More handpicked essays just for you.
Studies on the validity of eyewitness testimony has shown
The problem with eyewitness testimony
The credibility of eyewitness testimony
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Goodwin, Kukucka, and Hawks (2013) investigated the relationship between confidence and memory in eyewitness testimony in their study. The goal of an eyewitness is to provide the information to an investigator as accurately as possible. However, eyewitnesses can be pressured into providing information that conforms to someone else’s views and provide wrong answers to fit into the society. Often, researchers discovered that, participants answered more correctly when they were alone versus when they were in a group (Goodwin, Kukucka, & Hawks, 2013). Moreover, confidence is an important part of a witness’s personality. Seventy nine percent of the participants were confident about their statement when they heard similar statements from other witnesses. The purpose of this study is to explain how witnesses’ confidence level rely on other people’s …show more content…
There were 126 participants ranged in age of 18 to 31 years were selected for this experiment. The participants consisted of forty males and 86 females. The participants were given credit in their introductory psychology class to participate in this experiment (Goodwin, Kukucka, & Hawks, 2013). The participants were shown a PowerPoint slide consisting of a crime scene which predicted a man breaking and entering a bookstore to steal several items. A recall test consisting of 26 items were developed (Goodwin, Kukucka, & Hawks, 2013). Twelve of the participants answered the questions about the crime with misleading information while rest of the participants listened before providing their own answers. The participants then rated the answers on a 7-point scale (1 being not at all
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 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
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...
Memory is not reliable; memory can be altered and adjusted. Memory is stored in the brain just like files stored in a cabinet, you store it, save it and then later on retrieve and sometimes even alter and return it. In doing so that changes the original data that was first stored. Over time memory fades and becomes distorted, trauma and other events in life can cause the way we store memory to become faulty. So when focusing on eyewitnesses, sometimes our memory will not relay correct information due to different cues, questioning, and trauma and so forth, which makes eyewitness even harder to rely on. Yet it is still applied in the criminal justice system.
For this book report, I decided to read Hugo Münsterberg's On the Witness Stand. This book contains essays on psychology and crime and eyewitness testimony. Today this book is used as a reference for many issues in forensic psychology. For this report, I focused on two chapters of the book: Illusions and the Memory of the Witness. I am going to first summarize the two chapters I read then talk about what was going on at the time this book was written. I will then report some of the research in the book, and finish with my opinion on how this book has contributed to the literature and how it relates to the current knowledge of forensic psychology.
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
This study was conducted on 30 students, having two versions of film depicting a quarrel between a man and woman passing each other on the street. The only variations of the film was the angle captured from the street camera and one participant watched the video for seven minutes while the other only watched two minutes. Then each participant had a few moments to converse about the events seen. De Puiseau et al. (2012) employed using a method based on the cultural consensus theory, which would account for the differences in each eyewitness’s knowledge. Then each participant had 110 recognition questions ranging topics included crime scene, perpetrator, victim, action, and general information. It was found among all 30 participants answered correctly 83.63% of the 110 item-questionnaire (De Puiseau, et al., 2012). The study also compared the group context model (GCM) to the majority rule, and it was found that the GCM was much higher in correctly estimating the answers (De Puiseau, et al, 2012). This study is important to note as in each crime it is expected that there is at least four eyewitnesses, and most likely when one does not understand the events or wants assurance what they saw, they confer with the others. In extreme cases like the
Valentine, T., & Maras, K. (2011). The effect of cross-examination on the accuracy of adult eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 554-561. doi: 10.1002/acp.1768
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
Researcher Richard A. Wise and his colleagues focused on finding out how prosecutors and defense attorneys felt and treated eyewitness testimonies. They found that defense attorneys are more likely to question an eyewitness’s credibility than prosecutors (Wise, et al. 1278). They also found that prosecutors knew less about eyewitness testimonies than defense attorneys (Wise, et al. 1277). This study suggests that attorneys should be informed about the risk of eyewitness testimonies being false or fallible (Wise, et al. 1280). In contrast to the study discussed before, a study conducted by researchers Tim Valentine and Katie Maras looked at the effects of cross examining evidence between eyewitnesses instead of focusing on prosecutors and defense attorneys. They conducted an experiment in which the participants had to watch an event and then talk about it with other people who saw the same event (Valentine and Maras 556). They found that the act cross examining what they all saw led to people coming up with false testimonies with many inaccuracies (Valentine and Maras 557). Both of these studies differ in that the first study focused on defense attorneys and prosecutors while the second study discussed on the eyewitnesses themselves. Even though they focused on analyzing two different demographics, they both
The term that best explains the barriers to eyewitness memory is widely regarded as verbal overshadowing. The notion of verbal overshadowing has been coined as the inability to provide explicit memories due to the cognitive barriers people possess to depict accurately the events that have transpired. On a daily basis, individuals across the United States are sentenced to lengthy prison sentences resultant of wrongful convictions (Innocence Project, 2016). To illustrate the ambivalences caused by verbal overshadowing, if it even exists, behavioral scientists conducted a study to demonstrate the disparities. Many researchers have designed an experiment to measure a person’s cognitive ability to remember accurately a perpetrator that has committed a crime in a police lineup (Schooler & Engstler-Schooler,
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.
Eyewitness testimonies are a well-known evidence around the world to seek out people. It has been used in numerous cases and many people have been convicted with eyewitnesses alone. The problem is that such testimonies alone can be very inaccurate and lead to wrongful convictions. Our memory and our ability to remember is very corruptive by many factors. Some factors can be emotions, event, personal experience, stress level, and the will to help. In this assignment I will discuss what I learned about the questioning that happens during an interview, and how it impacts the response a witness may give.When we learn something new we store that information so that we won’t forget it. How much or how good we remember something is how we measure