The Problems with Eye Witnesses to Crime

Abstract 

The eyewitness testimony has remained one of the most crucial parts in the trial process since antiquity as a method of collecting evidence and identification of criminals. However, with the coming of the DNA identification that bases its success on the genetic matching, many criminals have been exonerated for crimes that had previously been associated with them via eyewitness testimony and identification. As such, there has been widespread concern over the reliability, credibility, and accuracy of the information acquired through this means. Research has identified a host of factors such as memory problems, human nature, bias, errors, and stress among others as potential aspects that affect the accuracy of the eyewitness testimony. The Bible has also voiced concerns regarding true and false eyewitnesses. The discussion will focus on the problems associated with the eyewitness society in modern jurisdiction. Moreover, it will seek to provide a biblical worldview of the same. 

Introduction 

The criminal justice system is indebted to the eye witness testimony and identification in its endeavor to convict criminals. It has played a significant role in solving a crime and in some instances; it is the only available evidence that could be used in the identification of a culprit. However, beginning in the 1970s, many psychological researchers engaged in study programs to test the viability and the reliability of the eyewitness identification. Based on various methodologies such as staged crimes and film events, the researchers found out that the rates of mistaken identity can be significantly high with most eyewitnesses expressing certainty even in cases where they have mistakenly identified an individual from the lineup. Thanks to the invention of the DNA identification, many individuals who were wrongly sentenced due to a flawed eyewitness testimony have been exonerated. Most important to note is that eyewitness has been used in serious cases involving rape and murder that come with severe punishments. However, this does not downplay the importance of eyewitness evidence in the criminal justice system. The only problem lies in the increased level of inaccuracy associated with them. Whereas eyewitnesses can give a compelling legal testimony, it depends on human memory which could be susceptible to memory loss, inaccuracies, credibility issues, biases, and errors all of which could contribute to wrongful convictions. 

Eyewitness Can Be Prone To Misinformation 

Many research studies have been dedicated to demonstrating that erroneous information can contaminate the memory after an individual has witnessed a particular event. Laney & Loftus (2016) recount several studies that have been used to prove that eyewitness could be prone to miscommunication. They conclude by saying, "These studies have demonstrated that young adults are often susceptible to misinformation, but children and older adults can be more susceptible" (Laney & Loftus, 2016). In some instances, misinformation can occur even without the intention to deceive. The authors further go ahead to explain how the change in the wording of the question could potentially contribute to the misinformation of the facts. Studies have also demonstrated that the impact of misinformation on the memory can be more significant especially in social situations. It can be a significant issue especially in cases where the crime was observed by more than one individual. Witnesses will tend to talk to one another immediately after the event as they wait for the arrival of the law enforcement agencies. The witnesses are different people and as such are bound to give different perspectives. Throughout the event, they saw or noticed different aspects which means that they will remember different things even if they witnessed the same happening. 

Laney and Loftus (2016) continue by saying, "So when they communicate about the crime later, they not only reinforce common memories for the event, they also contaminate each other's memories for the event." The impact of miscommunication has received widespread attention leading to its investigation in the laboratory. It, therefore, means that scientific proof has shown that two individuals witnessing the same event could have different perspectives. In essence, it means that a witness testimony by one person in the court of law could be flawed, erroneous, and biased based on their perceptions. 

Eyewitnesses Can Make Mistakes during the Identification Process 

Other than clearly communicating the facts of the crime, eyewitnesses have an important responsibility of remembering the faces of individuals who are believed to have engaged in crime. As an eyewitness, the police will require the individual to describe the perpetrators and later identify them in lineups or mug shots. There is a reliable body of research that has demonstrated that eyewitnesses are prone to serious but excusable errors. In the US, most jurisdictions prefer conducting line-ups with pictures in what is known as the photo spreads. The use of the actual people is less preferred these days. The law enforcers will go ahead to provide the eyewitness with the photos of the individuals each captured under the same situations. Only one of the persons in the picture is the police suspects while the rest are known as the "fillers" or "foils" which include individuals known to be innocent. The investigation will likely proceed if the eyewitness identifies the suspect correctly. However, if the eyewitness identifies a "foil," then the police have the discretion of changing the landscape of the investigation (Ceci et al., 2012). 

