Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Contributions of forensic psychology
Eyewitness testimony
How is eyewitness testimony helpful
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Contributions of forensic psychology
The scientific method is used every day in our lives. We use it to make large and minute decisions, alike. The process is so quick that we use it without knowing. The process starts with a question or an issue, and ends with a solution or more questions. The issue that we will try to address using the scientific method is the reliability of eyewitness testimony. I believe that eyewitness testimony is far less reliable than other forms of evidence in a criminal investigation. We will go through the steps of the scientific method as well as examine existing research to draw our conclusion. Is eyewitness testimony a reliable source of evidence? Eyewitness testimony was once the best form of evidence available. With the emergence of DNA and other …show more content…
Other factors to consider are the body language of an officer administering a lineup, as well as psychological influences such as witness recollection merging over time with the original event. Our minds are highly susceptible to suggestion, a police officer unknowingly leading us to a picture in a lineup, as they know the history of the people shown in the lineup. Over time we become more certain in the identification we made, as our recollection merges with the original …show more content…
The human mind is too unreliable to trust in life or death situations. One possible solution could be to make all lineup identifications double blind, this would remove possible police bias or influencing body language. At the time of the lineup, video the event. This could give the judge and jury an insight into the eyewitness’s original surety during the trial. Another helpful step could be educating the judge and jury of the documented wrongful convictions based on eyewitness accounts. These few steps would greatly reduce the number of wrongful convictions based solely on eyewitness accounts. We must remember that we are innocent until proven guilty. With the emergence of DNA evidence, cases ae not as highly dependent on eyewitness accounts. So even now there will be fewer wrongful convictions. Juries, judges, prosecutors and police must adjust the weight that they put in eyewitness accounts. An eyewitness account should be a piece of the pie, not the entire pie. To address the issue of eyewitness reliability I would suggest making several updates to our current justice
The use of eyewitness statements and testimony’s can be a great source of information, but can also lead to wrongful convictions. Due to eyewitness testimony, innocent people are convicted of crimes they have not committed. This is why the wording of a question is important to consider when interviewing witnesses. Due to the fact that eyewitness testimony can be the most concrete evidence in an investigation, witnesses may feel they are helping an officer by giving them as much information as possible, therefore they may tell them information that is not entirely true, just to please them. This is why there are advantages and disadvantages to using open and close ended questioning at different durations of an interview. The way you word a question may impact the memory of a witness, this is because a person cannot completely memorize the exact occurrences of an event.
I personally feel that this is a much more reliable and accurate than relying on the testimony of witnesses. I believe through the use of science we as a society can now make sure that the guilty are caught and punished while the innocent are protected from wrongful prosecution. However the eyewitness should not be completely left out of the case against the possible offender. After it is determined through scientific evidence, in this case DNA, that the physically involved in the crime then witnesses can be brought in to give testimony that the offender was present at the crime scene or the victim can be sure that the accused was truly the one involved in the actual crime.
“Eyewitness Identification: A Policy Review.” The Justice Project, Iowa State University. Web. 22 April 2014.
This paper will consider eye witness testimony and its place in convicting accused criminals. Psychology online (2013) defines “eye witness testimony” as a statement from a person who has witnessed a crime, and is capable of communicating what they have seen, to a court of law under oath. Eye witness testimonies are used to convict accused criminals due to the first hand nature of the eye witnesses’ observations. There are however many faults within this system of identification. Characteristics of the crime is the first issue that will be discussed in this paper, and the flaws that have been identified. The second issue to be discussed will be the stress impact and the inability to correctly identify the accused in a violent or weapon focused crime. The third issue to be discussed is inter racial identification and the problems faced when this becomes a prominent issue. The fourth issue will be time lapse, meaning, the time between the crime and the eye witness making a statement and how the memory can be misconstrued in this time frame. To follow this will be the issue of how much trust jurors-who have no legal training-put on to the eye witness testimony, which may be faltered. This paper references the works of primarily Wells and Olsen (2003) and Rodin (1987) and Schmechel et al. (2006) it will be argued that eye witness testimony is not always accurate, due to many features; inter racial identification, characteristics of the crime, response latency, and line up procedures therefore this paper will confirm that eyewitness testimonies should not be utilised in the criminal ju...
The problem of unjust conviction had always been a major issue for eyewitness scientists and it took the consideration of researchers to determine, whether the memory of eyewitness is reliable or not under some parameters. Evidence of identification by the eyewitness has a huge impact on the fate of the trial. It was believed that the lineup sequence can pose a problem in proper identification of the suspect. So the comparison of Sequential Lineup Procedure versus Simultaneous Lineup Procedure was scientifically carried out by Steblay et al. (2011). After that Wells et al. (2014) conducted further research. Instead of interpreting information collected from various sequential and simultaneous lineups performed in laboratories and using this laboratory data they studied actual eyewitness to crime scenes and further evaluated the sequential photo lineups and simultaneous photo lineups. Both Wells et al. (2011) and Steblay et al. (2014) kept in mind various parameters like back-loading, the continuation rule, the stopping rule, and the second viewing rule etc. Moreover, in laboratory tests a witness can guess the suspect multiple times but generally the
For example, when the victims want to remember something, or someone, strongly and with high confidence, the witness can still be wrong. The eyewitness is given all the photos of the suspects laid out to identify the person they remember committing the crime. Also the eyewitness is asked to identify each photo whether is the culprit or not. Prosecutors should look over the cases before relying on eyewitness. Prosecutors should not depend on eyewitness testimony because that will lead to wrongful convictions. The wrongful convictions span the criminal justice system from investigation and arrest to prosecution and trail(Ferrero). False conviction makes the justice system stronger and arresting innocent is wrong. And picking out person similar to the murder. Not catching the real suspect might cause the public risky. Public safety be in risk."Wrongful conviction is gravest violation of personal liberty and also poses severe public safety risks, as the real perpetrator could remain on the street," an innocence Project news release said. The real suspect might kill many people or if the eyewitness might be in risk. If the victim is still life might be kill again. Lying about someone is not good thing might have miserable life in their future.
