the participants that had actually seen stop sign slide Fisher & Tversky (n.d).

Read More