How Accurate Is Eyewitness Testimony Essay

The bedrock of the Ameri apprize judicial member is the h angiotensin converting enzymesty of attestantes in trial. view proof throw out make a deep impression on a jury, which is a good deal exclusively assigned the role of sorting divulge credibility issues and making judgments rough the truth of feel call downments. In the U. S. , in that location is the possibility of everywhere 5,000 wrongful execrations each year because of mistaken witness ac friendshipments. The continuous flow of media stories that tell of innocent people universe incarcerated should arrange as a signal to us that the valet de chambre identification process is rife with a declamatory number of error risks.These risks set out been mostly supported by research. Unfortunately, a jury r arely hears of the risks therefore, witness attestation remains a much-used and much-trusted process by those who are clueless galore(postnominal) eons, rightfulnessfully uninformed. In facial expre ssions in which eyewitness testimony is used, more oft than non, an expert lead not be allowed to testify to the faults of eyewitness identification. Thus, the uninformed stay blissfully ignorant of the inherent risks knotty in eyewitness identification testimony.Too often, these blissfully ignorant people make up a jury of our peers. (McAtlin, 1999). According to McAtlin, there are three split of an eyewitness testimony (1) Witnessing a crime as a dupe or a by endureer involves watching the horizontalt while it is happening. (2) The witness essential memorize the details of the occurrence. (3) The witness must be able to accurately recall and communicate what he or she saw. Studies of wrongful conviction cases befuddle concluded that erroneous eyewitness identifications are by far the wind cause of convicting the innocent.Several studies have been conducted on merciful store and on subjects propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. When man beings estimate to acquire, retain and retrieve information with any clarity, suppositional influences and common humans failures profoundly limit them. The law can regulate some of these human limitations differents are unavoidable. The unavoidable ones can make eyewitness testimony devastating in the courtroom and can lead to wrongful convictions.Unfortunately, memories are not indelibly stamped onto a brain video cassette tape. An event stored in the human shop undergoes constant change. Some details whitethorn be adapted when young or different information around the event is added to the be memory. Some details are simply forgotten and normal memory loss occurs continually. Even so, witnesses often operate more confident in the correctness of their memories over meter. The original memory has faded and has been replaced with new information. This new information has replaced the original memory because the natural process of memory debasement has persisted.Furt hermore, individual eyewitnesses vary widely in infallibility and reasoning. . (McAtlin, 1999). Studies of wrongful conviction cases have concluded that erroneous eyewitness identifications are by far the ahead(p) cause of convicting the innocent. For example, the Innocence Project of Cardozo School of Law reports that of the first cxxx exonerations, 101 (or 77. 8 percent) mired mistaken identifications. But exactly how often eyewitnesses make tragic mistakes that lead to the punishment of innocent persons is unknown and believably unknowable.One of the infamous cases where mistaken identity led to the wrongful conviction and execution was Gary whole wheat flour. Grahams case received widespread attention, in part because of meaty evidence indicating that he was innocent of the murder charge, and the indisputable fact that his court-appointed trial lawyer failed to mount a serious profound defense. Graham was convicted of killing grocery store clerk Bobby Lambert on May 13, 19 81 during a robbery attempt. Graham was 17 years obsolete at the time. There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime and single one eyewitness who identified him as the murderer.Eyewitnesses who told police investigators Graham was not the killer were never called to testify at trial by Grahams lawyer. Constitutional Protections In Neil v. Biggers, the U. S. Supreme Court established criteria that jurors whitethorn use to assess the reliability of eyewitness identifications. The Biggers Court enumerated several factors to catch if a suggestive identification is reliable (1) the witnesss prospect to view the suspect (2) the witnesss degree of attention (3) the true statement of description (4) the witnesss level of certainty and (5) the time mingled with incident and confrontation, i. . , identification. Courts today continue to allow into evidence suggestive identification testimony. Currently, courts consider the admissibility of identification testimony under a F ourteenth Amendment adjective due process analysis. If a court puts that a pretrial identification was unnecessarily suggestive, it then ascertains whether the suggestive procedure gave rise to a substantial likeliness of irreparable misidentification. A court leave behind find a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification only if the identification is found to be unreliable.Therefore, even if the court concludes that a police identification procedure was suggestive, it may be admissible if the court finds that the identification is nevertheless likely to be accurate. A court will balance the suggestiveness of the identification procedure against the likelihood that the identification is correct, resulting in an unprincipled rule of law that turns on the courts subjective assessment of the suspects guilt. Issues That Impact an Individuals certification A specific look at how memory functions and how suggestion operates llustrates why participation in unregulated line ups creates unreasonable risks of misidentification. Identification procedures differ from other police investigatory procedures in that they solely rely on human memory. Human memory consists of three basic systems (1) encoding, (2) storage, and (3) retrieval. Encoding is the initial touch of an event that results in a memory. Storage is the retention of the encoded information. Retrieval is the recuperation of the stored information. Errors can occur at each step.Contrary to common concord of memory, not everything that registers in the central nervous system is permanently stored in the mind and exceptional details become increasingly inaccessible over time. According to Loftus and Ketchum, Truth and reality, when seen through the filters of our memories, are not objective facts that subjective, interpretive realities. Because these processes are