Evaluation of Research Into Eyewitness Testimony
Eyewitness testimony investigates the accuracy of memory following a crime or an incident worth interrogating and the types of errors made in such situations. Sometimes eyewitness testimony can be unreliable, which can lead to horrific consequences in a court of law for example, hence many Psychologists have studied and theorized why this happens.
One leading researcher on Eyewitness testimony is Elizabeth Loftus and her colleagues, in 1975, participants were shown an event by film of a car crash, the participants were split into 2 groups and ask questions on what they had just seen, Group 1 were asked questions that were consistent with the
…show more content…
One point which lowers the credibility of Loftus's studies is that they were are artificially created, none of them were real, also the importance of the events would have not been the same, as the participants knew that they were not effecting someone life (by sending them to jail etc). The participants were not actually there, they don't get to feel the emotion or the atmosphere were can effect recall. However the study is supported by another Loftus and Loftus (1980) found that recall was no more accurate when the participants were offered money, however some people are more or less motivated by money.
Loftus also theorized that with the introduction of the misleading information the original information is deleted and replaced by the new false memory. However this has been questioned by other studies such as Berkian and Bowers (1983), performed a very similar experiment except that when it came the reconstructive phase asked the questions in chronological order, (where Loftus was completely random), they found that the mislead group recall almost the same correct amount of info as the control group. This showed that the original memory had not actually been lost. But unfortunately no other studies have been successful in achieving the same result,
Eyewitness testimonies are based on a person’s ability to recall what took place accurately. Memory research has proven that a person’s memory is not a recording but it is reconstructive. Loftus and Palmer’s study set out to prove that the memory could be reconstructed through the use of language.
In the late 19th-century research on eyewitness, testimony memory began, psychologists had been studying memory, and the findings became useful for forensic psychology and law. A central issue with studying eyewitness memory and testimony is the ecological validity of lab studies. There are relatively few ‘real world’ eyewitness memory studies, and that causes problems for determining the generalizability of findings in eyewitness memory. Coined by Wells (1978) estimator variables are present at the time of a crime and cannot be changed (i.e. witness characteristics and the type of offence) and system variables are factors that can be manipulated to affect eyewitness accuracy (i.e. line-up procedures and interview types). The system variables
During an eyewitness Testimony, a person gives a statement on an event they have witnessed and have to identify the perpetrator or details from the crime scene. (McLeod, 2009) When a
Based on those experiments, Loftus affirms the inaccuracy of our memory, events may be reconstructed with new information added. Applying those results into criminal investigations based on eyewitness, Loftus pointed out that witness is questioned often more than once. Also, studies have demonstrated that line-up might be a inefficient way of point a suspect since many faces are introduced to the witness. In addition to eyewitness testimony, Loftus is leading also in repressed childhood memory. Most of her experiments demonstrated that repressed childhood memories do not exist. In fact, the most traumatic memories that we experience are the ones that we tend to not forget
Eyewitness testimony has been used for many centuries and continues to be a part of our criminal justice system. Although, there has been many controversy debates on whether to allow the continuation of these testimonies in court, and allow it to be used as evidence. Eyewitness testimony can either be harmful or useful for an individual. We must fully analysis and see what certain factors (psychological, and age wise) come into the equation before coming up with final conclusions.
A defendant’s guilt is often determined in a single moment of fleeting emotion. A pointed finger, accompanied by the solidifying eyewitness statement “He’s the one!” is enough for a jury to make its final decision in a court case. Although it is understandable, when faced opposite of the individual creating the accusation, to place one’s belief in the accusation made, the credibility of the eyewitness’s account of events are rarely taken into consideration. Psychologists have taken part in research that recognizes the unreliable nature of eyewitness statements used to determine guilt because of the instability of long term memory acquisition and because of this, eyewitness accounts of situations should not be used before a jury in court.