(Kennedy & Haygood, 1992; Williams & Loftus, 1994), which is worrying considering the growing and substantial body of evidence from laboratory studies, field studies, and the criminal justice system supporting the conclusion that eyewitnesses frequently make mistakes (Cutler & Penrod, 1995; Huff, 1987; Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin, 1986; Innocence Project, 2009; Wells, Small, Penrod, Malpass, Fulero, & Brimacombe, 1998). According to a number of studies, eyewitness misidentifications are the most common cause of wrongful convictions (Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin, 1986; Wells et al., 1998; Yarmey, 2003) and, through the use of forensic DNA testing, have been found to account for more convictions of innocent individuals than all other factors combined (Innocence Project, 2009; Wells, Memon, & Penrod, 2006).
During the identification and prosecution of a suspect, eyewitnesses are the most important. Eyewitness testimony needs to be reliable as it can have serious implications to the perceived guilt or innocence of a defendant. Unfortunately, the reliability of eyewitness testimony is questionable because there is a high number of eyewitness misidentification. Rattner (1988) studied 205 cases and concluded that eyewitness misidentification was the factor most often associated with wrongful conviction (52%). Eyewitness testimony can be affected by many factors. A substantial literature demonstrates own group biases in eyewitness testimony. For example, the own-race bias, in which people are better at recognizing faces of their own race versus another
video. In one version, a man pointed a gun at the cashier and she gave
Eyewitness identification and testimony play a huge role in the criminal justice system today, but skepticism of eyewitnesses has been growing. Forensic evidence has been used to undermine the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the leading cause of false convictions in the United States is due to misidentifications by eyewitnesses. The role of eyewitness testimony in producing false confessions and the factors that contribute to the unreliability of these eyewitness testimonies are sending innocent people to prison, and changes are being made in order to reform these faulty identification procedures.
The justice system depends on eyewitness evidence to convict offenders. Eyewitness is a difficult task to achieve in the justice system. According to Wise, Dauphinais, & Safer (2007), in 2002 one million offenders were convicted as felons in America. Out of those one million offenders, 5000 of them were innocent in 2002 (Dauphinais, 2007). The Ohio Criminal Justice survey states that 1 out of 200 felony criminal cases is a wrongful conviction (Dauphinais et al., 2007). According to Dauphinais et al., (2007), Dripps said that eyewitness error is a huge factor in cases of wrong convictions. A study conducted in 1987 indicated that in roughly 80,000 criminal cases, eyewitness error was the only sole evidence against the defendant
There has been considerable debate worldwide, regarding the accuracy of eyewitness testimony in the criminal justice system. Particularly, arguments have surrounded wrongful convictions that have resulted from incorrect eyewitness evidence (Areh, 2011; Howitt, 2012; Nelson, Laney, Bowman-Fowler, Knowles, Davis & Loftus, 2011). The purpose of this essay is to consider psychological research about the accuracy of eyewitness testimony and its placement in the criminal justice system. Firstly, this essay will define how eyewitnesses and their testimonies are used within the criminal justice system and the current debate surrounding its usage. Secondly, the impact of post-identification feedback will be used to show the affect on the confidence of a witness. Thirdly, studies around gender related differences will show how a witnesses gender can affect memory recall and accuracy. Fourthly, empirical studies will be used to highlight how a psychological experience called change blindness can cause mistakes in eyewitness identification. Finally, the effect of cross-examination will be used to explore the impact on eyewitness accuracy. It will be argued, that eyewitness testimony is not accurate and highly subjective, therefore, the criminal justice system must reduce the impact that eyewitness testimony is allowed to have. Developing better policies and procedures to avoid wrongful convictions by misled judges and jury members can do this.
Fradella, H.F. (2006) Why judges should admit expert testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Federal Courts Law Review. Retrieved from http://www.fclr.org/fclr/articles/html/2006/fedctslrev3.pdf
Eye witnesses tend to serve as a critical piece of evidence in some criminal cases. Oftentimes the juries trust the testimonies of eyewitnesses without questioning rather or not the information they are presenting is accurate. Shermer, Rose, and Hoffman (2011) examined the relationship between eyewitness testimony and jurors’ decisions while accounting for other types of evidence. They gave participants pretrial eyewitness assessments of the reliability of the testimony and post-trial assessments of eyewitness credibility. Their findings indicate the more the jury finds the eyewitness testimonies credible, the more likely they will convict. Multiple studies
Why Eyewitness Testimony is Garbage Eye witness testimony has been used in United States courts since its inception, but it is a lot less credible than most people think. The idea of someone's memories and testimony being credible enough to lead to someone's incarceration has been debated for years. There are more instances where eyewitness testimony is more detrimental to a trial than it is helpful. Eye witness testimony is not credible and should not be able to lead to incarceration. 73% of eye witness incarcerations were overturned with DNA evidence.