Why Is Eyewitness Testimony Reliable

Eyewitness testimony is generally seen as reliable, but as of lately research has found psychological factors that affect one’s testimony. They are anxiety/stress, reconstructive memory, and leading questions. A study was conducted on the impact of anxiety and life stress upon eyewitness testimony; subjects completed self-reports, an eyewitness task, and a self-preoccupation scale to determine the relationship. Results showed that anxiety and preoccupation limits the eyewitness’s ability to perform; a highly anxious individual may miss important cues that are task-relevant (Seigel & Loftus 1978). Other cognitive processes like perception, imagination, and semantic memory influence reconstructive memory the act of remembering. Bartlett’s theory of reconstructive memory is understood that an eyewitness testimony is influenced by what is learned or cultural norms. We store information in a way that makes the most sense to us, organizing information into schemas, mental units of knowledge that correspond to people, objects, or situations that are close to us (Wagoner 2013). When in a police interrogation, leading questions can provide misinformation that causes the witness to question everything they saw and whether or not they are saying the right thing. A study was conducted on a number of subjects that saw a complex and fast moving event. They immediately after were asked questions that suggested information that was necessarily correct due to the wording of the question (Loftus

During an eyewitness Testimony, a person gives a statement on an event they have witnessed and have to identify the perpetrator or details from the crime scene. (McLeod, 2009) When a

Eyewitness testimony often serves as direct evidence and has strong influences on juries during trial. While these testimonies are invaluable there has been a lot DNA exoneration that shows the flaws in eyewitness identification, leading to false convictions. A pre-trial identification is important in establishing eyewitness testimony. There are multiple types of identification used to make a positive ID, though lineups and showing photos are used the most. Unfortunately, misidentifications will continue to happen and juries will continue to give them too much weight because of the general public’s belief in their accuracy.

Of course, eyewitness testimonies are not always unreliable and often can be crucial in correctly identifying the perpetrator of the crime, thus these premises and conclusion are not to be taken at face value, but as a way to conceptualize bad bias from eyewitness testimony. Mistaken eyewitness testimony causes a large amount of bad bias by shifting focus onto one specific defendant. With all the focus on one defendant, many cognitive biases come into play, such as confirmation bias and belief perseverance. If a witness passionately claims that someone committed the crime, investigators are likely to mold evidence to fit the case against that defendant, instead of identifying an alternative suspect who

In older times eye witnessing was the only way to prove that a criminal was guilty and put to jail. Now a day catching criminals is more fast and reliable with the technology we have in our hands. Technology doesn’t only help us capturing or prove the right person at fault, it also helps us protect people. When it comes to eyewitnesses in court only reliable persons are brought on by the lawyers, same with victims.

Eyewitnesses are vital in the court of law, first amid law enforcement examinations, subsequently a wellsprings of confirmation when legal proceedings are conveyed to trial. When assessing the reported accounts of eyewitnesses, the relative importance of concern should decide whether it is accurate or inaccurate. Not in the lab, nonetheless, it’s by and large unrealistic to check the substance of witness reports equitably. All things considered, the factor of confidence communicated by an eyewitness turns into a possibly helpful indicator to separate amongst exact and mistaken recollections. Therefore, in general there is an instinctive conviction when confidence is communicated around recollected memories may in fact be utilized to construe it as accurate or inaccurate, in between the overall population and by experts of the criminal justice system. The confidence communicated by an observer in his or her affirmation gives off an impression of being a solid determinant of the apparent believability of the eyewitness.

Further statistical evidence to support the unreliability of eyewitness testimony is provided by a study conducted by Loftus and Palmer (1974) on the significance of leading questions in altering memory. This study continues to highlight the importance of post-event memory distortion by way of interrogation (police interview, recollecting the event to friends/family/colleagues), independently seeking information about the case, and/or generally being involved in the ongoing investigation.

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.

The most important foundation for eyewitness testimony is a person's memory - after all, whatever testimony is being reported is coming from what a person remembers. To evaluate the reliability of memory, it is once again instructive to look to the criminal justice system. Police and prosecutors go to great lengths to keep a person's testimony "pure" by not allowing it to be tainted by outside information or the reports of others.

Like many who are facing criminal charges in Wisconsin, an eyewitness statement may have led to your arrest. This type of testimony has long been considered one of the most reliable sources of evidence, however, research has shown that this is not necessarily true. In fact, misidentifications by eyewitnesses contributed to more than 70 percent of the wrongful convictions that were later overturned through eyewitness testimony, according to the Innocence Project. At the Rose & Rose law firm, people often ask us about the impact of eyewitness testimony on criminal trials. In this post, we will discuss the factors that may affect the accuracy of eyewitness identifications.

Eyewitness testimony is defined as, “an area of research that investigates the accuracy of memory following an accident, crime, or other significant event, and the types of errors that are commonly made in such situations.” Much emphasis is placed on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony as often-inaccurate eyewitness testimony can have serious consequences leading to wrong convictions. Eyewitness testimony is a powerful tool within any field, particularly that of justice, as it is a readily accepted form of evidence that allows for convictions. However, Tests conducted by Loftus have shown an enormous swing from a non-guilty verdict, to guilty within the same case, simply through the introduction

Although eyewitness testimony is not always accurate, the criminal justice system can evaluate the accuracy through some factors and make it a more useful tool. Three main factors will be discussed in this essay, which are confidence of eyewitness,

Scholars have revealed that wrongful convictions are more often based on inaccurate eyewitness identifications that on other types of evidence (Vandenberg, 2014). Researchers also estimated that between 50% and 90% of wrongfully convicted individuals who were later exonerated by DNA evidence were initially found guilty and sentenced on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Vandenberg, 2014). If eyewitness testimony can be unreliable, why then keep using it for convictions? Steps can be taken to increase the accuracy of eyewitness recollections. For example, there is a guide called Eyewitness Evidence that was developed by psychology researchers, law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. The guide lays out standardized protocols for retrieving eyewitness accounts (Vandenberg, 2014). These guidelines help ensure the investigator that the testimony they obtain will be as accurate and as reliable as possible (Vandenberg, 2014).

In my study I am looking at people’s perceptions of crimes and whether or not having an eye witness to a crime increases the likelihood of a judge, jury (or in this case faculty, staff and students at Sterling College). I got my idea for my study from a research project that I had to do over Elizabeth Loftus and how people’s memory can be faulty. I found a study/survey that states that mistaken eyewitness testimony is responsible for 75% of every 301 cases of wrongful imprisonment. In many of these cases the judge and/or juries were convinced by testimony from a witness who implicated the defendant, but which was, in fact, inaccurate (Houston.)

Scholars and practitioners alike share a widespread belief that the single greatest cause of wrongful conviction is because of an eyewitness testimony. April 23, 2007, marked the 200th criminal conviction exonerated by DNA evidence in the United States of America. According to www.innocenceproject.org, over 75% of the 200 criminal cases revealed to be wrongful convictions involved a faulty eyewitness testimony. Collectively, these 200 people spent a total of 2,475 years in prison. With factors such as witness memory, dependability, deception, and the outside influences one may encounter, psychologists and practitioners have begun to dispute whether or not an eyewitness is credible and therefore should be used in a legal court