Criminal Trials And The Memory Of The Eye Witness

The first and greatest cause of false convictions is eyewitness identification according to the innocence project website almost 75% of cases later overturned were due to wrongful eyewitness identification. One of the main issues as we learned in class is that our minds do not keep a perfect recording of events in our memory they are often impacted by additional information given after the fact. Information about a suspect given afterwards such as suggesting their hair color, height, weight, or other attributes about them could influence our memories. Another issue found is using things like “show ups” for victims and witnesses; this is discussed on the innocence project page and was in class. Show ups tend to lead to wrongful identification because there is only one person instead of several potential suspects like a lineup. The Innocence project website discusses two variables that affect wrongful eyewitness identification Estimator and System variables. Estimator variables are things the justice system cannot influence such as the lighting, distance used when the victim or witness saw the suspect, the amount of stress or anxiety the victim is under, and research shows that it is hard for witnesses to identify someone of a different race than they are. The 2nd group of variables discussed are the system variables, these are things that the system can impact such as the type of lineup like line up or show up, how they administer lineups such as how similar the suspects

In order to comprehend the contribution of psychology to areas of criminal investigation it is important to evaluate research into two of the following areas of criminal investigation: eye witness testimony and offender profiling as well as assess the implications of the findings in the area of criminal investigation. In addition, this essay, with reference to relevant psychological research, discuss how the characteristics of the defendant may influence jury behaviour as well as analyse two psychological influences on the decision making process of juries. In order to improve the efficiency of detection and successful prosecution of crime it is important to underline that in a previous administration, detection of serious crime was poor and eyewitness testimony appeared very unreliable, partly due to standard interview techniques yielding confusing results. It is therefore this essays primary focus is to provide the chief constable with a report explaining how psychologists might be able to improve this situation with a full evaluation of process and evidence.

Information is the lifeblood of a criminal investigation. The ability of investigators to obtain useful and accurate information from eyewitnesses of crimes is crucial to effective law enforcement, yet full and accurate recall is difficult to achieve (Stewart, 1985). Such elicitation of complete and accurate recall from people is important in many aspects of life; specifically, eyewitness recall may determine whether a case is solved. Principle advocates of the cognitive interview (Fisher, Geiselman, Holland & MacKinnon,

Psychological research shows that eyewitness testimony is not always accurate; therefore it should not be used in the criminal justice system. Discuss.

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.

It has been shown that eyewitness misidentification is one of the biggest factors in wrongful convictions, which has been overturned due to DNA (Innocence). Forensic evidence is one of the factors used to determine ones’ guilt or innocence in the court of law; however, some of the evidence used can pose a problem in court. Eye witness testimony has caused a lot of faults in court cases because it is portrayed as a strong factor of evidence. Eye witness testimony should not be used as primary evidence because of how unreliable, misidentified, and the impact it can have in the court of law. Eyewitness identification should have different alternatives in how it should be presented to the witness so that bias is not present.

Overall, Dr. Fraser’s argument is organized, well structured, and concise, using all three tools of appeal, logos, pathos, and ethos persuading his audience that eyewitness testimony can be seen as invalid. He expresses his argument though story telling, playing a huge role on the logical reasoning, or logos, as well as reasoning abilities. His argument was very effective in getting the audience engaged immediately, using descriptions and visual aids to make it easily understandable to those who are well knowledgeable about the criminal trial process. Dr. Fraser presented his argument in a way that the audience could follow and feel personally involved in. As he states the facts as he became aware of them in the criminal case, Dr. Fraser is in turn, building up to the conclusion of the argument; that eye witness testimony is, at best,

Research studies in relation to eyewitness testimony have been going on for hundreds of years. A study done in 1999 by Marcus D. Durham and Francis C. Dane at Mercer University, looked at ways to assess prospective jurors’ knowledge of the factors that may influence eyewitness behavior. Those factors include topics such as race, memory processes, age, and stress. In addition, the researchers “compared students’

To minimise the impact of a confident eyewitness in a courtroom, Wixted (2015) suggests that a jury needs to be made aware of any hesitation displayed at the time of initial questioning. It seems that An emphasis should be placed on the early stages of an investigation whilst removing the absolute reliance of courtroom testimonies. By educating a jury about the significance of initial non-identification, it would reduce the likelihood of these testemonies from becoming conclusive

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 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.

As the old adage goes ‘a picture is worth a thousand words’. Often for investigating officers, eye witness testimony and what is seen, is heavily relied on in order to prosecute crimes (Wells and Olsen, 2003). As such eye witness testimony and memory has become one of the most researched areas in Cognitive Psychology. What can be quite disconcerting is that from the research conducted into this

Eyewitness testimony is one of the most powerful forms of evidence in a trial. It may be inaccurate comes about due to an eyewitness's memory being influenced by things that they might hear or see after the crime occurred, and the better way to show eyewitness lineups is someone who doesn’t know anything including the detectives, for example: a double-blind scientific experiment—neither the witness nor the presiding officer should know in advance whether the suspect is in the lineup. Double-blinding is central to the scientific method because it minimizes the risk that experimenters might inadvertently bias the outcome of their research, finding only what they expected to find. But it leaves the question of exactly how police departments should

Courtroom testimony work to protect the child from having to physically appear in the courtroom, as the setting may serve to be unfamiliar and terrifying, as the abuser may be present. A child’s testimony may be taken by a two-way closed circuit television, or may occur pre-trial. Therefore, the child is not forced to be in the presence of the perpetrator, or before a courtroom filled with unfamiliar faces. Confidentiality in child sexual abuse cases is crucial, as families value their privacy and would prefer to begin the healing process away from the public’s eye. Therefore, Code § 3509 demands that all Court documents that include the name of the victim or witness must be stored in a secure area, and are not to be disclosed to any individuals who are not involved in the case. With the identity of the victim kept confidential, the needs of the child are met by a multi-disciplinary child abuse team. Such a team “consists of dedicated professionals representing many facets of the government and private sectors including police officers, prosecutors, medical professionals, caseworkers, and therapists” (U.S Department, 2017). Under Code § 3509, the team works side-by-side to prevent any additional trauma from being inflicted upon the child, and may aid in the healing process further down the road. By having such teams available to the victim and the victim’s family, the legal process becomes a less of a burden for the victim, and becomes oriented around the severe and swift punishment of the offender.

If someone has seen a crime taken place, and they are either the victim, or a witness; then that person would be under pressure by authorities to remember what has taken place in order for a case to be resolved. This article was interesting to me in that I did not know all that took place when doing an investigation when the police are trying to identify a criminal involving a crime that had just been committed. This article reminds me of what we have been reading in the book concerning short term, and working memory and that a person can only remember so much if they do not work at keeping it in their minds.