Eye Witness Identification and Testimony

The power of identifying the accused as the person responsible for actions is enormous; hence this issue is taken with much care to ensure justice in courts. Rightful identification leads to fairness in judgment, while a mistaken identity causes unfairness in the justice system. An eyewitness may be genuine by stating that they saw the accused doing an act, but in the end, the eyewitness could be confusion the accused for someone else (Albright, 2017). Numerous people have been wrongfully convicted due to mistakes in identifying the accused. The most recent cases involve sexual assault allegations and rape. Sexual cases being the most sensitive, little evidence is relied upon to convict the accused personnel. With new technological and biological methods of determining whether someone is guilty of sexual abuse, most of those convicted 20 years ago are being freed. DNA tests prove that a large number of those identified as rapists and sexual assaulters are literally innocent of these actions (Wells et al. 2020). The question who is to blame for these mistakes falls on the justice system, but only the eyewitness identification is answerable to these questions. This paper gives a detailed discussion on eyewitness identification testimony by drawing views from both the Biblical aspect and scenarios where this concept has been used to attain justice.  

Causes of wrong eyewitness identification 

        Different reasons have been attributed to the increasing issues of wrong witnesses. These reasons roam about the actions taken by the eyewitness. First, “system variables” refers to a condition whereby procedures used to collect information from eyewitnesses may lead to wrong identification. This cause is mainly associated with the police department, whereby errors occur due to aggressiveness in making eyewitnesses relay their information (Loftus, 2019). The system variable affect the whole procedure of witness identification due to inaccuracy in obtaining the information. For instance, in cases of terror attacks, any suspected individual in the area could be taken through intense questioning that involves inflicting pain. In such cases, it is easier for an eyewitness to lie to escape the pain. Also, this scenario may be looked from an angle whereby someone who lost a relative or a colleague is used as a witness, and with sad emotions, this eyewitness may end up giving a wrong identification of the criminal. However, this cause is on the decreasing line due to the emergence of better ways of extracting information from witnesses.  

            Lineups whereby police officers use culprit-absent and culprit-present techniques. In this scenario, the officers fail to include the accused person in the identification process, and the eyewitness ends up identifying the wrong person (Sheehan, 2011). Photo identification processes with the actual suspect missing from the album leads to wrongful identification. Use of pre-lineups is also another cause of wrongful identification. In this case, instructions are given to the eyewitnesses to enable them to identify the perpetrators quickly (Loftus, 2019). These instructions end up messing with the brain functionality of the eyewitnesses resulting in errors. Again this principle may also be understood under the context of giving a list of individuals from whom the eyewitness is to choose. Recently, this cause has been reduced by giving correct instructions to the eyewitness whereby the witness is alerted that it is not compulsory that the perpetrator is in the provided list.  

            Stress and emotions are another critical cause of misidentification. Stress resulting from the crime actions may lead to wrong identification. Being questioned at a time when the eyewitness is not yet through the recovery process is the sole cause of stress in the identification of perpetrators (Marion et al. 2019). Stress may also be viewed as originating from pressure to identify a culprit within a stipulated timeline. This pressure leads the eyewitness to identify anyone at random to evade more questions. 

On the other hand, emotions as stated earlier bring about wrong identification when the eyewitness is directly affected by the crime action (Rakoff & Loftus, 2018). These two causes can easily be solved through a prior understanding of the eyewitness before the identification process. For instance, if the eyewitness is found to be related to the affected people, guidance and counselling procedures should be taken into consideration.  

            Weapons during crimes prove to promote forgetting of the real image of the perpetrator. For instance, robbery at gunpoint causes the culprits great fear; hence their memory cannot hold enough about the perpetrator (Wang et al. 2018). Eyewitness researchers have been able to conclude with evidence that weapons cause great fear during crimes and almost 70% of those robbed at gunpoint cannot even remember the thief or even the actions that transpired during the robbery (Marion et al. 2019). The reason behind this phenomena is that visual activity of the eyewitness is disrupted fear and any attempts to find the perpetrator leads to inaccurate results and in the end a testimony from the eyewitness causes an unfair judgment.  

            Other reasons for inaccurate witness identification and previous testimony are attributed to the memory level of the eyewitness. For instance, some people have low memories; hence in most scenarios, the eyewitness remembers a few features of the perpetrator. Going per the few descriptions made by the eyewitness could result in wrong identification and thus unfair trial and lack of justice. A “forgetting curve” has been used over and over to predict the degree to which an individual remembers activities that occurred. From this curve, a sharp drop in memory is registered after 30 minutes and this drop goes on for the next two days after which an individual reaches a stagnation point whereby any judgments are inaccurate (Albright, 2017). From this curve, eyewitnesses are advised to conduct the identification process within the shortest time possible.  