Several factors have been postulated to justify the reasons behind the eyewitness making the wrong identification during this process. The first one is the possibility of a poor vision during the process of identification. The second factor that could affect proper identification includes the viewing conditions especially when the witnessed feel stressed or pressured. The witness could also have excessively little time not enough to make identification properly. Researchers have also found that it can be difficult for one to identify perpetrators from a different race than their own correctly. The legal system can hardly do anything about these factors. It can, however, engage in a host of strategies that could help the identification process to go right. First, they can engage in a fair lineup process. According to Laney & Loftus, (2016), a fair lineup is on which, "The suspect and each of the foils is equally likely to be chosen by someone who has read an eyewitness description of the perpetrator but who did not actually witness the crime." Other recommendations include carrying out the identification sequentially and avoiding biased information. However, without these considerations, a majority of the process will be flawed. 

Problems Associated With Memory of the Eyewitness 

The human memory can be subjected to a plethora of biases and errors. It remains possible for one to forget a happenstance that occurred to them including the individuals they once knew. In some instances, individuals can find themselves mixing information across time and place. Others can remember complex occurrences which in the real sense did not happen. It is normal for humans to make memory errors. Scientific research in the field of neuroscience has proven that memory can be unreliable especially in making critical decisions as those in the legal system. Lacy and Stark (2013) summarize their research by saying, "Findings from basic psychological research and neuroscience studies indicate that memory is a reconstructive process that is susceptible to distortion." Biased and erroneous memories can, therefore, result in the prosecution of innocent people leaving the real perpetrators free. Historical research has proven that the eyewitness testimony cannot be used exclusively as evidence in the court of law. The Innocence Project based in the New York advocates for the utilization of the DNA testing in a bid to exonerate individuals who were wrongly convicted. As of July 8, 2013, the body had managed to exonerate 31o individuals. The individuals had been convicted based on the eyewitness testimony leading to confinement that spanned for about 13.6 years (Lacy & Stark, 2013). 

Several fallacies have been associated with the information given by the eyewitness in their testimony. One of the most common revolves around the issue of confidence. Many have associated the confidence displayed by the witness to their actual level of accuracy. In the US system, the jurors have placed significant weight on the confidence with which the witness gives their account of events. However, memory experts have debunked any connection between confidence and the accuracy of the events given by the eyewitness. Confidence can be influenced by a host of factors such as the post-identification feedback which has nothing to do with the level of accuracy. Researchers continue to opine that distortion of the memory can occur as a result of time passage, especially where events occur in a recounted fashion. The mundane memories are especially more susceptible to the effects of time. Studies have also shown that traumatic and emotional memories can also become subject to the automatic distortions that occur in the brain. For example, Lacy & Stark, (2013) recount a study in which individuals were asked to recall the events that had happened one or two weeks post the 9/11 event. The conclusion of the study showed that 37% and 43% of the people had changed their mind regarding the issue after one and three years respectively (Wixted et al., 2015). 

The Impact of False Memory 

False memories are regarded as a special type of errors because of the gravity with which they come with. During the counseling sessions in the 1990s, it was possible for individuals undergoing therapy for depression and associated problems to come up with memories that painted them as victims of horrible and violent behavior. According to the therapists handling the patients, the individuals were experiencing genuine memories of the abuses they experienced in their childhood. The therapists added that these memories had been buried down their minds for many years. However, many experimental therapists came out castigating the assertions and stating that there was a high likelihood that the memories were false (Laney & Loftus, 2016). In a similar way, eyewitnesses can be prone to false memory especially when placed in certain situations. For instance, an immense quest for justice by one of the witnesses could be a primary reason in faking and even fabricating information. Some witnesses might also want the publicity that comes with testifying especially if the case is controversial. With the possibility of false memories, judges and juries must remain vigilant of such problems. The oath is taken before testifying, and the polygon lack any scientific proof that they can stop an individual from giving false testimonies. 

