In this paper I’m going to discuss the psychological issues that are used in prosecutors cases such as eyewitness identification, issues that have led to the wrongful convictions of defendants, and what is done to overturn these wrongful convictions. I will also start by defining eyewitness identification. Eyewitness identification is a person whose identification by sight of another person may be relevant in a criminal proceeding. (GS_15A-284.52.)
Eyewitness identification is a major issue in today’s society. Eyewitness identification has become a very faulty issue because of different estimator variables such as; weapons focus, suggestive identification, and human memory. Most times when crimes are committed suspects tend to use a weapon such as a bat, knife or gun. When weapons are used victims focus their attention more on the weapon than the actual suspect. Due to weapons focus victims never really get a chance to take a good look at the perpetrator face.
The second estimator variable is the human mind can only remember so much. Human memory can be contaminated, lost or destroyed like physical evidence. (Goldstein, A. M. & Weiner, I. B. 2003) Human memory is rarely accurate on things that place especially when dealing with stressful events. When dealing with stressful events the victim usually picks out the filler in the line up or out of a photo array than the actual suspect. Human memory is a key factor in why eyewitness identification is very faulty.
The third
In order to comprehend the contribution of psychology to areas of criminal investigation it is important to evaluate research into two of the following areas of criminal investigation: eye witness testimony and offender profiling as well as assess the implications of the findings in the area of criminal investigation. In addition, this essay, with reference to relevant psychological research, discuss how the characteristics of the defendant may influence jury behaviour as well as analyse two psychological influences on the decision making process of juries. In order to improve the efficiency of detection and successful prosecution of crime it is important to underline that in a previous administration, detection of serious crime was poor and eyewitness testimony appeared very unreliable, partly due to standard interview techniques yielding confusing results. It is therefore this essays primary focus is to provide the chief constable with a report explaining how psychologists might be able to improve this situation with a full evaluation of process and evidence.
Eyewitness identification, for the most part, is considered reliable eyewitness identification by the courts as excellent evidence to proof crimes at trial. Yet, Bennett Barbour’s arrest revealed these inaccuracies as he was wrongly arrested due to an over-reliance on eyewitness identification. Barbour’s physique, specifically his
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
In Canada, the leading cause of wrongful conviction is due to the factor of eyewitness account. It has been proven that individual’s minds are not like tape recorders because everyone cannot precisely and accurately remember the description of what another person or object looks like. The courts looks at eyewitness accounts as a great factor to nab perpetrators because they believe that the witness should know what they are taking about and seen what occurred on the crime scene. On the other hand, eyewitness accounts lead to a 70 percent chance of wrongful conviction, where witnesses would substantially change their description of a perpetrator.
Verbal overshadowing has been coined as the undependable eyewitness testimonials of explicit memories resultant of the cognitive barriers to a person’s inability to accurately verbalize or depict the events that have transpired. To illustrate the inaccuracies caused by verbal overshadowing, if it even exists, we conducted a study to demonstrate the differences in a person’s cognitive ability to accurately identify a perpetrator that has committed a crime in a police lineup (Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 1990). Participants were provided a brief video clip of a perpetrator committing a crime, and data retrieval were manipulated between two conditions: a one-week delay in description retrieval, and half hour delay in description retrieval of the perpetrator’s identity. Although immediate retrieval is coined as the best technique to providing an accurate description, many argue the immediate retrieval may contribute to the effects of verbal overshadowing. In essence, all eyewitness remembrance is predominately terrible, no matter the individual providing the description (also see, Brown C., Lloyd-Jones, T. J., & Robinson, M.,
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.
For this research paper, I am mostly writing on mistaken eyewitness identification in a false witness testimony. My audience for this particular topic will of course be my peers. The importance of this topic is to understand why eyewitness identify the wrong people and how to prevent wrongful convictions.
to interview the witnesses for several days or even weeks after the incident (particularly if
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
In the past decade, eyewitness testimonies have cast a shadow on what is wrong with the justice system in today’s society. Before we had the advanced technology, we have today, eyewitness testimonies were solid cold-hard facts when it came to proving the defendant was guilty. However, time has changed and eyewitness testimonies have proven to be the leading causes of wrongful convictions due to misidentification. The Thompson and Cotton case is a perfect example of how eyewitness testimonies can put an innocent man behind bars.
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.
Eyewitness misidentification are the leading errors to a wrongful conviction. Although there is such a high risk for errors, it is still the most powerful testimony or piece of evidence during a trial. With the value an eyewitness is given, there are many risks a prosecutor takes when using them as their most important piece of evidence. Throughout the process, starting from the crime and going until the conviction, eyewitnesses are placed under stress and anxiety. There is also the flaw that the human brain tends to overlook specific details. According to the California Innocence Project, “details like a stranger’s height, weight, age, and hair are often overlooked”. (“Eyewitness Identification Problems and Procedures. . .”). And therefore leads to witnesses filling in the missing pieces based off of their inference and what they feel like the suspect is supposed to look like. Through this process the brain is trying to come up with a clear picture of the event, and does so by imaging details. Even if a witness does observe either the weapon or the offender with detail, the other is often overlooked and leads to little information about the event as a
Whenever a crime takes place, eyewitnesses who are present on the scene can help the police or authorities when the crime is being investigated. However, eyewitness memory can be affected by a series of factors.
Nevertheless, one may object that the records of identification decisions are unlikely to be incorrect or that witnesses usually sign their names next to the photo of the identified suspect. Considering how often professionals make procedural errors (e.g., erroneous matches of bullets, foot- and fingerprints; Saks & Koehler, 2005) and the impact of biases due to contextual influences in the forensic science (Kassin, Dror, & Kukucka, 2013), we posit that such a scenario is not all that unrealistic. In exacerbation to this issue, the report on prosecutorial misconduct cases compiled by the Northern California Innocence Project sides with the idea of altered identification decisions and tempered with testimony in real investigations (NCIP; Ridolfi & Possley, 2010). The report reveals 4,000 cases of alleged misconduct, in 707 of which the courts explicitly established that the prosecutors deliberately mishandled, mistreated or destroyed evidence. Thus, errors in the recording of
The accuracy of eyewitness report relies on the quality of three different perceptual processes: encoding (processing information), storage (retaining information for short-term use of long-term recall), and retrieval (locating the stored information). The quality of each of these processes depends on how many interfering factors are present.