The accuracy of eye-witness testimony is a prevalent yet controversial topic within the criminology field. Over the last 20 years, scientific psychology and research pertaining to eye-witness testimony has made great advances in discovering the factors that affect witness identification of suspects. It is considered that due to the fact that eye-witness testimony is often believed to be inaccurate, through applying certain recommendations, its accuracy can be enhanced, thus allowing it to become remarkably more reliable and continue to be admissible evidence within the criminal justice system. This essay will examine and define eye-witness testimony and its accuracy through: firstly, how human memory and perception are negatively impacted on …show more content…
by certain components of the crime witnessed. Secondly, how the criminal justice system, in particular jurors, rely heavily on eye-witness testimony to convict alleged offenders and how accuracy is based on witness confidence level. Thirdly, that line-up procedures play an integral role in a witness’s ability to correctly identify a suspect. Lastly, that the process of interviewing of the witness by police can also negatively impact the accuracy of suspect identification. Through the combination of these features as well as recommendations for improvement, it will be proven that eye-witness testimony, although at times inaccurate, can still be useful within the criminal justice system. Eye-witness testimony is defined as the act of a “bystander” appearing and testifying in a court of law to provide evidence of the alleged suspect having committed the crime in question. Within the context of the criminal justice system, eye-witness testimony is predominantly utilised in the areas of both police questioning and within the courts by the defence and prosecution (Wise, Fisherman, and Safer (2009). According to Wise et al. (2009), “the prevalence of eyewitness error poses a major dilemma for the criminal justice system…” (p.442). With this in mind, it is evident that courts substantially rely on eye-witness testimony and therefore, when inaccuracies occur, wrongful conviction can result.
Thus, as the implications for the criminal justice system are severe, it is considered that the factors affecting eye-witness testimony need to be evaluated in order to ascertain its reliability as evidence.
Human memory and perception play an integral role within the debate surrounding the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. According to Loftus (1975) the memory’s ability to encode, store and recover information is based on the three fundamental processes of Acquisition, Retention and Retrieval. It is these three functions of the brain that are effected when a person is witness to a crime. By referring to both Wise et al. (2009) and Loftus (1975) a concept known as the Reconstructive Theory of Memory occurs when an individual witnesses a crime. It asserts that, contrary to popular belief, the human brain does not record memories precisely as they have occurred but rather, according to Bartol and Bartol (as cited in Wise et al, 2009) “involves the integration of perceptual information with pre-existing experiences, as well as with other subjective relevant information that may be introduced later” (p. 455). It is therefore clear that in regards to this theory, the accuracy of eye-witness testimony is impeded by the processes surrounding human memory and perception.
Furthermore, within the scope of research pertaining to the accuracy of eye-witness testimony are factors known as Estimator Variables. Estimator Variables are defined as elements of eye-witness testimony in which the criminal justice system has no control over yet effect the witness’ accuracy (Wells & Olson, 2003). For instance, these predominantly consist of characteristics relating to the crime including: whether the crime was violent or non-violent, the proximity of the witness and the offender, and the stress experienced by the witness. Witness stress and whether the crime was violent or not are considered to be two of the most hindering estimator variables as the brain is unable to effectively encode, store and retrieve information as an eye-witness, and thus contributes to the process pertaining to the Reconstructive Theory of Memory (Wise et al. 2009). Deffenbacher, Bornstein, Penrod, and McGorty (2004) conducted a meta-analytic review and study of the effects of high stress on eye-witness memory. It involved the use of social science citation systems to find and examine a sample of 18 published papers concerning studies that tested the effects of stress on eye-witness memory and suspect identification. Their results of their research “adduced considerable support for the hypothesis that high levels of stress negatively impact both the accuracy of eye-witness identification as well as accuracy of recall of crime-related details.” (p. 699). Therefore, it is evident that the accuracy of eye-witness memory and thus testimony can be hindered by the presence of stress while witnessing a crime. Another study conducted by Clifford and Scott (1978), which involved a sample of 48 subjects viewing two videos, one being of a violent crime and the second of a non-violent crime, demonstrated that the type of crime had a significant effect on witness’ memory recall. The results of the study concluded that “recall of details from a violent incident was significantly worse than recall of a non-violent incident” and thus “the emotionality surrounding an incident can affect the testimony of both the victim and witnesses, and both accuracy and completeness” (p.356). Therefore, this study proves that the inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony can also be attributed to what type of crime is witnessed by the individual and thus effects their testimony. By combining the evidence of both these studies, it is evident that eye-witness testimony has many factors that can influence its credibility. Therefore, due to the fact that a human’s ability surrounding memory and perception cannot be altered, it is recommended that eye-witness testimony should only be utilised in conjunction with other forms of evidence within court to convict an alleged suspect (Wise et al. 2009). Furthermore, it should not be utilised as the primary source of evidence for a case and in light of this recommendation, it is apparent that eye-witness testimony can be improved. \
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.
The use of eyewitnesses has been a constant in of criminal justice system since its very beginning. Unfortunately, people do not make the best witnesses to a crime. The person may not have seen the actual criminal, but someone that looks similar to them. The witness may lie about what he or she may have scene. Also the witness can be influenced by the police as to who or what they saw at the time of the crime. The witness or victims memory of the person may have faded so that they don’t remember exactly what had seen, which could be disastrous for the accused.