Eyewitness Law governing Identification and Testimony in the US 

            Several policies governing eyewitnesses exist in the US justice system. From these policies, different governing laws exist that guide the public and justice systems on the actions to take concerning eyewitness identification and testimony. The eyewitness law dates back to 1977 when Brathwaite v. Manson case was ruled to set the pace for other cases in the modern era. From this case, some reliability factors governing eyewitnesses were set, and these factors regulate the handling of eyewitnesses (Rakoff & Loftus, 2018). The ruling stated that in preceding cases, the judges must check for the reliability of the eyewitnesses and from this reliability factors, accuracy is attained up to 60%.  

            The factors used in determining the accuracy of eyewitness identification are; the attention degree. The level of attention of the eyewitness must be assessed through short activities that determine the level to which the eyewitness can concentrate. From the degree attained, the justice systems can determine to which level the identification process could be correct (Sauerland et al. 2016). A witness with a low degree of concentration is deemed inaccurate, and a viable witness is used with other pieces of evidence rather than over-relying on a witness who could mislead a court.  

            A prior description is carried out and recorded for future reference. Accuracy of the witness is then gauged by requesting the eyewitness to re-describe the perpetrator (Smalarz et al. 2018). From the second and preceding descriptions, the accuracy of the eyewitness is assessed. If all the information provided in the previous sessions marches with the first information, the eyewitness is deemed accurate and to some extent, reliable. However, confusion in description and identification leads to inaccuracy and chances of using an inaccurate eyewitness are very low. The other factors are certainty in speech and description and periods in between the identification process and the crime time. In addition to the factors, the jury also added some regulations regarding under-age witnesses and those with special needs. According to this jury, a particular unit must deal with eyewitnesses of special needs and children to avoid revocation of fear by police officers.  

            Admissibility in eyewitness identification refers to ways in which an eyewitness is acceptable as being accurate. The federal laws and standards state that certain independent features must be checked by a court before determining the accuracy of an eyewitness (Steblay & Dysart, 2016). These factors are used to gauge whether a witness id correct or has been corrupted by police officers or by accusers of the offended. This procedure checks reliability of the identification process to avoid false identification and denial of justice to wrongfully tried individuals (Wells, 2018). Lack of enough reliability leads to the exclusion of the eyewitness evidence and other factors are used to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused.  

             Expert testimony refers to the use of eyewitness research experts to determine the legitimacy of the identification process. Some states allow this principle, and in the states where this principle is allowed, no records are created regarding eyewitness activity (Semmler et al. 2019). However, the lack of eyewitness experts leads to the generation of appellate records. Most recent activities related to eyewitness identification and testimony include the 2012 ruling by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. In this ruling, the court gave some guidelines that preceding court cases should follow in attaining justice. The court stated that careful confirmation of eyewitnesses’ description must be done to reduce the probability of having conducted errors in justice administration. In arriving at this decision, the court underlined the following facts; first, the human brain involves, encoding or processing, storage, and decoding or retrieval. All these anything passing through these memory processes losses some taste through infinite losses of memory (Smeets, 2016). This concept implies that by the time the eyewitness identification process begins, lots of memory have been lost hence the need for proper mechanisms.  

Biblical Concept of Eyewitness Identification and Testimony 

            From the Old Testament to the New Testament, different directions have been given by the Bible to govern eyewitness activities. First, in the Old Testament’s “Ten Commandments”, the commandment number eight states that bearing false witness is forbidden. Found in Deuteronomy chapter five, this law forbids giving false accusation. This commandment may be related to modern-day eyewitness identification and testimony. God giving this law meant that there were many cases of false accusation and witnessing. Forbidding this act meant that there were consequences related to giving false testimony (Bauckham, 2008). Relating this commandment to modern-day society, the use of corrupted eyewitnesses to false-fully convict individuals is a crime just like in the Bible. In modern-day society, many people have been knowingly accused of crimes by competitors. In most of these scenarios, a false witness is planted on a case to give false testimony leading to conviction. Just like this act is forbidden in the Bible, policies must be put in place to ensure those giving false testimonies must be answerable to justice systems.  

            Moving to the New Testament, numerous scenarios prove this concept of an eyewitness. First, the “Gospels”, was written by eyewitnesses who gave an account of the events of Jesus Christ. In this concept, the eyewitness is not used in a court of law but is used to give an account of happenings of old times and everyone trusts that these events were as recorded in the Bible. In the same manner, a relation of the Bible to the modern world should be able to compare the accuracy of today’s eyewitnesses to those of the Bible. In terms of identification, testimony, and accuracy, the books of Matthew, John, Mark, and Luke contain the same content, which proves accuracy in eyewitness and testimony (Bauckham, 2008). In the same manner writers of the Gospel books portrayed correct identification and testimony, eyewitnesses in today’s justice systems must prove these three qualities.  

            During the trial of Jesus, witnesses were required to prove that Jesus was guilty and the Pharisees provided eyewitness testimony that Jesus committed crimes of healing on Sundays and claiming to be a son of God among other crimes. Both of these testimonies were relayed by Pharisees who kept a close track of Jesus. By keeping a close track, the Pharisees were able to obtain first-hand information regarding activities of Jesus hence in the end they testified again Him. From this concept of an eyewitness, modern society must embrace to ensure those claiming to be eyewitnesses must give actual examples and facts about the cases.  

