Kirk Bloodsworth was imprisoned for the murder and rape of a girl aged nine years and condemned to a gas chamber in the year 1984, a result which rested mainly on the five eyewitnesses’ testament. Nonetheless, the DNA analysis proved Kirk to be not guilty after he had already served nine years in jail. As stated by in the Innocence Project’s report, a group which applies DNA analysis to acquit individuals unfairly sentenced of delinquencies, such overwhelming errors by witnesses are not uncommon (Scheck, 2013). From the years 1990’s, after the DNA analysis was initially launched, Innocence Project investigators have stated that seventy-three percent of the two hundred and thirty-nine sentences reversed through DNA analysis were centered on the testimony of an eyewitness. What is more, about thirty-three percent of these upturned cases depended on the testimony of more than one wrong witness. A question that one may ask is how a large number of eyewitnesses can be mistaken.
Normally, eyewitness identification entails picking the suspected criminal from the police lineup; nonetheless, it may as well be centered on police drawings in addition to other tactics. Almost immediately after picking the suspect, witnesses are requested to make an official declaration confirming the identification and to put efforts to remember any other particulars regarding the occurrences surrounding the delinquency (Gronlund, Wixted & Mickes, 2014). During the hearing, which might be years in future, witnesses normally testify in court. Since persons with some psychological illnesses, for instance, substance dependence as well as anti-social personality illness are at great risk for criminal participation, they are similarly at high risk for wrong identifications by witnesses.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Researches indicate that majority of judges put a heavy weight on the testimony of the eyewitness when deciding if the suspect is innocent or guilty. Nevertheless, even though eyewitness accounts are occasionally true, judges must not acknowledge them uncritically due to the numerous factors which may bias such accounts. For instance, judges have a tendency of giving additional weight to the eyewitnesses’ testimony who account that they are extremely sure regarding their identifications although most researches show that exceedingly confident witnesses are usually only marginally more correct than eyewitnesses who are less confident. Over and above educating judges regarding the uncertainties surrounding the testimony of an eyewitness, abiding by to definite guidelines for the suspect identification process may make that testament more truthful.
Uncritically accepting the eyewitness reports can originate from a common fallacy of how memory functions. Numerous individuals think that the memory of human being operates the same way as the video recorder, that is, the mind records the happenings and then, on the clue, plays back a precise copy of them. Quite the reverse, psychologists have established that memories are rebuilt instead of played back every time human remember them (Sporer et al., 2014). According to the scholars, the action of remembering is more similar to bringing together puzzle pieces than retrieving the video record (Sporer et al., 2014). Even interrogation by a lawyer may change the testimony of a witness as fragments of the memory might unintentionally be incorporated with the info given by the interrogator, resulting in mistaken memory.
Numerous analysts have generated wrong memories in typical persons; also, most of the subjects are convinced that the recollections are factual. In an eminent study, the researchers gave subjects printed versions of 4 occurrences, 3 of which they had encountered (Gronlund, Wixted & Mickes, 2014). The 4th account was fiction; it focused on the subject who was 4-6 years old and who got lost in the shopping mall or a different public place. A family member gave truthful particulars for the untrue account, for instance, a depiction of the shopping mall at which the parents of the subject shopped. After reading all stories, subjects were requested to put in writing what else they recalled regarding the happening or to show that they didn’t recall it at all. Abnormally around thirty-three percent of the subjects stated partly or completely recalling the untrue occurrence. What is more, during two follow-up interviews, about a quarter still asserted that they recalled the false account.
Considering the risks of wrong convictions centered on the mistaken testimony of the eyewitness, the question that arises is how people can lessen such mistakes. The Innocence Project has recommended legislature to enhance the correctness of witness identifications. The suggestions take in videoing the identification process so that judges may ascertain whether it was carried out correctly; notifying the eyewitness of the list which the suspect might or might not be in it; placing the persons in the list who look like the eyewitness’s depiction of the criminal; and making sure that the individual managing the identification procedure doesn’t distinguish who a suspect is. Even though merely a couple of countries and cities have implemented rules to improve the witness identifications accuracy, there appears to be increasing importance in doing so.
Furthermore, permitting specialists on witness identification to give testimony in court might educate judges and possibly result in the more measured assessment of the testament. Nonetheless, most United States jurisdictions prohibit such professionals in courtrooms explaining that laboratory-centered witness investigation doesn’t apply to the courtroom and that its deductions are typically common sense and thus not very informative. However, Wells (2014) has accumulated substantial evidence indicating that the experimental results apply to courtroom testament and that they are normally counterintuitive.
In a nutshell, science may and must enlighten judicial procedures to enhance the correctness and appraisals of witness testimonies. People can see some small efforts in this direction; nevertheless, the courts have much to do to better warrant that blameless individuals aren’t penalized due to faults in this greatly influential form of proof.
References
Gronlund, S. D., Wixted, J. T., & Mickes, L. (2014). Evaluating eyewitness identification procedures using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 23 (1), 3-10.
Scheck, B. (2013). The innocence project at twenty: an interview with Barry Scheck. Interview by Jane Gitschier. PLoS genetics , 9 (8), e1003692-e1003692.
Sporer, S. L., Malpass, R. S., & Köhnken, G. (Eds.). (2014). Psychological issues in eyewitness identification . Psychology Press.
Wells, G. L. (2014). Eyewitness identification: Probative value, criterion shifts, and policy regarding the sequential lineup. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 23 (1), 11-16.
