False Presuppositions

Research shows that 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. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully, or it can be contaminated. A case I would like to mention is the Calvin Willis Case. One night in 1982, three young girls were sleeping alone in a Shreveport, Louisiana home when a man in cowboy boots came into the house and raped the oldest girl, who was Ten years old. When police started to investigate the rape, the three girls all remembered the attack differently. One police report said the Ten year old victim didn’t see her attacker’s face. Another report which wasn’t introduced at trial said she identified Calvin Willis, who lived in the neighbourhood. The girl’s mother testified at trial that neighbours had mentioned Willis’s name when discussing who might have committed the crime. The victim testified that she was shown photos and told to pick the man without a full beard. She testified that she didn’t pick anyone, police said she picked Willis. Willis was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. In 2003, DNA testing proved Willis’ innocence and he was released. He had served nearly Twenty Two years in prison for a crime he didn’t

1) The problem of a witness recall of memory based on psychiatric intervention- the evidence of which is unreliable

Through four groundbreaking experiments, Loftus, was able to demonstrate the power that questions containing presuppositions had in the reconstruction of an eyewitness’s memory. In each study, a group of participants watched a film and were given a questionnaire afterwards. Each questionnaire contained a critical question where half of the participants received a false presupposition with, while the other half of the group received a question worded in accordance with the reality of the film. The independent variable for the experiments was the wording of the questions.

Factors such as misinformation and eyewitness talk can easily affect the memory of eyewitnesses and therefore affect their testimony_. Evidence which is usually provided during eyewitness memory reports helps to determine the guilt or innocence of a perpetrator in a criminal proceeding_. With the help of many basic psychological and neuroscience studies, it has been indicated that because memory is a reconstructive process it is likely to be influenced and vulnerable to change and misinformation_. Due to memory being vulnerable, any minor memory misrepresentation can have severe consequences when used in the courtroom_. Memory errors when regarding the identification of a perpetrator of a specific crime has been focused on during research

Throughout the history of the United States’ judicial system, eyewitness testimonies — an account from a witness of a crime or an accident that involves the witness recounting their firsthand experience of the incident to a court — have been used as conclusive evidence to prove a defendant guilty. It is thought that although memory can be unclear at times, it is assumed memories of stressful or otherwise threatening events are well encoded into the brain, largely indelible, and therefore can be accurately recalled. This idea is based off of the psychological concept of flashbulb memories which are “sudden onsets of emotionally significant events or memories” (“Psychology Students”). However, recent psychological and neuroscientific research

“Wrongfully convicted at age 25, Calvin Johnson received a life sentence for the rape of a Georgia woman after four different women identified him. Exonerated in 1999, he walked out of prison a 41-year old man. The true rapist has never been found, (The Justice Project).” Eyewitness testimony is highly relied on by judges, but it can not always be trusted. Approximately 48% of wrong convictions are because of mistaken identity by eyewitnesses (The Psychology of Eyewitness Testimony). After we discovered this information, we became curious as to whether in a testimony, the eyewitness’ memory is more reliable after a short period of time or after a longer period of time? According to previous experiments, eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Likely, we want to know if a testimony that is given two to three hours after a crime has taken place is more reliable than a testimony given after a longer period of time.

Elizabeth Loftus is a cognitive psychologist. I chose her because I love criminal justice and psychology. Her studies have to do with both, so she was the perfect choice. She is known for studying memory. She plays a huge role in psychology and the legal system. She conducts studies about how memory affects eyewitness testimonies. She has written more than 400 publications (McNally, 2007). She is different than other psychologists studying memory because she investigates memory for naturalistic events (McNally, 2007). She does not study memory by using a list of words or studying nonsense syllables like Ebbinghaus did. Elizabeth Loftus has published plenty of articles talking about how alibis being inconsistent does not equate to them being liars. Inconsistency does not equal accuracy. She has also written articles about how confidence does not equate to honesty.