The credibility of the Eyewitness Testimony 

Rakoff & Loftus, (2018) in their discussion continue to discuss the implications that come with a memory that could eventually lead to falsehood. Falsehood, errors, and biases are all factors that could tarnish the credibility of the eyewitness testimony. In cognizance to these factors, the US justice system has changed how the eyewitnesses are utilized in criminal cases. Juries and even the judges have been asked to ignore the eyewitness’ confidence in judging the credibility of the information they are dispatching. Researchers in psychology have also intimated that stress can play a significant role in undermining the credibility of the eyewitness testimony. Psychologists believe that stress and other emotional arousals increase the performance of an individual up to a particular point. From there, the performance slowly begins to reduce. The location of the peak point can be difficult to notice but depends on the nature of the task at hand. The researchers have gone ahead to assert that mild arousals could essentially increase performance due to the improvement in interest and alertness in the particular task (Vredeveldt & Sauer, 2015). However, a rapid increase or decrease in emotional resistance ultimately leads to a decrease in performance. Several theories have been postulated in a bid to discredit the information given by the eyewitness. 

The first theoretical approach is known as the "weapon focus." When a victim encounters a criminal carrying a weapon, the individual will tend to place their entire focus on the weapon. As a result, they might not remember any other observable features of the perpetrator. Therefore, this might affect their memory, and during the identification process, they can be prone to lies. Another theory postulated in this regard is referred to as the Cue Utilization Theory. According to the approach, high emotional charging occurrences eventually result in the narrowing of focus. Therefore, an emotionally charged witness is likely to pick only a few contextual cues compared to another witness who was in their normal condition. The theory further asserts that the victim will tend to focus more on the cues that resulted in their emotional charge compared to others. The theory, therefore, backs the "weapon focus" phenomenon which basically says that an eyewitness might miss several fundamental aspects that might serve them justice in a court of law. In studies involving the identification of a criminal with a weapon, the results showed that most of the victims hardly remembered any identifying feature associated with the criminal (Vredeveldt & Sauer, 2015). Therefore, when taken to the court of law, these witnesses are prone to lie, and the information given might fail to attain the credibility standards. 

The Impact of Race and Gender 

Research has shown that race plays a significant role in the level of accuracy depicted in eyewitness identifications. One research conducted that same-race identifications are accurate in 63% of the time. On the other hand, identifications that involved different races were correct in 57% of the time (Houston et al., 2013). Although the difference is not large, it has a significant meaning. The research went ahead and postulated that the cross-gender identifications were less accurate compared to the same-gender identifications. The statistics showed a 76% versus 72% tally respectively (Houston et al., 2013). Many studies have tended to focus on the actual factors that lead to the cross-gender and cross-race identifications. Although the reasons are not clear, the bottom line remains the fact that it affects the credibility and accuracy of the testimony. It all has to do with human psychology. It is easier for an African American to identify another African American accurately. On the other hand, a woman would find it easier to identify a fellow woman than if it was a man. However, most crimes as reported happen across the racial and gender divide. Therefore, it remains a significant challenge to trust witness testimony amidst the inconsistencies. 

The Nature of the Brain 

A basic principle in psychology says that people see what they expected to see. Lindsay et al., (2013) asserted that the principle tends to explain why there are many occasions each year where hunters mistake human for animals such as the deer. It is however common knowledge that humans and deer do not have any glaring similarities that should at any particular time warrant confusion. However, when a hunter is in dire need of a deer, his expectations will be guided by anything that seems to move. There have been cases where humans have been killed by hunters who were in search of a deer. This is as a result of a temporary expectation which has a significant impact in changing perception making the individual visualize what they expected to see. Such a scenario can also be seen in the cases of an eyewitness. Although an eyewitness can be part of a legitimate happening, they can end up giving an exaggerated account based on what they expected to see. As such, they end up giving a wrong account which could lead to the conviction of a suspect or the pronunciation of a sentence that is harsher compared to what the suspect committed. It is therefore critical to assess the significance of the eyewitness' expectation. 

