Eyewitness Misidentification

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.

According to the Innocence Project, the misidentification of eyewitness is the most common causes of wrongful conviction in which approximately 75% of the cases has been overturned because of this case. There are several causes of eyewitness misidentification, which includes the types of lineup, post-identification feedback effect, and does the instructions given. The lineup is a process which the suspect is identified by the witness as the perpetrator. The main reason that the

The impact of eyewitness testimony upon the members of a jury has been the subject of various research projects and has guided the policies formed by the federal government regarding its competent use in criminal matters (Wells, Malpass, Lindsay, Fisher, Turtle, & Fulero, 2000). Therefore, eyewitness studies are important to understand how

Although Eyewitness and Scientific Identifications are important tools for the conviction of criminals, eyewitness testimony has proven to be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury but recent years of strong statistical research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. And can lead to atrocious acts such as wrongfully stripping an individual of his God given freedom for the majority of his or her life. Two prime examples of the detrimental impact that identifications have on individuals life are the cases of Ronald Cotton and Andre Hatchett who’s combined wrongful imprisonment reaches nearly half a century. According to the innocent project Eyewitness misidentification is the greatest contributing factor in wrongful convictions proven by DNA testing, playing a role in more than 70% of convictions overturned through DNA testing nationwide.

Witness identifications are not 100% fail-safe. Research by Borchard (1932) supports sixty-five eyewitness errors in his book, Convicting the Innocent: Sixty-Five Actual Errors of Criminal Justice. Today, based on suggestive implications during lineups, the U.S. Supreme Court determined in the case of the United States v. Wade (1967) that criminal procedures also have a duty to protect a suspect’s

The memory of an eyewitness has always been an endless dispute throughout the narration of its existence. The word of an individual holds the most substance; it’s the only real thing of value that person hold, having a witness of a crime is a criminal’s vilest nightmare. There is a phrase that may have been heard in movies and reality, ‘eyewitness do not live too long.’ This phrase has range amongst people revealing the reputation of eye witnessing for the majority and jury. All evidence used to convict a person has to go through a vigilant examination process especially the testimony of an eyewitness. So much emphasis is put on a truthful and accurate testimony because there has been a false testimony, which cause consequences and complications. Criminal justice systems should demand their district to notice there is an occurrence of bad witness memory, because the brain will juggle and play games with the hauler. Predominantly, the mix up happens because of the perception particularities the individuals mind has mad up and the original information. Memory is simply the development of perception, how the brain process what is seen and reproduces it later. Since there is a chance that the reproduction of once memory will be wrong that makes it essential to the individual does not damage the facts. This accentuates the stress on the knowledge of the eyewitness well-being

Being wrongly convicted is a problem in the United States and its causes are two-fold. First, the criminal justice system in America has been flawed to believe eyewitness testimonies as a primary source of incarceration. Although research has shown that eyewitness identification is often unreliable, it is also some of the most convincing evidence that is presented to a judge or a jury. Christian A. Meissner from the University of Texas finds that this makes up 75 percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S., making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions. And even more so, at least 40 percent of these eyewitness identifications involved a cross racial identification. Meissner finds that people are less able to recognize faces of a different race than their own. 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. In eyewitness identifications, witness memory is impacted by a variety of factors that occur from the time of the crime onwards, and their memories can be easily contaminated.

Lineup identifications can yield biases through the lineup administrator’s insight and biased instructions which influences an eyewitness’ decision. An administrator’s knowledge refers to their awareness of the suspect's identity during the line-up identification process (Quas, 2017). The advance knowledge can potentially influence the eyewitness to choose a suspect from the lineup even if they are absent. Lindsay et al. (1997) reveal that witnesses tend to identify a lineup member that closely resembles the suspect from their memory. If the eyewitness is aware of the administrator’s advanced knowledge, they can be pressured to identify a suspect. For example, the eyewitness may be inclined to choose a member from the lineup because they

Eyewitness identification commonly involves selecting possible suspects from a police lineup or a police sketch. Eyewitnesses are encouraged to compose a statement, after selecting a subject. At the trial, months or even years later, witnesses share what happened in court. Eyewitnesses with psychological disorders, such as substance dependence or antisocial personality disorder, are at a higher risk for criminal involvement and false identifications. Although a few eyewitness reports are correct, jurors should not welcome them without further evidence. Jurors frequently grant extra weight to the eyewitness account who report with confidence, however studies show that confident eyewitnesses are at times only slightly more accurate than those

Although it is difficult to distinguish between a correct and mistaken identification, the risk of a wrongful conviction appears fallible. With the aid of forensic science, improvements in training procedures and education on law are proven to decrease the chances for misidentification. Along with the reliance on eyewitness evidence, attorneys should consider all possible factors of reducing wrongful convictions, even if it requires the opinions

Eyewitness identifications are among the most persuasive, and sometimes only, juncture in the apprehension of criminals. This typically involves a simultaneous line-up(SIM) where the suspect(target) is placed among known innocents(foils) who resemble the witness’s description of the perpetrator (Wells & Olson, 2003). The selection or lack of selection from the witness is given significant legal weighting. However, 75% of convictions involved exculpation through DNA testing where eyewitness misidentification was at fault. Furthermore, in 38% of these cases, multiple witnesses have misidentified the same innocent person(Project, 2009), which brings to question the accuracy of the procedure.

The Eyewitness testimony has been used for a long time as evidence in a crime scene. Many psychologists tried to answer the question if the eyewitness testimony is correct and true all the time or not. This research study done by STARR (2012) addresses that eyewitness memory can be changed depends on the satiation and what kind of question that we ask the eyewitness during the police investigations or in the court room. While STARR’s article raises timely and important issue, he included a good scientific research explaining how false eyewitness could be.

Since scientific gatherings state the facts, many investigators swear by it. “Galton's system was soon taken up by the British authorities and fingerprints remain a key part of criminal investigations today”(McCrery). This proves that forensic science is the go to in untangling a crime. In addition, DNA testing has been one of the biggest tools that help investigators solve a case. Not only that, forensic science is more precise than eyewitness. “Even the most well-intentioned witnesses can identify the wrong person or fail to identify the perpetrator of a crime. According to the American Judicature Society, misidentification by eyewitnesses was the leading cause of wrongful conviction in more than 75 percent of the first 183 DNA exonerations in the United States”(Schuster). This validates the point that eyewitness isn’t predictable. Also we can infer that scientific analysis is more reliable than eyewitness attestation from

Unfortunately, the mistaken eyewitness identification is responsible for 52% of entire wrongful convictions in criminal justice system (Wells &Seelau, 1995, pg. 765). To help my audience better understand the

It is clear that in order to bolster the credibility of eyewitness identification, reforms are essential in order to preserve the accuracy of these witness’ memories. Some reforms have already been proposed like the cognitive interview (CI) (Frenda et al., 2011). However, as Clark (2012) asserts, suggesting reforms to the eyewitness institution in the court of law requires solid evidence in order to scientifically support provide these recommendations. Our search to find eradication for false memories may never