Eyewitness Is Inaccurate

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

Theoretically, eyewitnesses can provide very convincing legal testimony, but their memories are easy to various errors and biases. Loftus, as an expert, uses what she has learned to testify in hundreds of criminal cases, she told people that memory is pliable and flexible, narrations of eyewitness are far away from

That is the hugest problem with eyewitness is that a lot of people do see what they want to see, then they wait to expose what they know. Most of the time an eyewitness is scared to reveal what is going on. they are scared for themselves, family, or friends. The other fact is that they just do not want to believe that it is occurring and turn a blind eye. Turning a blind eye is the number one reason that a lot of crimes go unreported. Lifetime movies are the best example of this, from watching their movies viewers are able to see how their mind can play tricks on them. At the beginning of the movie you are thinking how could you not see that it is so obvious, by the end of the movie you are shaken by what you thought was occurring was not the

The emotions and memory of the mind can mess with the results that are taken from the eyewitness accounts. According to Barbara Tversky,

“How accurate are the memories that we know is true, that we believe in?” (Fraser 2012). The video, “Why eyewitnesses get it wrong” by Scott Fraser, a TED talks filmed September 2012. Fraser explains how and why eyewitnesses can get it wrong. He starts his speech describing a drive by shooting that happened in California. Then describing the process of the eyewitnesses and trial. In this trial, all the eyewitnesses stated that Carrillo, the “shooter”, was the shooter. Even though Carrillo had said he was innocent, after 21years the court decided to have a retrial. In this retrial they hired Fraser to also help with the investigation. Fraser then explained how he had gone though the case materials and found that “all the teenagers … could

The bedrock of biology dictates an evolutionarily advantageous yet inconvenient reality: the critical period. It determines the window in an organism’s life in which a skill or behavior can be learned. It marks the peak of development. It heightens sensitivity. It breeds talent. It is the very root of expertise. Even in birds, mating songs must be learned within the finite window. Learning is confined by the rule of the critical period—and humans are no exception. Linguist Eric Lenneberg recognized that human language is typically learned during its respective critical period—infancy through puberty (“Language Development”). Paul Thompson, brain researcher and

Two kinds of evidence have typically been used in these challenges. The first is the identification of older learners who achieve nativelike competence in the second language (Birdsong, 1992; Bongaerts, Planken, & Schils, 1995; Ioup, Boustagui, El Tigi, & Moselle, 1994). The second is behavioral evidence that fails to reveal a qualitative change in learning outcomes at the close of a critical period (Bialystok & Hakuta, 1999; Bialystok & Miller, 1999; Birdsong & Flege, 2000; Birdsong & Molis, 2001; Flege, 1999; Flege, Munro, & MacKay, 1995; Flege et al., 1999). Whether such evidence is considered damaging to the critical-period hypothesis depends on the stringency of the criteria for defining the boundaries of the critical period (Birdsong, 1999; Harley & Wang, 1997; Singleton & Lengyel, 1995). Nonetheless, both weak and strong interpretations of the critical-period hypothesis require the demonstration of a significant change in learning outcome, not merely a monotonic decline with age. Defense of the position that language learning is constrained by a critical period requires specifying the maturational stage at which languagelearning potential changes, and ideally the reason for the change. However, there has been little consensus about what age constitutes the critical point, and

There has been a long debate about whether a critical period for language acquisition truly exists in humans. It may be true that children have an easier time obtaining fluency when it comes to acquiring a new language, but this does not mean that it is impossible for adults to also acquire a new language with the same level of control even in late adulthood(Snow). So can it really be said that there is a critical period through which children have an easier time to learn a language? And if so, is there a limit to how many languages that a child can learn before this critical period is over?

