1. Overview of the Scientific Method
Modern philosophy has argued that the only absolute truths are found in science and mathematics because in both disciplines, incontrovertible proof exists. In science, the means of establishing this incontrovertible truth is known as the scientific method. By definition, the scientific method is a process that has been developed since the 17 th century and uses some form of experimentation to confirm a hypothesis (Lederman et al. , 2014). The scientific method begins with an idea about some form of observable phenomenon. An explanation for the said idea is then developed in the form of a hypothesis. Once the hypothesis has been developed, a means of either confirming or disproving the hypothesis is then developed mainly in the form of an experiment (Nola & Sankey, 2014). Proving methods that may not technically be considered as an experiment can also be used but are not common. At the end of the scientific method process, the initial hypothesis will be proven with or without amendment or disproved in totality. Most of the absolute facts known about the world today have been established through the scientific method with experiments dominating the process.
2. Selected Problem and Testable Hypothesis
Selected Problem
The selected problem for the instant essay in the field of criminal justice is the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Many cases have been decided by eyewitness testimony more so based on the identification . The scientific method will be utilized herein to test the reliability of eyewitness testimony more so when a witness indicates that they saw someone under less than ideal circumstances.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Hypothesis
It is only under ideal circumstances that an accurate identification can be made yet no crime is ever done under ideal circumstances thus eyewitness evidence is at best unreliable but mostly fabricated.
The Solution
Any rational person will agree that most active crimes are not undertaken under ideal circumstances. Every criminal commits a crime hoping to get away with it and getting seen by another person means that something inordinate or unforeseen happened (Bohannon, 2017). In most cases, the alleged criminal will be seen running away from the crime scene, getting into a car or by someone who is quite a distance away. The scientific method of testing a hypothesis to establish if it is true can be used herein to confirm that at a distance, most things are blurred, and a human face would be hard to recognize (Bohannon, 2017). Therefore, any witness who indicates that they have recognized anyone that they saw in less than ideal circumstances are either genuine but wrong at best or utterly dishonest. To test this hypothesis , it would be important to let several people observe individuals committing staged crimes. These individuals will then be asked to pick the people who committed the crimes out of a parade. The parade can be made to mimic the standards set for witness identification parade where people with similarities have been placed together. Care will be taken to ensure that the eyewitness does not know any of the people being used in the parade, including the individual working as a criminal.
Main Actions and Expected Outcomes
Scenario One
The eyewitness will walk fifty feet from an ATM booth on an ordinary light. As usual, the booth will be lit, and there will be some form of light on the street including the normal neon lights of advertisers. The witness will be instructed to observe someone at the booth who will also be instructed to look at the witness for a few seconds. Two days later, the eyewitness will be asked to pick the person seen at the ATM shop from a parade. These experiments can be repeated several times with different eyewitnesses who vary in age.
Scenario Two
The eyewitness shall be at a balcony during the day on a regular neighborhood looking outwards. The witness will be expected to be on the lookout for someone who will walk out of an adjacent building ninety feet away. Several people will walk out of the building including an “alleged suspect” that the eyewitness will be asked to pick out of the parade the following day. These experiments can also be repeated with different eyewitnesses who vary in age.
Expected Outcomes
The two experiments have been designed to give an unfair advantage to the eyewitness who will through foreknowledge be on the lookout . The basic idea to reflect is that even when an eyewitness is looking at the scene of the crime or alleged perpetrator, it is not possible to be sure of what the eyewitness has seen. Based on the hypothesis, the expected outcome is that the eyewitnesses shall not be able to pick out the witness from the identification parade. The outcome is based on the fact that proper identification can only be based on facial features and it is almost impossible to master the face of a stranger unless one has ideal circumstances to such as strong light, and an elongated duration of observation. In the case, however, that the eyewitnesses can pick out the alleged suspect more often than not, then the hypothesis must have been wrong.
4. The Wisdom Behind the Method Used
Noticeably, the two experiments represent some of the most common occurrences where a witness way claim to have seen a suspect. The first is during the night and from a relatively shorter distance hence the use of fifty feet. In most cases, when a suspect is seen at night, there will not be many people around hence the suspect is seen alone at the ATM . In the second scenario, the suspect is seen during the day. Mostly a suspect will not risk being seen during the day hence the expansion of the distance to ninety feet. Further, during the day, it is more probable that the eyewitness will see many faces, not just that of the suspect hence including more people for the witness to see. Finally, the suspect is someone that the eyewitness doesn’t recognize since one can always think they have seen someone they know even when they have not. Indeed, many people run into strangers thinking they are relatives leading to embarrassing or amusing scenes. The circumstances of the two experiments are better than during the crisis of a crime scene. If the eyewitnesses are not able to make identification more often than not, then it is almost impossible for most eyewitness identifications used in criminal courts to be true.
In the case, the experiment presents the expected results, which based on the hypothesis it should, the distance between the eyewitness and the suspect can gradually be reduced in subsequent experiments. Eventually, the eyewitness will be able to pick out the suspect almost every time. Based on the hypothesis, by the time this happens, the eyewitness will be so near that no intending criminal can allow anyone to be so near when they commit a crime. These secondary experiments will, therefore, have the effect of solidifying and confirming the hypothesis. The eventual conclusion will be that under the circumstances of most criminal activities, it is almost impossible for the average eyewitness to positively identify someone well enough to be able to swear in court that they saw them at the scene of the crime .
References
Bohannon, J. (2017, December 09). Eyewitness testimony may only be credible under these circumstances. Retrieved February 07, 2018, from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/12/eyewitness-testimony-may-only-be-credible-under-these-circumstances
Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learners' understandings about scientific inquiry—The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 51 (1), 65-83
Nola, R., & Sankey, H. (2014). Theories of scientific method: an introduction . New York: Routledge
