One psychological phenomenon I found throughout the documentary was the confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is an inclination to search out evidence that confirms our beliefs and to ignore evidence that contradicts our beliefs. This usually occurs when someone has a flawed interpretation of a suspect’s verbal and nonverbal behavior. “Scores of research studies demonstrate that once we form a strong belief about someone, we tend to both seek out information that confirms that belief, and to dismiss information that contradicts that belief. As research on wrongful convictions indicates, police sometimes misperceive innocent suspects as guilty because the suspect did not behave the “right way” when questioned.” (Costanzo 54) In chapter 3 (Lie This is an example of confirmation bias, because it seems the lawyer made decisions based on her own assumptions. Without examining all the evidence, there is no way to give someone a fair trial. Not following up made the investigation more difficult, I do not feel anyone involved knew they were falling victim to confirmation bias but based on what was stated in the serial podcast, the lawyer was more so concerned with money than finding justice for Adnan. If Asia’s statements would have made it in to court, I definitely feel the jury may have come to a different verdict. Confirmation bias was also found in Episode 3: Leakin Park when Koenig spoke with the detective on the case, Greg MacGillivary. He stated “beyond question, he did it.” Meaning Adnan did it. He didn’t hem or haw or hesitate. He remembered the case right away. “Beyond question he did it.” This shows confirmation bias concerning the detective, once they felt they found the murderer, they started to focus on facts that only corroborated Adnan being the murderer. I say this is confirmation bias because the detectives in the case where tipped off by someone anonymous and never really had any evidence other than Jay’s inconsistent Retrieval inhibition is the phenomenon of selectively retrieving only some aspects of a memory while inhibiting recall of other aspects. In Chapter 7 Eyewitness Identification and Testimony, for example a “recall of a crime scene may be altered depending on how the eyewitness is initially questioned. In one laboratory study, people looked at slides of a student dorm room that had been burglarized. Experimenters later used selective questioning when asking about details of the crime scene. Although there were many textbooks in the picture of the room, experimenters asked only about particular types of sweatshirts. When questioned at a later time about what they saw, people tended to have good recall of the sweatshirts but poor recall of other objects, such as textbooks. Retrieving memories of sweatshirts made it more difficult to recall aspects of the scene about which no questions were initially asked.” (Costanzo
In the Norfolk Four case, Ford began his interrogatories by a prior assumption that the four suspects were involved in the case. As Chapman (2013) noted, “ the interrogator will use whatever means necessary to elicit a confession, and not only will the suspect confess, but they will form false memories of the crimes they did not commit,” (p.162). Joseph Dick, one of the four suspects in the Norfolk Four case, claimed that due to the harsh interrogatories, he accepted the label put on him and began to believe that he committed the crime. Accordingly, Joseph Dick and the others began telling false narratives of the way they committed the crime. Even though, their narratives contradicted with evidence and facts of the actual murder, Ford proceeded to psychologically abuse the four suspects in order to hear what he wanted to hear.
Calm acceptance of danger allows us to more easily assess the situation and see the options(Simon Sinek, p.1).” Tunnel vision is defined as “the single minded and overly narrow focus on an investigation or prosecutorial theory so as to unreasonably colour the evaluation of information received and one’s conduct in response to the information(Department of Justice, p.1).” Tunnel vision is the number one leading cause of wrongful convictions in Canada. A trial should be fair and unjust. The accused should be seen as an innocent men/women until proven guilty. Tunnel vision can occur when the police is under pressure to solve a case. In the Sophonow inquiry tunnel vision was a major factor why Sophonow got convicted. The police got a hint from unreliable eyewitnesses that Sophonow was the last person who talked to Barbara. The police submitted to tunnel vision at the early stage of the case, making them solely just focus on Sophonow as the killer. Since they were so focus on Sophonow they did not accept any other evidence or explanation that could have proved the he was innocent. The result of this put Sophonow behind bars and the real killer was never brought to justice. This trials was not fair for the accused and was not given the chance to be seen as an innocent person. Our Justice system has to be changed in order to prevent more wrongful convictions. Another case that ended up as a tragic wrongful conviction is the Morin Inquiry. Mr. Morin was
The first piece of evidence against Adnan is a testimony given by his acquaintance and partner-in-crime, Jay. The State uses this as one of their main claims. However, there are many reasons why this was the wrong way to go. First
There was several pieces of evidence that helped build the case, but none was enough to actually convict Adnan of murder. For instance, there was no DNA evidence that proved Adnan killed Hae. DNA evidence was found in Hae’s car that belonged to Adnan, but then again Adnan had been in Hae’s car before since they had dated for a while. Sarah even asked her own nephew, Sam, to recall what he did on a specific night six weeks ago and he seemed very torn about his answer. Sam says, “Not a clue”.