The Possibility of Compromising Memory 

When dealing with eyewitness testimony, there is always a possibility of compromising memory. Such a scenario tends to happen when a suspect describes an event or a suspect. The eyewitness might tend to mix what they saw with what their counterparts told them. It is an interesting situation because it shows that the witness does not trust their intuitions or the ability to reconstruct events. Once they begin relying on information from other individuals, then they compromise the credibility of their whole story. Some witnesses will only trust their memory depending on how well it matches with that of other individuals. However, if the two accounts differ, the witness tends to adopt the position of the other person or comprise in between the two versions of the story (Lindsay et al., 2013). However, it remains critical to note that investigators have an important role in preventing the eyewitness from compromising information. One of the ways in doing so includes interviewing the two witnesses separately. The second step would involve disallowing them to describe the crime before it happens. The technique will ensure that one of the witnesses does not adopt a story from the other one. 

The Impact of Variables 

Albright (2017) discusses a host of factors or variables that determine the performance of the eyewitness. He says, “Researchers categorize these factors, respectively, as estimator and system variables” (Albright, 2017). The estimator variables include a host of aspects classified as the viewing conditions, distracting stimuli, and the internal states of the observer. The viewing conditions include factors such as duration, distance, and lighting. The distracting stimuli include loud noises, bright lights, and weapons. Lastly, the internal stimuli of the observer include a wide array of aspects including prejudice, skill, motivation, and attention (Albright, 2017). Although all these variables must be taken into control, the justice system has control over none of them. The second group of variables is known as the system variables. Unlike the estimator, these can be controlled by the criminal justice system. According to Albright, (2017), they include “the manner in which a lineup is presented to an eyewitness, the instructions given, and whether the lineup administrator is blind to the status of the lineup participants.” The presence of these variables and the fact that they interplay means that the use of eyewitness in litigation can be prone to errors that either could have been controlled by the justice system or not. 

Malleability of Memory 

It is common knowledge that the information perceived by the eyewitness ends up in the memory storage. It is therefore availed for retrieval when the individual is called upon to identify a suspect. This type of memory is classified as declarative meaning that it contains both episodic and semantic content. Although the brain mediates this information, it is susceptible to bias, uncertainty, and confidence. Without a sense of awareness, it is possible for humans to encode information in a prejudiced way. However, this can lead one to “later forget, reconstruct, update, and distort the things we believe to be true” as confirmed by Albright, (2017). Uncertain memories can further be impacted by information acquired from the law enforcers, family members, friends, and the media among others. As a result, the chances that an eyewitness will correctly identify a culprit or provide accurate testimony in a court of law significantly diminish. Therefore, the eyewitness might attempt to control this by becoming more confident in their assertions. However, as postulated earlier, confidence levels should never be used as a way of gauging the accuracy of information. 

The Impact of Stress on the Accuracy of the Eyewitness 

Aharonian and Bornstein (2008) in their discussions illuminate the critical position that stress has in affecting the eyewitnesses' viability to provide accurate information. First, it remains critical to appreciate that violent crimes come with immense stress on the witnesses. In this context, stress refers to the negative emotions associated with physiological changes such as increased blood pressure, heart rate, and the overall muscle tone. It can also be accompanied by anxiety and the perception of threat. It is generally assumed that intense emotional status can facilitate memory. However, Aharonian and Bornstein (2008) assert that "it is also possible that intense emotion, especially the high level of stress associated with witnessing a crime, would lead to decrements in memory." The central explanation given here is that increased emotional stress could limit or narrow an observer's attention. The authors further go ahead to intimate that eyewitness, especially in high-stress situations, are less likely to identify a perpetrator correctly. Also, they are less likely to recall the details associated with the event accurately. It has also been documented that stressful situations could potentially affect the arrangement of information in the brain. 