The critical period hypothesis has been the main focus of research on age and L2A for decades. This hypothesis originated with Lenneberg. In his 1967 study, he proposed that for language to develop fully, it must be acquired before the start of puberty. His hypothesis was solely regarding first language (L1) acquisition. Johnson and Newport (1989) were among the first to question if and how this hypothesis applies to second language acquisition. They conducted a test with a group of 46 Chinese and Korean immigrants who had come to the United States at a variety of ages, ranging from 3 to 39, and learned English as a second language. To measure their ultimate attainment in English grammar, the experiment asked each individual to decide

Learning a new language today is the key of several doors tomorrow. It involves an obvious amount of effort for anyone, either a child or an adult, but the younger the person, the easier it is – after all, does anyone remember learning to speak in his or her mother tongue? During childhood the brain is constantly creating new neurological connections, making the process of acquiring a new language effortless, but if we learn a language as a teenager or adult, the brain has to 'scramble' to find storage space somewhere else. So, in simple terms, learning languages as a child the brain absorbs them readily, after that it requires much harder work. This short period of time which occurs from birth until puberty (10 years) is called

Lenneberg formed the Critical Period Hypothesis theory which contends that language is innate but has to be attained before the age of puberty or else the ability to learn language ebbs (as a result of the lateralization of the brain). 1 At present, the Critical Period Hypothesis theory is widely accepted by numerous linguists. Evidence has been presented that there is a limited time when the brain is malleable (in terms of language). Studies such as, linguistically isolated children (a.k.a. feral children) support Lenneberg 's theory of the critical period because they are unable to fully acquire language. 2 Moreover, there is a non-uniform success rate in adults who try to attain a second language yet children can obtain a new language a

The Critical Period Hypothesis for language acquisition was popularised by Eric Lenneberg (1967) upon the foundations laid by neurologist Wilder Penfield and colleague and Lamar Roberts (1959). It is the subject of a linguistic debate over the extent to which language acquisition is biologically linked to age. As defined by Reber and Reber (2001), the critical period is, 'a period of time during which an organism is optimally ready for the acquisition of specific responses’. This essay will consider the evidence, both supporting and contesting the Critical Period Hypothesis as well as how the findings of these studies implicate language learning. It shall also endeavour to engage with alternative suggestions and ultimately argue for the existence of a form of the critical period hypothesis, perhaps better called a sensitive period.

Arguments for and against the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) are found in many studies in second language acquisition. The purpose of this paper is to determine the acceptance of critical period and to find whether or not there is a support for a cut off age (set off of critical period) after which adults can no longer attain native-like proficiency in a second language. Also, studies will be reviewed to determine if adults can attain native-like pronunciation post puberty. Finally, studies from 1960-1999 are sufficient to determine the support for or argument against the CPH on second language acquisition (SLA).

A common belief concerning Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) is that after a certain age, usually after fifteen years of age or simply after puberty, native-like proficiency of adult language learners would be markedly less successful than their younger counterparts. Given the general failure experienced by adults when trying to learn a second language, many researchers have come to a common conclusion that there is a critical period for the domain of language learning. Lots of studies have been done in this regard. Now, the most accepted idea among linguists is that adults are more or less capable of learning the syntax of a second language. In terms of learning pronunciation, however, researchers were confronted with controversial and diverse results making them believe differently. The focus of this paper is hence on the studies done on adults’ learning of language pronunciation. It is aimed here to give a review of some of the related literatures describing the support or challenges toward this hot topic. The findings revealed that while syntax can be easily learned by adults, this is by no means the case for their learning of pronunciation. Because although most of them can pick up native-like pronunciation, there are some of them who fail to achieve it and this is partly due to the fact that their L2 pronunciation is affected by their

The purpose of this paper is to review the literature which examines whether there is a critical period in foreign/second language acquisition and in pronunciation for late learners. The Critical Period Hypothesis refers to the claim that there is an optimal period for language acquisition which ends around puberty (Lenneberg, 1967). Generally, the advanced level of cognitive development enables adults to perform better than children in most areas. However, in the domain of language learning, children seem to have an edge over adults. All children master their first language within a proper environment. On average, children are more successful than adults in learning a foreign/second language even with native-like competence. However, adults often struggle to learn a foreign/second language and seem to fail to acquire the language. Therefore, researchers have raised the question about whether there is an optimal period in language learning.