unconscious, individuals generally perceive their memories as completely accurate and their reporting of what they remember as en tirely truthful, no matter how deformed or inaccurate they, in fact, may be.An individuals memories become distorted even in the absence of external suggestion or internal personal distress. Naturally, people tailor their telling of events to the listener and the context. (Loftus & Ketchum 1991). many conditions such as fear, lighting, distance from the event, surprise, and personal biases all affect memory and recall. Human memory is indeed delicate, especially regarding victims and witnesses of crimes. Fear and traumatic events may impair the initial acquisition of the memory itself.At the time of an identification, the witness is often in a distressed emotional state. Many victims and witnesses consider substantial shock because of their traumatic experiences that continue to affect them at the time of identification procedures. In a particular case in court, the psychologist can determine the reliability of the evidence of a particular witness and change the judge and the ju ry to put the proper value on such witnesss testimony. For example, a witness may swear to a certain point involving the estimation of time and distance.The psychologist can measure the witnesss accuracy in such estimates, often showing that what the witness claims to be able to do is an impossibility. A case may hinge on whether an interval of time was ten minutes or dozen minutes, or whether a distance was three hundred or quaternity hundred feet. A witness may swear positively to one or both of these points. The psychologist can show the court the limitations of the witness in making such estimates. Overview of Psychology and LawThe receipts of psychology to law can be very great, but owing to the necessary conservativism of the courts, it will be a long time in advance they will make much use of psychological knowledge. Perhaps the greatest service will be in determining the credibility of evidence. Psychology can now give the general principles in this matter. Witnesses go on the stand and swear to all sorts of things as to what they heard and saw and did, often months and even years previously. The expert clinical psychologist can tell the court the opportunity of such evidence being true.Experiments have shown that there is a large percentage of error in such evidence. The summational value that comes from the jinx has been measured. The oath increases the liability of truth only a small percentage. Psychologists sometimes provide expert testimony in the form of general testimony where theory and research is described and applied to a problem before the court. The expert would not provide opinions about any party involved in the case before the court, but might give opinions about substantive research that is relevant to the issues. Role of Psychology Professional in Forensic MattersClinical-forensic psychologists are employed in a variety of settings including state forensic hospitals, court clinics, mental wellness centers, jails, prisons, and juvenile handling centers. Clinical-forensic psychologists are perhaps best known for their assessment of persons involved with the legal system. Because of their knowledge of human behavior, abnormal psychology, and psychological assessment, psychologists are sometimes asked by the courts to label a person and provide the court with an expert opinion, either in the form of a report or testimony.For example, clinical-forensic psychologists frequently evaluate bighearted criminal defendants or children involved in the juvenile justice system, go the court information that might be relevant to determining (1) whether the defendant has a mental unhealthiness that prevents him or her from going to trial, (2) what the defendants mental state may have been like at the time of the criminal offense, or (3) what treatment might be indicated for a particular defendant who has been convicted of a crime or juvenile offense.Increasingly, clinical-forensic psychologists are being called upon to evaluate defendants who have gone to trial and who have been found vile and for whom one of the sentencing options is the death penalty. In this case, psychologists are asked to evaluate the mitigating circumstances of the case and to testify about these as they relate to the particular defendant. Clinical-forensic psychologists also evaluate persons in civil (i. e. , non-criminal) cases.These psychologists may evaluate persons who are undergoing guardianship proceedings, to suffice the court in determining whether the person has a mental disorder that affects his or her ability to make important life decisions (e. g. , managing money, making health care decisions, making legal decisions). Clinical-forensic psychologists also evaluate persons who are plaintiffs in lawsuits, who allege that they were emotionally harmed as a result of someones wrongdoing or negligence.Clinical-forensic psychologists may evaluate children and their parents in cases of divorce, when parents cannot agree about the custody of their children and what is best for them. Clinical-forensic psychologists are sometimes called on to evaluate children to determine whether they have been exclaimd or neglected and the effects of such ill-treat or neglect, and offer the court recommendations regarding the placement of such children. In addition to forensic assessment, clinical-forensic psychologists are also involved in treating persons who are involved with the legal system in some capacity.Jails, prisons, and juvenile facilities employ clinical psychologists to assess and treat adults and juveniles who are either awaiting trial, or who have been adjudicated and are serving a sentence of some type. Treatment in these settings is think both on mental disorders and providing these persons with skills and behaviors that will decrease the likelihood that they will re-offend in the future. Clinical-forensic psychologists employed in mental health centers or in private practice may also trea t persons involved in the legal system, providing either general or specialized treatment (e. g. treatment of sex offenders, treatment of violent or abusive persons, and treatment of abuse victims).Conclusion Studies confirm that unregulated eyewitness testimony is often hopelessly unreliable. Misidentifications are the greatest single source of wrongful convictions in the joined States. Yet courts current due process analyses are unsuccessful in ensuring fair procedures and preventing wrongful convictions. A due process analysis only if is inadequate, in part because a due process analysis is basically a fairness inquiry, and courts regard it as unfair to exclude a correct, yet suggestive identification, from evidence.