Testimony: A Victim Analysis

I have never allowed myself to become a victim of circumstance. When I learned that I was going to move a few weeks before the start of my junior year, I decided that I would not just wait out the last two years of my high school career, but instead use the move as an opportunity to grow and become more involved than ever in my school and community. My father’s job as a head of school has led me to live in Seoul, South Korea; Weymouth, Massachusetts; Hernando, Mississippi; and now to Greenville, Mississippi, which is in the middle of one of the poorest areas in the nation. Moving in my junior year of high school has stopped me from being in a leadership position in certain clubs, however the move did not hinder my involvement in my school.

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.

Psychological research shows that eyewitness testimony is not always accurate, therefore it should not be used in the criminal justice system. Discuss.

Psychological research shows that eyewitness testimony is not always accurate; therefore it should not be used in the criminal justice system. Discuss.

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.

Craik and Tulving were one of the first reseachers to discover levels-of-processing (Craik &Tulving, 1975). Other researchers have expanded on Craik and Tulving research into other areas such as deep and shallow processing, recall and recognition, and production of false memory. Also, Craik and Tulving’s discovery of the levels-of-processing have been applied to the justice system as well, more specifically eyewitness testimony. For this article, research was conduct to explore the relationships between levels-of-processing, false memory, recognition, and how the research would related to eyewitness testimony based on gender.

Often times, pro-death penalty advocates use the victims to aid in their defense. Although it is rational to believe that victims would want retribution for the actions done to them or to their loved ones, this is not always the case. At the fourth latest world congress against the death penalty in Geneva, victims and families of victims were interviewed about their stance on the issue. Most were anti death-penalty for a variety of reasons one being that “in their mind, the response to one human rights violation should not be another one (The Guardian).” Although the convention was anti-death penalty many victims still share the same sentiment. The Richards, a family affected by the Boston bombing stated

Eyewitnesses are considered to have prime information due to their having witnessed the crime firsthand. Therefore many individuals conclude that eyewitnesses encode, or record like a camera,that specific event into their memories for later reporting (Douglass et al., 2004) However, contrary to initial thought, the human memory is highly fallible and does not necessarily preserve events as they occur into our long term memory (Oeberst & Blank, 2012). There are numerous factors that may contribute to the development and retrieval of false memories (Oeberst & Blank, 2012). These factors include: interviewing dynamics, comparing one’s recall of event with peers, age of the witness, time lapses between events and questioning, and misleading information (i.e. the misinformation effect) (Bruer & Pozzulo, 2014; Chan & LaPaglia, 2011; Douglass et al., 2013; Frenda, Nichols, & Loftus, 2011; Oeberst & Blank, 2012; Wilford, Chan, & Tuhn, 2014).

Clearly, mistaken or deliberate manipulations even of minor details can impede the accurate reconstruction of an event and possibly incriminate innocent suspects. Importantly, the present findings indicate that a large proportion of eyewitness fail to detect such mistakes.

This paper examines how complex automobile accident and our perception, recollection and verbalization may not be identical of the original event and interfere with the reconstruction of one’s memory which raises question about the integrity of accounts by eyewitness in a courtroom. The paper layouts two experiments with one hundred graduate students answering twenty-two questions and giving a brief description of a film that depicted a multiple automobile accident.

Eyewitness testimony is the evidence given by someone who has actually seen something occur, and can sometimes be very fallible. People will provide an interviewer with information to fit their own story. A lot of the time constructive memory is what is given. Many people do not recall what exactly happened so they fill in the blanks of the story with what they think might have happened.Interview EvaluationIn the first experiment students were split up into five groups and were asked at what speed did the cars come in contact. The other ways the question was asked was how fast were the cars going when they bumped, hit, collided, and smashed (Loftus, 2007). In the end, the students who were asked the question at what speed were the vehicles going when they came in contact replied with a speed much lower than the students asked at what speed were they vehicles going with they smashed into each other.

When preparing for an interview, a great deal of thought and consideration needs to be completed before the interview even begins. The person conducting the interview needs to think about where the interview is going to take place, the time of which it will occur at, and what kind of technology will be used. They need to review the file and consider who is being interviewed, what the person has experienced, and how they may be affected. Interviewing someone is a crucial part of policing, and ultimately helps police solve crimes. When it is done properly, it can be very successful, but if it is not done properly, it could ultimately end an investigation. Therefore, an interview can either be successful or not, and here are some points displaying the success and improvements that can be done in interviews.

1. Explain (in your own words) the steps you should take when approaching a motionless victim?

Cognitive psychology and functionalism play a vital role in the legal system carried out through subjects such as jury behavior, courtroom testimony, and developing rehabilitation and treatment for the convicted. Early psychologists like Hugo Munsterberg, James McKeen Cattell, William Stern, and William Marston conducted studies that contributed to the birth of forensic psychology. Beginning with the dynamic research with eyewitness testimony in 1893, the study of forensic psychology flourished through the years and relied on these early studies to set the foundation for concerning psychology to the legal system. Attitudes, perception, reasoning, and overall psychological behavior in the courtroom generate several complications that arise in

Participants were then asked to answer question about whether the witness “Should have” seen the crime answering either “No”, “Maybe” or “Yes”. This experiment will contribute to the scientific community greatly as it will show the effects of IBB on people.