Chapter 6: Put It in Writing: Write a page describing your views on the accuracy
ID: 3449727 • Letter: C
Question
Chapter 6: Put It in Writing:
Write a page describing your views on the accuracy of eyewitness’s memories of crimes. Be sure to mention what evidence leads you to think as you do about this topic. For example, indicate whether you tend to give more weight to the testimony of witnesses who seem very sure of their stories or to the results of scientific research on constructed and distorted memories. Be sure to say why you prefer one kind of evidence over another and whether you think the debate over the accuracy of eyewitness testimony will ever be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. Please use examples and references.
Explanation / Answer
Eyewitness testimony can be to a great degree powerful. At the point when an observer with no thought process to lie swears under vow that he or she by and by observed a litigant perpetrate a crime, it is hard not to trust the testimony. Be that as it may, in late decades, broad logical research — which we evaluated while co-leading the National Research Council committee that composed the current report "Distinguishing the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification" — have recognized various variables that can lead an eyewitness to commit an error. It is time our legitimate framework began making utilization of this information.
Some of these elements, for example, poor lighting or diversions, may appear glaringly evident. However, others, for example, the impact of pressure, are less so. Still different elements —, for example, the mental impact of a cop's non-verbal communication as an eyewitness sees a lineup, or how a witness' memory of a man in a lineup can converge after some time with recollections of the first occasion — are subtle to the point that reviews are just start to uncover their belongings.
Whenever judges and juries need consciousness of the elements that can influence the exactness of eyewitness testimony, they can commit errors.
In 1967, for instance, before a large portion of this research, the Supreme Court ruled, in Manson v. Braithwaite, that the unwavering quality of an eyewitness' distinguishing proof, and thus its acceptability as confirmation, depends to some degree on the level of conviction that the witness communicates while recognizing a respondent in court. This, in the perspective of the court, was basically sound judgment.
Be that as it may, the court wasn't right. Cautious examinations have shown that, paying little respect to the level of sureness an eyewitness communicates at the season of unique ID (which itself might be influenced by various variables), a witness' trust in the rightness of the distinguishing proof relentlessly increments after some time. This happens for mental and psychological reasons that have nothing to do with the exactness of the recognizable proof, for example, support of a witness' convictions by law requirement and records of occasions proclaimed by lawyers and news media.
On the off chance that we need to abstain from committing the same shocking errors over and over, every one of us — police, prosecutors, judges, members of the jury, open officeholders and general society — must follow up on this research. Here is the ticket:
To start with, lineups ought to be managed by a similar sort of "twofold visually impaired" models utilized as a part of logical testing. For instance, the cop overseeing the lineup ought not be engaged with the examination. An eyewitness ought to be informed that the lineup could possibly incorporate a suspect and that the examination will proceed with paying little heed to whether somebody is distinguished. Likewise, lineups ought to be recorded.
Second, the level of certainty the eyewitness communicates at the season of the underlying recognizable proof ought to be archived and made accessible at trial.
Third, judges ought to be instructed about the very much recorded failings of lineups. This learning will place judges in a superior position to assess whether eyewitness recognizable proof confirmation ought to be incorporated into a specific case.
Fourth, through master testimony or legal guidelines, members of the jury ought to be instructed about the numerous elements that can influence eyewitness distinguishing proof and that those should be considered in assessing the unwavering quality of an eyewitness' testimony.
With these changes, the quantity of mixed up eyewitness recognizable pieces of proof would be incredibly lessened, and judges and members of the jury would have the capacity to make more exact appraisals of eyewitness testimony. This would go far toward guaranteeing that our criminal equity framework gets to reality, for the advantage of every one of us.