Recommendations on Eyewitness Identification and Testimony 

            Views from both the Biblical and US policies prove that eyewitness identification and testimony is a complex issue that requires care while handling it. In attaining justice in courts, witnesses must be handled with lot of care. The following activities must be carried out to enhance accuracy. First, eyewitnesses must be taken through memory enhancement processes to improve their chances of having perfect memories. This fete is attained through a collective process of memory activities. Secondly, the freezing policy should be implemented whereby eyewitnesses appearing to be inaccurate are frozen, and their evidence disposed-off to pave the way for justice to prevail. Reliable evidential witnesses must be used whereby eyewitnesses with compromising ideas and thoughts are shut from rendering courts unfair by giving unfair trials.  

            Interrogating officers should go through thorough pieces of training to enhance their performance in witness identification and testimony. Lessons about eyewitness identification and testimony will prove helpful in the determination of the accuracy of witnesses. A proper understanding of witnesses will lead to accurate identifications and testimonies hence justice will prevail. Also, avoiding witness contamination is essential in prevention attainment of proper identification and testimony. In this case, eyewitnesses should always be given proper surveillance to avoid scenarios whereby the witnesses are corrupted by the perpetrators or the accusers leading to wrongful identification and testimony. Interviewing of eyewitnesses by the police should be done in an organized manner. This implies that new protocols should be put in place to ensure that eyewitness questioning is not doe rampantly but in a particular manner that allows accuracy to be portrayed. Eyewitnesses should be held accountable for unfair trials in cases of wrongful identification and testimony. In this case, the when intentional actions of wrong identification should be punishable to ensure nobody suffers the fate of having to go to jail for misidentification.  

Conclusion 

            In conclusion, the main problem facing eyewitness identification and testimony is wrongful witness identification. This problem is caused about by factors like low memories among the witnesses whereby a witness has a low capacity to recall events, corruption of witnesses among other factors. Biblically, wrong identification and testimony is a crime. In the same manner, those dealing with witnesses must ensure that witnesses provide accurate identification and testimonies. A wrongful identification and testimony could lead to an unfair trial whereby an innocent citizen goes to jail while the guilty individual roams around free. In ensuring accuracy in eyewitness identification and testimony, witnesses must be given surveillance to protect them from being corrupted. Also, memory enhancement activities must be done before interviewing witnesses to prevent loss of memory and ensure maximum memory recovery. Finally, those dealing with witnesses should undergo pieces of training to ensure that they can correctly extract the right information from them. 

References 

Albright, T. D. (2017). Why eyewitnesses fail.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ,  114 (30), 7758-7764. 

Bauckham, R. (2008).  Jesus and the eyewitnesses: the gospels as eyewitness testimony . Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. 

Loftus, E. F. (2019). Eyewitness testimony.  Applied Cognitive Psychology ,  33 (4), 498-503. 

Marion, S., Kaplan, J., & Cutler, B. L. (2019). Expert testimony.  Psychological science and the Law , 318-337. 

Rakoff, J. S., & Loftus, E. F. (2018). The intractability of inaccurate eyewitness identification.  Daedalus ,  147 (4), 90-98. 

Sauerland, M., Raymaekers, L. H., Otgaar, H., Memon, A., Waltjen, T. T., Nivo, M., ... & Smeets, T. (2016). Stress, stress‐induced cortisol responses, and eyewitness identification performance.  Behavioral sciences & the law ,  34 (4), 580-594. 

Semmler, C., Dunn, J., Mickes, L., & Wixted, J. T. (2018). The role of estimator variables in eyewitness identification.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied ,  24 (3), 400. 

Sheehan, C. (2011). Making the jurors the" experts": The case for eyewitness identification jury instructions.  Boston College Law Review ,  52 (2), 651. 

Smalarz, L., Douglass, A. B., & Chang, A. (2019). Eyewitness-identification decisions as Brady material: Disclosing information about prior decisions affects evaluations of eyewitnesses.  Psychology, Public Policy, and Law . 

Steblay, N. K., & Dysart, J. E. (2016). Repeated eyewitness identification procedures with the same suspect.  Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition ,  5 (3), 284-289. 

Wang, J., Otgaar, H., Smeets, T., Howe, M. L., Merckelbach, H., & Zhou, C. (2018). Consequences of False Memories in Eyewitness Testimony: A Review and Implications for Chinese Legal Practice.  Psychological Research on Urban Society ,  1 (1), 12-25. 

Wells, G. L. (2018). Eyewitness identification. 

Wells, G. L., Kovera, M. B., Douglass, A. B., Brewer, N., Meissner, C. A., & Wixted, J. T. (2020). Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence.  Law and Human Behavior ,  44 (1), 3.