Imagine being at home with your family, when a knock comes at the door. You go to answer the door and you are promptly arrested and taken away from your family. Why, because you have been identified by someone as the perpetrator of a crime you have never heard of. Since you know that you are innocent you don’t worry, until you get to the sentencing. Once you are sentenced for 50 years without parole, reality takes hold. You may think this cannot happen to you, but until we fix some major flaws with law enforcement, prosecution deals, and an overloaded system: This could happen to anyone. State prosecutors should not be able to convict anyone on eyewitness testimony only, without any other physical or forensic evidence.
Eyewitness testimony is a hot button issue in not only the criminal justice field but also the psychology field as well. It continues to be argued that this type of “evidence” is far too unreliable for the court room and can ultimately end up punishing the wrong person for a crime they did not commit. The influence of an eyewitness testimony cannot be denied as research has showed that, “adding a single prosecution eyewitness to a murder trial summary increased the percentage of mock jurors’ guilty verdicts from 18 to 72” (Leippe, Manion, & Romanczyk, p. 182, 1992). In the article discussed here, researchers will look into various age groups to see if age has an effect on the credibility of eyewitness testimonies while attempting to discern what certain cues build upon such credibility.
Professor Farris, eyewitness evidence is not perfect; however, law enforcement agencies still use lineups, show-ups, and photographic arrays today. The professionals have taken a closer look at eyewitness evidence, precisely at the effectiveness of identifying suspects from lineups and photographic arrays. Law enforcement officers in the United States investigate millions of crimes per year; considering, a percentage of law enforcement agencies investigate crimes that involve the use of police arranged identification procedures. "The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has initiated a multisite field experiment of eyewitness evidence to examine the effectiveness and the accuracy of the crucial and influential component of the Nation's Criminal
The social implication that have happened with a better understanding of eyewitness testimony are quite big. Because of the thousand and thousand of crime that have been made by people, we cant really trust everyone testimony of the situation. Because pretty much a conversation with someone else can easily mess every thing up. Which could suck for the person who is taken to jail because a of a eyewitness mistake. When the real criminal is out their actually doing more harm to others. Its actually scary to think how many individuals might be in jail for years of their life knowing that they had nothing to do with a crime that they weren’t even involved
Societies across the United States are comprised of many culturally diverse people. Each and every individual possesses a distinct perception of events that have transpired. For most people that desire to achieve a career in law enforcement, they must depend heavily on accurate eyewitness testimonials on a daily basis to apprehend the correct perpetrator that committed the crime. In fact, law officials frequently seek precise and dependable descriptions from bystanders within the community as their ability to accurately identify the perpetrator immensely assists law officials. In that regard, law enforcement officers depend heavily on accurate eyewitness testimonies, within an acceptable time frame, to help in the apprehension of the correct
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.
Eyewitness testimony often serves as direct evidence and has strong influences on juries during trial. While these testimonies are invaluable there has been a lot DNA exoneration that shows the flaws in eyewitness identification, leading to false convictions. A pre-trial identification is important in establishing eyewitness testimony. There are multiple
In the end of a court case, there is guilty and innocent. Sometimes the guilty is judged accordingly, other times the innocent is judged guilty. Eyewitness testimony gives details about what happened, identification of perpetrators. Eyewitness can be the central focus of the whole investigation, and is also heavily focused on and powerful in the courtroom. Hence, eyewitness testimony is largely one of the reasons as to why innocent individuals are thrown in prison. Although generally without a doubt, eyewitness testimony is helpful to the court and investigation, but memory alone is not always reliable. That previous statement was not meaning to convict all eyewitness testimony, but it is just common sense to understand that not all eyewitness testimony is accurate or true. Eyewitness testimony must be evaluated before allowing witnesses to be put into a courtroom because there are many aspects as to why eyewitness testimony is not sincere or reliable.
This paper examines six research articles that include research conducted on both eyewitness testimony and plea bargaining, while also reviewing a dataset from a study conducted on both issues. The main questions addressed here are whether or not eyewitness testimony affects court proceedings as a whole and how eyewitness testimony affects the outcome of the plea bargaining process. Each article covered presents different opinions and ideas on this topic, offering a non-biased overview on the matter at hand. While these articles may present different ideas the general definitions as to what eyewitness testimony consists of, along with what a plea bargain is remains consistent. The dataset that is reviewed was pulled from Pezdek’s study, “Influence
Like many who are facing criminal charges in Wisconsin, an eyewitness statement may have led to your arrest. This type of testimony has long been considered one of the most reliable sources of evidence, however, research has shown that this is not necessarily true. In fact, misidentifications by eyewitnesses contributed to more than 70 percent of the wrongful convictions that were later overturned through eyewitness testimony, according to the Innocence Project. At the Rose & Rose law firm, people often ask us about the impact of eyewitness testimony on criminal trials. In this post, we will discuss the factors that may affect the accuracy of eyewitness identifications.
There has been considerable interest and study in the accuracy or inaccuracy of the use of eyewitness testimonies in the current criminal justice system. Results collated by several studies add to the bulk of literature suggesting that the current usage of eyewitness testimony by the legal system is far from ideal. Currently, high emphasis is being placed on reviewing and reconsidering eyewitness accounts (Leinfelt, 2004). In particular, recent DNA exoneration cases have shown that mistaken eyewitness identification was one of the largest factors contributing to the sentence of innocent people (Wells & Olson, 2003). For example, 75% of the first 271 cases of DNA exoneration in the US resulted in eyewitness testimony error (Brewer & Wells cited
In my study I am looking at people’s perceptions of crimes and whether or not having an eye witness to a crime increases the likelihood of a judge, jury (or in this case faculty, staff and students at Sterling College). I got my idea for my study from a research project that I had to do over Elizabeth Loftus and how people’s memory can be faulty. I found a study/survey that states that mistaken eyewitness testimony is responsible for 75% of every 301 cases of wrongful imprisonment. In many of these cases the judge and/or juries were convinced by testimony from a witness who implicated the defendant, but which was, in fact, inaccurate (Houston.)
During trials, there would be five types of evidence that was admitted. For instance, they would recite the Lord’s Prayer, and during this test, the girls were known to scream and roll on the floor creating a distraction and the accused would usually mess up the prayer. Physical evidence, like birthmarks, warts, moles, etc. were also used since they were seen as possible ways for Satan to enter the body. Witness testimony was also considered. If someone accused another person of the misfortune of witchcraft, the accused person might get a conviction.
Eyewitness testimony is the account a bystander gives in the courtroom, describing what that person observed that occurred during the specific incident under investigation. Ideally this recollection of events is detailed and accurate, this is not always the case. Juries tend to pay close attention to eyewitness testimony and generally find it a reliable source of information. The criminal justice system relies heavily on eyewitness identification for investigating and prosecuting crimes. While there may be a variety of factors that can affect the ability of an eyewitness to identify the someone at a later time such as; the amount of time the culprit is in view, the lighting conditions, whether the culprit wears a disguise, the distinctiveness of the culprit’s appearance, the presence or absence of a weapon, and the timing of knowledge that one is witnessing a crime (Wells, 2003). However, research into this area has found that eyewitness testimony can be affected by many psychological factors such as inattentional blindness and change blindness.
There has been several previous finding of studies confirmed that eyewitness testimony is unreliable sources. The presence of unintentional phrases (e.g., pause, or phrases such as “um”, and “uh”) as part of an eyewitness testimony often assume as indication for doubt or uncertainty. This study examined the presence of unintentional items that accompanied the correctly recalled information.