In chapter 6 of Unfair, Adam Benforado addresses the issues regarding human being’s poor memory and our justice systems outrageous reliability on eye witness testimony. Benforado believes that our real memories are severely obstructed by the human brains limit in perception. Our brains are not able to recall every moment of every day because there is simply no way to process everything we encounter in a day. Although most science supports the idea that our memories are unreliable and biased, most of us humans believe we have good and accurate memory. We also expect other to be able to perform basic memory task with accuracy and consistency, which is why for years, the United States so desperately depended on eye witness testimony to get a conviction. This desperation over the years has left hundreds, possibility thousands of innocent citizens paying for a crime they did not commit. According to the reading, of the first 250 exonerations in the United States, 190 of them happen to have involved mistaken identification’s
In the magic of the mind author Dr. Elizabeth loftus explains how a witness’s perception of an accident or crime is not always correct because people's memories are often imperfect. “Are we aware of our minds distortions of our past experiences? In most cases, the answer is no.” our minds can change the way we remember what we have seen or heard without realizing it uncertain witnesses “often identify the person who best matches recollection
In summation, is can be identified in this paper that eye witnesses do not play a constructive role within the criminal justice system. This can be seen through a thorough discussion of the many issues portrayed through this paper. To conclude Schmechel et al. (2006) reiterates that statements this paper has presented and discussed;
(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
Vallas, G. (2011). A survey of federal and state standards for the admission of expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitnesses. American Journal of Criminal Law, 39(1), 97-146. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.pioproxy.carrollu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,cpid&custid=s6222004&db=aph&AN=74017401&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Elizabeth Loftus, is a psychologist, mainly concerned with how subsequent information can affect an eyewitness’s testimony. Loftus has focused on misleading information in both the difference in wording of questions and how these questions can influence eyewitness testimony. This research is important because frequently, eyewitness testimony is a crucial element in criminal proceedings. Throughout Loftus’s career she has found a witness’s memory is highly flexible and subject to being influenced. The classic study by Loftus and Palmer (1974), illustrates that eyewitness testimony can be influenced by leading questions and ultimately proved unreliable.
Eyewitnesses are primarily used by the criminal justice system for investigating and prosecuting crimes, particularly in circumstances where it is the only evidence available (Wells & Olson, 2003). Their testimony is highly regarded as it allows for police, prosecutors, judges and juries to establi...
In the court of law, eyewitnesses are expected to present evidence based upon information they acquired visually. However, due to memory processing, presenting this information accurately is not always possible. This paper will discuss the reliability of eyewitness testimony, its use in a relevant court case, and how the reasonable person standard relates to eyewitness testimony.
For example, the old man that lived beneath the boy and his father testified that he heard a fight between the boy and the father and heard the boy yell, “I’m gonna kill you,” along with a body hitting the ground, and then claims that he saw the boy running down the stairs. With this information, along with other powerful eyewitness testimonies, all but one of the jury members believed this boy was guilty. The power of eyewitness testimony is also shown in Loftus’s (1974) study. In this study, Loftus (1974) found that those who claimed to “see” something were usually believed even when their testimony is pointless. She discovered in her study that only 18 percent of people convicted if there was no eyewitness testimony, 72 percent of people convicted when someone declared, “That’s the one!”, and even when the witness only had 20/400 vision and was not wearing glasses and claimed “That’s the one!”, 68 percent of people still convicted the person. This proves that in 12 Angry Men and Loftus (1974) study, eyewitness testimony is very powerful and influential in one’s decision to convict a
Have you ever been an eyewitness at the scene of a crime? If you were, do you think that you would be able to accurately describe, in precise detail, everything that happened and remember distinct features of the suspect? Many people believe that yes they would be able to remember anything from the events that would happen and the different features of the suspect. Some people, in fact, are so sure of themselves after witnessing an event such as this that they are able to testify that what they think they saw was indeed what they saw. However, using an eyewitness as a source of evidence can be risky and is rarely 100% accurate. This can be proven by the theory of the possibility of false memory formation and the question of whether or not a memory can lie.
Eyewitness testimony is especially vulnerable to error when the question is misleading or when there’s a difference in ethnicity. However, using an eyewitness as a source of evidence can be risky and is rarely 100% accurate. This can be proven by the theory of the possibility of false memory formation and the question of whether or not a memory can lie. For instance, a group of students saw the face of a young man with straight hair, then heard a description of the face supposedly written by another witness, one that wrongly mentioned light, curly hair. When they reconstructed the face using a kit of facial features, a third of their reconstructions contained the misleading detail, whereas only 5 percent contained it when curly hair was not mentioned (Page 359). This situation shows how misleading information from other sources can be profoundly altered.
From a legal standpoint, eyewitness memories are not accurate. Though they all illustrate the same concept, each paper described different ways eyewitness memories were altered. One’s memory can be misleading by their own attributions towards the situation, what they choose to see and not see, and if the individual has been through a single event or repetitive stressful events. As human beings, our memories on all matters are not concrete. When retelling stories, we tend to modify the situation and tailor certain events, making the information provided unreliable. An eyewitness testimony changes the track of a trial and information that is given to the court can be ambiguous and can cause bias towards the circumstances. Eyewitnesses can even be confident in their retelling of a situation and explain a complete event, when in fact, that particular event never