Elizabeth Loftus explains how eyewitnesses are not always reliable because the human mind can distort memories and make you think you remember one thing when that never happened at all. To start, sometimes these eyewitnesses are right and can really help a case, but when they are not that’s where the issue is especially when they’re dealing with a death sentence case. Stated by Loftus “One factor that can affect a trial is a testimony from an actual witness” what I believe is being said here is though eyewitnesses are not always reliable they can a big role in a trial. The main point that Loftus argues is “are we aware of our minds distortions” and the answer is no most of the time, our mind alters our memories through mind distortion making it difficult to rely on an eyewitness. One way to solve this issue would to have a psychologist or a “expert testimony” speak to the jury on how our memories can become distorted. Dr. Loftus’ arguments have proven that eyewitness testimonies are not always reliable but there are ways around the issues that we have with
In their study, Mori and Mori (2008) investigated the social influences on the eyewitness testimony in the form of two experiments. Humans can make mistakes in terms of making judgements about certain situations. These types of judgements can be learned behavior. The purpose of this study is to identify how difference of opinions can be created about the same situation. The main hypothesis of this experiment is that, two witnesses observing the same crime will have different perspectives (Mori & Mori, 2008). Many similar experiments have been conducted by several researchers to investigate this factor. In a study conducted by Kanematsu et al. (1996/2003), thirty pairs of undergraduate students observed a scenario depicting a crime.
Her possibly most infamous study was her Lost in the Mall study where she attempted to implant a false memory in a young child. Loftus told participants 4 stories, including a false one of the child being lost in a mall at a young age for an extended period of time, of their own childhood that supposedly were all from members of the family. One of the 4 stories was false and the participant was asked to identify the false memory. 25% of participants remembered no such event happened. Many other participants were able to provide evidence for the false events. It was concluded that if false memories can be laid down this way, witnesses who are allowed the chance to talk to each other after an event might alter the recall of other witnesses. Again indicating that eyewitness testimony is not
More people are found innocent of crimes they did not commit and are convicted of based on faulty eyewitness testimony. Several studies have shown that eyewitness testimony is the least liable thing for evidence yet, it is the most frequently used in convicting innocent people. A study was conducted in a park where somebody stole a purse and ran, several people in the park at the time of the study and when it was time to collect eyewitness statements no two statements were alike even though they all saw the same thing happen.
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.
An eyewitness memory is an individual's sporadic memory for a crime or other dramatic event that he or she has witnessed. The study of eyewitness memory is a study that reveals that the mind is swayed through propositions. That means that the memory being recalled could be unreliable due to misleading implications of a question. Loftus states, "Current theories regarding memory are derived largely from studies including lists regarding words or sentences, many memories in occurring everyday living involve complex, generally visual, and often action-packed events.” According to Loftus, is vital to study eyewitness memory because it enables us to ration and estimate the fact behind eyewitness testimonies.
For centuries, even before the rise of modern law and judicial practices, eyewitness testimony has been a crucial part in reaching verdicts in court. The opinions and observations of bystanders or active participants in a crime scene are often considered to be very valuable in determining the guilt or innocence of accused individuals. However, there has been a large amount of scrutiny in the law world concerning both misappropriated and untrue testimonies administered in courts of law. Although the testimony of individuals can simply be misinterpreted or forgotten due to a variety of reasons, eyewitnesses also provide information that can purposefully incriminate or exonerate a defendant. Ultimately, despite its benefit in putting deserving persons behind bars, the use of eyewitness testimony can absolutely be a dangerous monster for the innocently accused in different scenarios.
Eyewitness testimony is the evidence given by someone who has actually seen something occur, and can sometimes be very fallible. People will provide an interviewer with information to fit their own story. A lot of the time constructive memory is what is given. Many people do not recall what exactly happened so they fill in the blanks of the story with what they think might have happened.Interview EvaluationIn the first experiment students were split up into five groups and were asked at what speed did the cars come in contact. The other ways the question was asked was how fast were the cars going when they bumped, hit, collided, and smashed (Loftus, 2007). In the end, the students who were asked the question at what speed were the vehicles going when they came in contact replied with a speed much lower than the students asked at what speed were they vehicles going with they smashed into each other.
If it were replicated on a larger scale, it could deliver some important data. It would help courts determine whether an eyewitness account is trustworthy depending on the time since the event. Plus, findings like the ones this study was designed to produce could overall reduce the number of wrongly convicted people who fell victim to unsound evidence. Eyewitness accounts are a crucial part of the criminal justice system, and although this experiment can’t give large-scale results, it’s important that other studies like this take place in the