Crime Scene Investigation Essay

Eyewitness evidence has always been considering critical information when it comes to court trials and convictions. But how reliable are eyewitnesses? Scientific research has shown that eyewitness’s memories are often not accurate or reliable. Human memory is very malleable and is easily changed by suggestion. Relying on eyewitness evidence instead of scientific data often leads to wrongful convictions. Scientific evidence is much more reliable, and should be more important in court cases than eyewitness evidence.

Eyewitness testimony has long been viewed as important evidence in court cases. The general population believes eyewitness identification more than any other evidence, even if the witness account is conflicting with the other evidence presented. Studies show that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and yet it is still considered the most important form of evidence. People think that if a person says they saw something then it must have happened. Currently there are no universal guidelines on how to obtain and present such evidence. The purpose of this paper is to explain why eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and discuss the proposed guidelines on how law enforcement agencies should gather identifications, as well how

The human mind is not like a tape recorder obviously, it does not record events exactly as seen in the moment of a crime, and neither can the events be recalled precisely like a tape that can rewind back in time. Therefore, making eyewitness identification inaccurate. For example, in the case of a

The reliability if an eyewitness testimony is questionable. The witness may be so certain that the person that thy are pointing out is one hundred per cent the suspect or they could be so certain when it comes to retelling the incident, although these people are so sure on what it is they are doing, their testimony cannot always accurate. Due to the lack of accuracy with eyewitness

The human mind is not like a tape recorder obviously, it does not record events exactly as seen in the moment of a crime, and neither can the events be recalled precisely like a tape that can rewind back in time. Therefore, making eyewitness identification inaccurate. For example, in the case of a

In Canada, the leading cause of wrongful conviction is due to the factor of eyewitness account. It has been proven that individual’s minds are not like tape recorders because everyone cannot precisely and accurately remember the description of what another person or object looks like. The courts looks at eyewitness accounts as a great factor to nab perpetrators because they believe that the witness should know what they are taking about and seen what occurred on the crime scene. On the other hand, eyewitness accounts lead to a 70 percent chance of wrongful conviction, where witnesses would substantially change their description of a perpetrator.

Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder, we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully, or it can be contaminated. A case I would like to mention is the Calvin Willis Case. One night in 1982, three young girls were sleeping alone in a Shreveport, Louisiana home when a man in cowboy boots came into the house and raped the oldest girl, who was Ten years old. When police started to investigate the rape, the three girls all remembered the attack differently. One police report said the Ten year old victim didn’t see her attacker’s face. Another report which wasn’t introduced at trial said she identified Calvin Willis, who lived in the neighbourhood. The girl’s mother testified at trial that neighbours had mentioned Willis’s name when discussing who might have committed the crime. The victim testified that she was shown photos and told to pick the man without a full beard. She testified that she didn’t pick anyone, police said she picked Willis. Willis was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. In 2003, DNA testing proved Willis’ innocence and he was released. He had served nearly Twenty Two years in prison for a crime he didn’t

Forensic science has become the greatest collective method for intelligence gathering of human identifiers. The forensic sciences are used around the world to resolve civil disputes, to justly the enforcement of criminal laws and government regulations, and to protect public health. Over the years, judges have trusted forensic methods without a second thought. DNA analysis is the most reliable method that forensic has, but how reliable is it? (Jonathan Jones, pbs). According to a group called The Innocence Project, “Misapplication of forensic science is the second most common contributing factor to wrongful convictions, found in nearly half (46%) of DNA exoneration cases” (Innocence project).

    A review of false convictions that involved forensic science and can help identify critical lessons for forensic scientists as they perform testing, interpret results, render conclusions, and testify in court from the national institute of justice.

Behind every court case there’s a train of forensic science evidence and research. Forensic science is the application of scientific principles of criminal justice. In many court cases a forensic scientists is the one on the scene collecting finger prints, photos, blood samples and other evidence. Unfortunately one of the controversial issues in the forensic world is the evidence and its lack of verification of its reliability. In the field of forensics there are issues in finding proof in generating conclusion, fundamental knowledge to solve problems, and the whole false memory defense in the court. These issues can be solved in many ways like extensive research, preparation and training. These issues

Unlike eyewitness reports, audio and visual recordings provide an accurate resource that investigators can view, or listen to, multiple times. Although eyewitness accounts are a valuable tool, science confirms that more approximately one-third of all eye witness identifications prove inaccurate. Recollections change over time and witnesses may have personal motives that shape their testimony. Accurately determining a series of events that led to an automobile accident with fatalities is critical.

Social Neuroscience, vol. 13, no. 1, 2018, pp. 74-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2016.1253610 Main Info: This is a scholarly journal, given in abstract detail, that presents facts and details about why eyewitness testimony is not accurate. Eyewitness errors could be influenced by several different factors like those who you associate yourself around.

Forensic science is defined as the practice of utilizing scientific methodologies to clarify judicial inquiries. The field of forensic science contains a broad range of disciplines and has become a vital aspect of criminal investigations. Some forensic disciplines are laboratory-based; while others are based on an analyst’s interpretation of observable patterns (Kourtsounis, 2009). According to the Innocence project’s website; in greater than fifty percent of wrongful convictions, the use of invalidated or improper forensic techniques played a role in cases; which were later

Ultimately, ensuring their credibility in the eyes of the court, they must be prepared to discuss their qualifications (Dale and Becker 167). It is necessary for the forensic scientist to present the information in a way that both the judge and the people of the courtroom will understand in order for the verdict of the presented information can be used to convict or release the accused suspect. It is evident in the science community that an increasing number of labs follow the process of validation in order to meet quality standards on an informal, national, and international level. In fact, standardized validation of evidence minimizes re-invention of methods in laboratories across the world. Methods that have been validated are more readily accepted and can be compared internationally between different laboratories (Hlinka, Muharam and Lentile 152). **When more evidence is discovered and used in cases. By minimizing new methods and