While retrieving their information, the eyewitnesses have two options in giving their account. The first one is through the narrative form and the second one is through an interrogative approach. The narrative approach is also known as free recall. Here, the witness has the discretion of choosing what to report and the particular order of events. In an interrogative fashion, they are instead required to respond to certain questions as posed by the police. Although the narrative recall can create a friendly atmosphere for expression, the interrogative, on the other hand, is responsible for a tensed environment. In a narrative fashion, the witnesses have the liberty to determine what to report. The freedom acquired could contribute significantly to the overall accuracy of the information. The high-stress situation that comes with the interrogation can lead to panic and the overall distortion of the information. When assessing the value of stress, children and minors occupy an interesting position. Aharonian and Bornstein (2008) believe that child eyewitnesses are likely to perform worse compared to their adult counterparts especially when placed in high-pressure situations. It is, therefore, incumbent upon law enforcers to create an enabling environment that allows full expressions without limitation. 

Biblical Connotations and Christian Worldview 

The Bible describes two types of eyewitness testimonies including the true and the false. It remains significant to note that one of the Ten Commandments says, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16). In this section, the Bible warns individuals against testifying any information that lacks authority, accuracy, credibility and is full of bias and errors. Throughout the Bible, Jesus warns his disciples against the influence of false witnesses. Understanding true and false witnesses are important in Christianity because eyewitness testimony is the basis of Christianity (Bauckham, 2017). Jesus and his disciples remained keen to shun the possibility of any false eyewitness that would impact the good news that he had brought to the people. Were it not for the powerful nature of eyewitness, then a majority of the Bible would never have been written. The four accounts of Jesus represented in the books of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John was all written on account of an eyewitness. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and Jon were either apostle or closely associated with Jesus. Apostle Paul documented that approximately 500 people witnessed Jesus with their eyes after he was raised from the dead (Bauckham, 2017). 

Most of the disciples of Jesus testified that they were true eyewitnesses of Christ. Many of them proclaimed that they had both seen and heard him. In 1 Peter 5:1, Peter says that he witnessed the sufferings of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, in 1 John 1:1, John asserts that he had seen Jesus with his own eyes. The fact that the Gospel of Jesus was based on eyewitness testimony has been accepted in all legal jurisdictions across the world. It, therefore, separates it from hearsay and makes it a credible tool for Christian inspiration. However, it should be noted that the Bible remains keen to focus on the value of true eyewitness. As previously discussed in the text, eyewitness remains one of the principal methods of testifying and identifying criminals in a court of law. However, false eyewitnesses could eventually lead to wrongful convictions which are an indictment on justice and fairness which are two of the most essential aspect the Bible promotes. Bad witnessing is mentioned on numerous occasions in the Bible. The Bible associates false witnessing to wickedness as documented in the book of Exodus 23:1. It is also associated with malice and discord. In Proverbs 14:5, the Bible equates false witnessing to lying. 

It is, therefore, wrong to stand in front of the people and proceed to swear that something is true, but in the real sense, it is untrue. The Bible continues by asserting that this should not be done with the aim of tainting another person's reputation. According to the Bible, false eyewitnesses have a sinful human heart, and their sin is equated to adultery, murder, theft, evil thoughts, and sexual immorality among others. Therefore, false witnesses have only one way of repenting, and that is finding the pure heart of God. The book of Revelation warns individuals against the power of false prophets who it refers to as the false witnesses of God and Jesus Christ (Bauckham, 2017). They will claim to know God, but deep down they will be guided by the devil. It, therefore, calls on wisdom and God's strength to identify these people. Today, false eyewitnesses have contributed to the deterioration of justice in many jurisdictions in the world. It is in this regards that countries such as the US have made significant progress in creating tough conditions that will ensure that the eyewitness makes correct assertions and testimonies. 

However, it should be noted that the Bible takes notice of the impact of a good eyewitness. The life of Jesus including his suffering, death, and resurrections were witnessed by some of his apostles who documented it and used it to further Christianity during the early church. The authors of the New Testament repeatedly referred themselves as the eyewitness. A good example of this is seen in the last chapter of the book of John. In the last chapter, he asserts that whatever he testifies is the truth. However, Luke, one of the authors of the Gospels confirms that he was not an eyewitness if the ministry of Christ. However, in Luke 1:1, he remains keen to maintain that his work has heavily relied upon the work of the eyewitnesses. Following the death of Jesus and his resurrections, the Jewish authorities demanded an eyewitness testimony in order to believe that indeed Christ had risen. However, Jesus instructed them against giving them his whereabouts. As a result, the Jewish authorities rejected their version of stories and accused the apostles of a conspiracy to create a notion that Jesus had risen. From this Biblical story, it remains evident that the Bible emphasized on eyewitness as the basis of enhancing truth. 