Here Sarah is commentating on Jay’s testimony. Jay says, “And he takes the keys. He opens the trunk. And all I can see is Hae's lips are all blue, and she's pretzeled up in the back of the trunk. And she's dead”(Ep.1 pg. 10). This means that Jay saw Hae’s body in Adnan’s car. Therefore, Adnan did kill Hae because there was a witness that saw her body. However, this argument is wrong because if Adnan did strangle Hae, he would leave evidence on her body. And there is none. Here is Saad and Rabia’s opinion about the murder. “So just on motive alone, Saad and Rabia found the whole thing ridiculous. As for physical evidence, there was none-- nothing. Apart from some fingerprints in Hae's car, which Adnan had been in many times, there was nothing linking him to the crime-- no DNA, no fibers, no hairs, no matching soil from the bottom of his boots” (Ep.1 pg. 7). Because usually when somebody murders someone else, there is DNA evidence from the killer on the body. But here, the is no evidence of Adnan on Hae’s body. Because there is no evidence on Hae that links the murder to Adnan, he did not kill her. Therefore, Adnan did not kill Hae because there is no evidence linking them together. In conclusion, Adnan did not kill Hae because he could not have reached the Best Buy and killed Hae in 21 minutes, Jay lied to investigators about the story, and there is no evidence linking Adnan and Hae. Even though Adnan was sad when Hae broke up with him, he is ultimately innocent because there is nothing there to prove that he is guilty. The key things that can be learned from this is that even though something may seem simple, it can be quite complicated at a further
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
While watching the documentary, I noticed many psychological aspects. First of all, it seemed like everyone was conditioned to believe a certain way. For example, at one point in the movie everyone talked about the communists like they weren’t even human. This dehumanization method can be seen in many mass killings and genocides. When this happens, and society begins to learn this way of thinking, it is almost impossible to
Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1998). “Good, you identified the suspect”: Feedback to eyewitness distorts their reports of the eyewitness experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 360-376.
Minor consequences, might for instance, be confusing where one has placed something, like car keys. Such confusion can result in a simple inconvenience such as, the wasting of time. Although more serious consequence might for instance occur when one’s memory tricks the individual into giving false eyewitness accounts that might be costly to him, or other third parties. As such, it is important to critically analyze the dynamics of false memory formation and highlight methods that could be used to identi...
Radelet, Michael L., Hugo A. Bedau, and Constance E. Putnam. "In Spite of Innocence: Erroneous Convictions in Capital Cases." Google Books. UPNE, 26 May 1994. Web. 02 Dec. 2011. .
...T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of retrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1215-1226.
Human memory is flexible and prone to suggestion. “Human memory, while remarkable in many ways, does not operate like a video camera” (Walker, 2013). In fact, human memory is quite the opposite of a video camera; it can be greatly influenced and even often distorted by interactions with its surroundings (Walker, 2013). Memory is separated into three different phases. The first phase is acquisition, which is when information is first entered into memory or the perception of an event (Samaha, 2011). The next phase is retention. Retention is the process of storing information during the period of time between the event and the recollection of a piece of information from that event (Samaha, 2011). The last stage is retrieval. Retrieval is recalling stored information about an event with the purpose of making an identification of a person in that event (Samaha, 2011).
We can imply this finding of false memory in many ways in our lives. We all should note that our memory cannot be trusted 100% and we should not solely rely on our memory when it comes to making critical decisions. Just like the murder trial example used in earlier, when it comes to eye witnessing, the judge should take possible false memory into account when making the final decisions and try to obtain objective evidence along with the memory of the witness.
...Dermott, K. B. (1996). Misinformation effects in recall: Creating false memories through repeated retrieval. Journal of Memory and Language, 5(2), 300-318. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1996.0017
K., & Hoyle, J. D. (2011). Enhancing witness memory with focused meditation and eye-closure: Assessing the effects of misinformation. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 26(2), 152-161.