The criminal justice system faces a number of challenges which undermine the accuracy of convictions. Unsanctioned search and seizures, for instance, deem evidence inadmissible thereby leading to the release of a suspected criminal. Law enforcement officers are required to seek a search warrant first before engaging in any search and seizure procedure. One other factor that has challenged the role of the criminal justice system is the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. While it might be a reliable source of evidence helping judges and juries alike in decision-making, it has its flaws which undermine the accuracy of judgment. Therefore, an exploration of the nature of the eyewitness account in criminal cases is warranted.
The main concern about eyewitness testimony is whether it is reliable or not. Roberts (2014) noted that while eyewitness accounts should be admissible in court, they should be used with caution. There is a need to understand that certain factors such as compromised memories and weapon focus can influence the reliability of an eyewitness account negatively. One of the points that Roberts (2014) cited involves the accuracy of eyewitness memories. Wise, Sartori, Magnussen and Safer (2015) explained that the reconstructive nature of memory makes it vulnerable to influence, either positive or negative. Post-event information that is access through the media, police, other eyewitnesses can affect “… not only an eyewitness’s memory of the crime but also the eyewitness’s memory of the perpetrator of the crime” (Wise, Sartori, Magnussen & Safer, 2015). Therefore, one can notice that there are other hidden elements which can affect the quality of the memory of the eyewitness. There is a possibility that the introduction or exposure to information that was not present during an event, could either undermine the recovery process or boost it.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Based on what is mentioned above, there is a need to understand eyewitness testimony from a psychological point of view. Wells and Turtle (1987) explained that the cognitive processes that take place during the questioning phase of an investigation tend to influence an eyewitness’s ability to recall information about a target event. The authors cited various previous studies that had focused on eyewitness testimony in a number of settings. Wells and Turtle (1987) noted that during lineup identifications, the probability that an eyewitness might identify a suspect tends to increase if the instructions given imply that the offender is part of those in the lineup. The implication is that wording of law enforces can influence not only who an eyewitness selects, but also whether he or she will make an identification in the first place (Wise, Sartori, Magnussen & Safer, 2015). Therefore, one can notice that the manner in which law enforcers choose to carry out an investigation, in terms of wording, can affect the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Hickman (n.d.) conducted a study focusing on word of choice and its effect on eyewitnesses’ ability to remember. In a questionnaire, one item was changed between two conditions from “contacted” to “smashed into”. The results showed that those exposed to the “smashed into” condition reported a higher speed of estimations compared to those in the “contacted” condition. Consequently, the choice of words has some level of influence when it comes to the reconstructive process of memory for the eyewitness.
Wells and Turtle (1987) further discussed the confidence of an eyewitness in determining the accuracy of information he or she gives. The idea is that an eyewitness who believes and trusts his memory is likely to persuade others about the accuracy of the information that he or she gives. Wells and Turtle (1987) acknowledged confidence expressed by an eyewitness is considered a strong factor that determines whether one is believed or not. The elements cited as influence the confidence level of an eyewitness were such as social and individual-difference factors such as self-esteem and reinforcement. On the other hand, accuracy is mainly about factors affecting memory such as storage, ability to retrieve information, and encoding (Wells & Turtles, 1987). Having such an understanding, one ought to consider the possibility that due to individual factors, an eyewitness might give false information and demonstrate confidence while doing so. Wise, Sartori, Magnussen and Safer (2015) warned that depending on eyewitness confidence can lead to wrongful convictions. The explanation is that eyewitness confidence is not about the accuracy of a memory, but more about individual and social factors. In this regard, reliability of an eyewitness becomes questioned; it is not clear whether there is a goal, for instance, to achieve reinforcement from a party who has interest in a particular event.
Conclusion
When deciding whether a suspect is guilty or not, judges should consider other factors that could help determine the credibility of an eyewitness account. They could rely on other methods of gathering evidence such as forensic technology. However, in situations where eyewitness accounts are the main source of evidence, it becomes difficult to ascertain whether information given is accurate or not. The criminal justice system has, for a long period, relied on eyewitness accounts. Unfortunately, some of them have led to wrongful convictions. Scholars have identified that word choice during investigations influence an individual’s ability to recall information accurately. In such a case, law enforcers should know how to approach eyewitnesses and question them in a manner that is likely to boost their memory. However, what is clear is that there are numerous factors that affect the eyewitness account thereby influencing its accuracy.
References
Hickman, M. (n.d.). Effects of interviewer word choice on eyewitness testimony. Pdf.
Roberts, N. (2014). The reliability of eyewitness testimony . Liberty University.
Wells, G. L., & Turtle, J. W. (1987). Eyewitness testimony research: Current knowledge and emergent controversies. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science,19 (4), 363-388. doi:10.1037/h0080000
Wise, R. A., Sartori, G., Magnussen, S., & Safer, M. A. (2014). An examination of the causes and solutions to eyewitness error. Frontiers in psychiatry , 5 , 102. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00102
