Traditionally eye witness account has been treated as one of the most compelling forms of evidence in criminal justice trials. This is based on the assumption that witnesses are able to narrate and present facts as precisely as they saw them. Eye witness accounts are not necessarily error-free; there are usually memory lapses and possible adjustments to the narrative as given by an eye witness. This does not negate that they are a critical source of information but awakens researches to the reality that caution cannot always be overlooked when admitting such evidence. The paper highlights issues around memory and eyewitnesses as a source of information in criminal justice.
Gustafsson et al. in their paper on predicting accuracy of eye witness testimonies argue that memory retrieval is the basis on which eye witness accounts are founded on. Evaluating the accuracy of eyewitnesses has, over the years proven to be a daunting task. It is posited that besides the accused admitting to guilt, eye witness accounts are the most reliable form of evidence that can be used against an accused person. The inability to evaluate the accuracy of eye witness accounts has been a significant contributor to false convictions. The errors often found in these accounts are as a result of the witness’ deliberate false account or a memory lapse. Witnesses can be biased based on many factors, some being their suggestions on what would have probably happened. While witnesses can be honest in their narrative, they have little control over their ability to recall events in the proper and subsequent order. Finding faults in sincere but incorrect memories is a daunting task. It may be easier to tell insincere and cooked up narratives than it is to tell of the former. (Gustafsson, Lindholm, & Jönsson, 2019)
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Confidence in our memories is a critical marker of sincerity. Whereas there exists no direct correlation between confidence and accuracy, research has shown that confident judgments are more accurate compared to scenarios where witnesses do not exude confidence. The reality monitoring theory a concept that has existed for some time in the psychology world posits that there exists a difference between real and imagined memories. The theory argues that real memories are more contextual and sensory whereas imagined memories often have references to cognitive operations. Another theory is the cue utilization theory; this theory suggests that how one judges their own memory is based on their own beliefs about how the working of their memory. Experience-based memories are a product of how they process the information they have received.
According to Gustafsson et al., memory accuracy can be assessed based on factors such as the confidence and ease of retrieval. The researchers argue that cooked up bits in the narrative are likely to be difficult to recall. In the research, the researchers gave the study population a film to watch that had violent crime scenes. This ensured that each person had a standard account from which they would be basing their narrative from. It was thus possible to compare what they would be saying against the truth. The results from the experiment showed that the incorrect memories were based on the effort cues. These are the instances where the tests tried to recall Vis a Vis merely telling what they would remember with ease. An increased length of time marked these false accounts before they were able to articulate what they remembered. It was also noted that the participants were more confident when giving the correct responses and less confidence in the incorrect ones. Time latency and confidence levels are thus potential markers of truth in eye witness accounts.
John Wixted et al. reinforces the perspective that eye witness accounts are not as error-proof as many have thought them to be. In the paper “Rethinking the Reliability of Eye Witness Memory,” the authors make a case on the various shortcomings this long-trusted source of evidence in criminal cases carries. Memory is malleable and this malleability has had devastating effects in the criminal justice system. Eye witness accounts can no longer be treated as truth. The justice system tries to navigate the same through the cross-examination of the witnesses. Memory can be manipulated and perspectives blinded or biased. In the 1980s, where there was a moral panic over daycare sexual abuses, it was later realized that the narratives stemmed from the implantation of false memories in the little children during their interviewing. (Wixted, Mickes, & Fisher, 2018)
The authors, however, argue that most of the mistakes that are usually lumped on the eyewitnesses can easily be blamed on other factors. They posit that when uncorrupted eye witness memory is as reliable as any other scientifically proven source of information. They argue just like a DNA test; it takes manipulations for it to be falsified. Proper testing procedures ought to be included as a means to fortify the evidence that results from the eye witness accounts. Best practice eye witness identification protocols exist, which help reduce possible errors in the whole process.
It is thus possible to examine eye witness accuracy and reliability through confidence and latency. When uncorrupted by either self or external factors, eye witness accounts are a reliable source of information. Adoption of best practices and protocols in the identification and treatment of eyewitnesses is a critical factor in safeguarding the integrity of this source of information.
References
Gustafsson, P. U., Lindholm, T., & Jönsson, F. U. (2019). Predicting Accuracy in Eyewitness Testimonies With Memory Retrieval Effort and Confidence. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00703
Wixted, J. T., Mickes, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2018). Rethinking the Reliability of Eyewitness Memory. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 13 (3), 324–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617734878
