Eyewitness And Meta-Analysis

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.

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 substantiated the warnings of eyewitness identification researchers by showing that mistaken eyewitness identification was the largest single factor contributing to the conviction of innocent people (Wells & Olson, 2003). In this essay, the use of eyewitness testimony in the criminal justice system will be explored, with a particular focus on the impreciseness of this practice.

Eyewitness misidentification can pose a serious threat in forensic evidence. Eye witness testimony can easily be tampered with due to words or phrases used. Bias is a major issue in identification especially if the police officer uses suggestive tones to portray whom they believe is the suspect. Some witnesses will change their opinion when they hear new information of the suspect. A study has shown that words can play a major impact in the witness' mind and cause them to recall false information. False information can also stem from human memory, age, distance, and how long it took before a witness could recall the information. It has been shown that due to the confidence that a witness may have, it could impact the court systems' reliability on the witness; however, there are several solutions that can be done to prevent misidentification in the court of law. Some examples that can be done are blind administration, lineup composition, instructions, confidence statements, and

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

Execution of innocent prisoners, does not produce an overall net intrinsic value compared to alternative punishments. According to statistical data collected, as of October 2015, a total of 156 people have been exonerated while on death row- since 1973. A total of 1,414 people have been executed since that time, meaning one out of ten people on death row are innocent. (“Exoneration of Innocent Men and Women”) This data brings forth the scenario of innocent victims being killed, by flaws in the criminal justice system. Murder of an innocent individual is not morally justifiable, because it would fail

The lack of proper resources during a trial can make the difference between the innocence and guilt of a person. The death penalty does not always show the innocence or guilt of a person. It shows how much he or she is willing to spend to help the trial go his or her way. The death penalty is an unfair system to those who cannot afford the “evidence” they need to help free them.

"Since 1973, over eighty people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence" (Innocence and the Death Penalty 1). Statistics say that of the three-thousand six hundred people on death row right now, at least one hundred of them are innocent (Capital Punishment 1). When an innocent person is executed, the real killer is still on the streets ready to victimize someone else (Pragmatic Arguments 1). The most important problem is that when an innocent person is executed, they represent another human being who did not deserve to die.

When the eyewitness is an adult, they are seen as more credible than when an eyewitness is a child (Pozzulo & Dempsey, 2009). Further factors may affect the jury like the relationship to the crime as an eyewitness, a victim, or a bystander. For the purpose of this study we will only focus on eyewitnesses.

A study was held to see what percentage of people on death row were wrongfully executed, the results were that 1.6% of the innocent were exonerated, while 4.1% were wrongfully executed such as Larry Griffin’s case. Larry Griffin was put to death in 1995 for the 1981 murder of Quintin Moss, a Missouri drug dealer. Griffin always maintained his innocence, and now, evidence seems to indicate he was telling the truth. The first police officer on the scene now says the eyewitness account was false, even though the officer supported the claims during the trial. Another eyewitness who was wounded during the attack was never contacted during the trial, and he says Griffin wasn’t present at the crime scene that night. Cases like this is a sign of why better

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.

According to a 1987 study published in the Stanford Law Review, at least 23 non-culpable individuals have been executed from 1900 to 1987, which is more than one innocent execution every four years. These miscarriages of justice are often due to evidence that was not discovered or made available until after the execution. Although recent scientific improvements, such as forensic DNA evidence, have enabled investigators to more accurately pinpoint guilt in a suspect, no current amount of scientific or technological advancement can completely guarantee that errors will never be made. In an issue such as the death penalty, where the stakes are so high – human life – any margin of error, no matter how minuscule, is unacceptable.

What would you do if you were suddenly arrested for a crime that you didn’t commit? What if you were taken to the station, interrogated, and booked for murder? Would you stick to your innocence, or possibly take a plea bargain just to get past the constant questioning from authority? Would you write to others to try and prove your innocence? During the course of many years, this has happened to numerous people. Many people have been ripped from their daily lives and thrown into a cell. The individuals are just waiting for the day when someone will prove them innocent. In the past 39 years, 117 people who were serving time on death row have been proved innocent and released from prison (Daily 36). Over time, critics have presented flaws in

According to the Innocence Project, there have been 173 exonerations due to eyewitness misidentification, 116 cases due to improper forensics, 51 cases due to false admissions, and 36 cases of unreliable informants. In addition, 17 people have been exonerated through DNA testing. Opponents note, that these people have spent a combined 187 years on death row for a crime they did not commit (2010). It is their stance that executions should be halted or at the very least, be sure that persons awaiting execution are allowed to prove their innocence.

Human error can always cause problems and make mistakes. We trust our judicial system to handle these cases of the death penalty, but what if they make a mistake? Sentencing an innocent person to death is the worst possible outcome of the death penalty, but it still happens. Innocent people are potentially executed by our government on a regular basis as 4% of death row inmates are innocent (Oliver). This is a substantially high number considering the circumstances. Since the early 1970s, more than 150 people sentenced to death have been exonerated (Berman). This statistic shows that our judicial system makes mistakes that could have been extremely bad. Most people believe, even if they are for the death penalty, that there is some risk of this horrible mistake. How could one live with oneself knowing that they possibly kill innocent people? A Pew Research Center poll recorded that seven out of ten Americans feel there is still some risk an innocent person will be put to death (Berman). If

Because of this, an entire program has been dedicated to death row survivors who were wrongfully sentenced called Witness to Innocence (Evans). Without solid evidence, many cases are based solely on testimonies from eyewitnesses and essentially theories of how someone could be the culprit. Those convicted and sentenced to capital punishment are often done so because of the response of human nature to seek retribution in the form of strident punishment for persons who have committed cruel crimes (“Life”).