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

In the excerpt, Loftus describes experiments are focused on “lists of words or sentences” but do not encompass everyday memories. Unlike the information asked to recall in the current experiments of Loftus’s time, everyday memories are much more complex because of the speed at which they happen and their large visual content. And though rarely sought out, those memories are needed in certain serious situations, such as in court. According to Loftus, this is why the study of eyewitness is so important. The accounts will determine the fate of the accused and other parties. So then, due to its serious nature, eyewitness memory is a, “concern to the law,” when concerning its, “completeness, accuracy, and malleability.” In other words, the more

False memory can be defined as a person believing they remember something that did not actually happen (Loftus, 1997). It is a common misconception that human memories are accurate and reliable (Poston, 2014), though many studies have revealed the reconstructive nature of memory and its vulnerability to distortion (e.g., Frenda, Nichols, & Loftus, 2011; Nash & Wade, 2008). This misconception forms an integral part of the modern justice system. Judges, attournies and juries are all prone to believe testimony from a confident eyewitness (Van Wallendael et al., 2007) and legal confessions are considered among the most compelling forms of evidence (e.g., Cutler, 2012; Kassin, Bogart, & Kerner, 2012). But what happens when these legal statements are based on false memories?

In sum, we can conclude that eyewitness memory still hold important place in investigation and prosecution process yet it is flawed. Based on research that I reviewed in this paper, there are several aspects that important to enhance eyewitness memory such as the repetition and precision-accuracy trade off. In contrast there are some factors that can threatens quality of memory such as such as avoiding co-witness situation, less focus on the confidence level to measure accuracy and delayed effect. These factors need to be prioritize to create a better environment to recall accurate information.

The study was conducted to show how altering certain words can influence to the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. The study consisted of two experiments. The first was done on 45 participants who were split into groups of varying sizes and they were shown seven films. In the first study, the independent variable was the verb used in the critical question. These were either, 'hit ', 'bumped ', 'smashed ', 'contacted ' and 'collided '. And the dependent variable was the speed estimation the participant gave. Loftus and Palmer found that the verb 'smashed ' lead to a higher estimated speed when compared to 'contacted '. Their findings were significant at p < 00.5 level. The second experiment was conducted to help the

“When a witness perceives a complex event, a number of factors, such as the exposure time, or the salience of the event, or the witness’s prior expectations, will affect the accuracy of what is perceived and stored in memory” (Loftus, 1996). To Begin with, Loftus has explained how the duration between when the witness has to talk to the officials and the event can be such a crucial period. Humans usually forget rapidly after an event and time will make one forget more gradually. Moreover, one’s memory isn’t functioned in a way in which a video of events will stay in mind. A proof was made through Loftus’ experiment in 1975 where he showed the witnesses a film of a multiple-car accident then added in the questionnaire having a stop sign where they all agreed that there was one. Yet, statistics have shown that not mentioning the object would cause only 35% to claim there was one considering the accident lasted 4

The also wanted to find out if children are aware of the linguistic expectations they are presented with question. If right, Dale, Loftus, and Rathbun would show that child testimonies could be inaccurate and unreliable. Previous studies discussed by Dale, Loftus, and Rathbun (1978) revealed that adults and children can be influenced by the way a question is formed. Using definite articles and indefinite articles researchers demonstrated that the participants would inaccurately recall an

The participants are asked an argument-focused question, a predicate focused question, and a sentence-focused question while watching a clip. The equivalent video clips included both questions responding to intransitive and transitive events. There were six experimental conditions. Each child received three trials on every one condition. The video clips showed nine transitive and nine intransitive events. The study took place in the children 's preschool classroom. The experimenter asked the child if they wanted to watch video. The child and the experimenter watched the video. After the video ended, the child and the researcher played with toys. Then the experimenter asked the child if they wanted to watch the video clips for a second time, but this time they told the child they were going to ask questions about the clips. Each time a new clip commenced the experimenter asked the child a question. If the child did not respond to the question, the experimenter repeated the question until the child gave a response. The experimenter responded to the child by either saying “wow, that sounds fun”, “I wish I could see that too”, or “what a great film”. This technique repeats for the rest of the participants. Finally, the children 's answers are