The reliability of the Bible also stems from the fact that it was written from an eyewitness point of view. In Mathew 28:19, 20, the Bible notes that the authority to witness emanates from Jesus. The power and the authority to continue witnessing originates from the Holy Spirit. The Bible, therefore, views witnessing as a positive facet. It is in this regard that Jesus asks his disciples that upon witnessing, they should say to the people, "God loves you. Jesus saves all who come to Him in repentance of sin and who have faith in Him. He gives life" (John 10:10). Eyewitness testimonies should be meant to achieve the overall good. Unlike today, many eyewitness testimonies and identification have led to false incarceration of individuals. As such, they have caused pain, sorrow, and the deterioration of justice in the world. More importantly, it has gone against the teachings of the Bible. It is in this regard that all eyewitnesses should read the Bible and understand what is required of them. Individuals must remain cognizant of their shortcomings as humans and allow truth, honesty, and integrity to guide them as they seek justice. 

Conclusion 

Whereas eyewitnesses can give a compelling legal testimony, it depends on human memory which could be susceptible to memory loss, inaccuracies, credibility issues, biases, and errors all of which could contribute to wrongful convictions. The eyewitness testimony will continue to influence criminal proceedings and the decisions of the jury. However, the problem remains on its viability. The errors associated with the process can lead to a wrongful conviction which is an indictment to the pursuit of justice in a given jurisdiction. Some of the limitations that come with eyewitness testimony cannot be resolved by the justice system. Memory loss, stress, and the identified variables cannot be controlled. However, necessary steps can be taken to ensure that the information given could be trusted. Such strategies include creating an enabling environment for testimony and the use of lineup method of criminal identification among others. The invention of DNA identification has led to the exoneration of many individuals who had initially been convicted of serious crimes. False eyewitnesses in the Bible are regarded as the agents of the devil. They should seek repentance and a pure heart from God. True eyewitnesses, on the other hand, have a place in the kingdom of the Lord. 

References 

Aharonian, A. A., & Bornstein, B. H. (2008). Stress and eyewitness memory. Faculty Publications, Department of Psychology, 485. 

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

Bauckham, R. (2017). Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. 

Ceci, S. J., Toglia, M. P., & Ross, D. F. (Eds.). (2012). Children’s eyewitness memory. Springer Science & Business Media. 

Clark, S. E., Benjamin, A. S., Wixted, J. T., Mickes, L., & Gronlund, S. D. (2015). Eyewitness identification and the accuracy of the criminal justice system. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 175-186. 

Houston, K. A., Hope, L., Memon, A., & Don Read, J. (2013). Expert testimony on eyewitness evidence: In search of common sense. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 31(5), 637-651. 

Lacy, J. W., & Stark, C. E. (2013). The neuroscience of memory: implications for the courtroom. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(9), 649. 

Laney, C., & Loftus, E. F. (2016). Eyewitness testimony and memory biases. Noba textbook series: Psychology. Champaign, IL: DEF publishers. DOI: https://doi. Org/nobaproject. Com. 

Lindsay, R. C., Ross, D. F., Read, J. D., & Toglia, M. P. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of eyewitness psychology: volume ii: memory for people (Vol. 2). Psychology Press. 

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

Vredeveldt, A., & Sauer, J. D. (2015). Effects of eye-closure on confidence-accuracy relations in eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition , 4(1), 51-58. 

Wixted, J. T., Mickes, L., Clark, S. E., Gronlund, S. D., & Roediger III, H. L. (2015). Initial eyewitness confidence reliably predicts eyewitness identification accuracy. American Psychologist, 70(6), 515.