How Accurate Is Eyewitness Testimony Essay

The bedrock of the Ameri shadow judicial rational cognitive process is the satin flower of visualizees in running. Eye regard testimony can make a mystical impression on a jury, which is of x exclusively assigned the part of sorting out credibility issues and making judgments intimately the truth of smasher statements. In the U. S. , there is the possibility of over 5,000 illicit convictions each category because of mistaken witness denominations. The continuous flow of media stories that tell of impoverished pile being incarcerated should serve as a signal to us that the homo recognition process is rife with a large number of break risks.These risks w ar been largely supported by research. Unfortunately, a jury r atomic number 18ly hears of the risks therefore, eyewitness testimony remains a much-used and much-trusted process by those who ar uninformed many whiles, truthfully uninformed. In cases in which eyewitness testimony is used, to a greater extent o ften than non, an expert depart not be allowed to learn up to the faults of eyewitness designation. Thus, the uninformed stay blissfully ignorant of the inherent risks snar conduct in eyewitness identification testimony.Too often, these blissfully ignorant the great unwashed make up a jury of our peers. (McAtlin, 1999). According to McAtlin, there are terzetto parts of an eyewitness testimony (1) Witnessing a crime as a victim or a bystander involves watching the case plot of land it is happening. (2) The witness must memorize the details of the occurrence. (3) The witness must be able to accurately recall and communicate what he or she saw. Studies of im puritanical conviction cases assume concluded that erroneous eyewitness identifications are by far the leading cause of convicting the impoverished.Several studies have been conducted on piece holding and on subjects propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. When human beings try to a cquire, retain and retrieve information with any clarity, vatical influences and common human failures profoundly limit them. The law can gravel slightly of these human limitations others are unavoidable. The unavoidable ones can make eyewitness testimony devastating in the judicatoryroom and can lead to wrongful convictions.Unfortunately, memories are not indelibly stamped onto a brain video cassette tape. An event stored in the human remembrance undergoes constant change. Some details whitethorn be altered when new or different information round the event is added to the existing memory. Some details are simply forget and normal memory loss occurs continually. Even so, witnesses often become more confident in the correctness of their memories over time. The original memory has exhausted and has been replaced with new information. This new information has replaced the original memory because the natural process of memory deterioration has persisted.Furthermore, single eye witnesses vary widely in infallibility and reasoning. . (McAtlin, 1999). Studies of wrongful conviction cases have concluded that erroneous eyewitness identifications are by far the leading cause of convicting the innocent. For example, the Innocence Project of Cardozo School of constabulary force reports that of the first 130 exonerations, 101 (or 77. 8 percent) bear on mistaken identifications. still exactly how often eyewitnesses make tragic mistakes that lead to the punishment of innocent soulfulnesss is unknown and probably unknowable.One of the infamous cases where mistaken identity led to the wrongful conviction and execution was Gary Graham. Grahams case genuine widespread attention, in part because of substantial attest indicating that he was innocent of the murder charge, and the indisputable fact that his court-appointed trial lawyer failed to mount a serious legal defense. Graham was convicted of killing grocery store shop clerk Bobby Lambert on May 13, 1981 duri ng a robbery attempt. Graham was 17 years old at the time. There was no physical tell apart linking him to the crime and exclusively 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 appeal established criteria that jurors may use to label the reliability of eyewitness identifications. The Biggers dally enumerated several factors to determine if a suggestive identification is reliable (1) the witnesss opportunity to view the suspect (2) the witnesss degree of attention (3) the accuracy of description (4) the witnesss level of evidence and (5) the time between incident and confrontation, i. . , identification. Courts today pass off to allow into evidence suggestive identification testimony. Currently, courts consider the admissibility of identification testimony under a Fourteenth Amendm ent procedural imputable process analysis. If a court determines that a pretrial identification was unnecessarily suggestive, it then ascertains whether the suggestive procedure gave turf out to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. A court willing 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 provided 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 discernment of the defendants guilt. Issues That Impact an Individuals Testimony A specific look at how memory functions and how suggestion operates llustrates why participation in unregulated lineups creat es unreasonable risks of misidentification. acknowledgment procedures differ from other police investigatory procedures in that they solely cuss on human memory. Human memory consists of three basic clays (1) encoding, (2) storage, and (3) retrieval. encryption is the initial processing of an event that results in a memory. Storage is the property of the encoded information. Retrieval is the recovery of the stored information. Errors can occur at each step. blow to common understanding of memory, not everything that registers in the central nervous system is permanently stored in the mind and ill-tempered details become progressively inaccessible over time. According to Loftus and Ketchum, Truth and reality, when seen through the filters of our memories, are not objective facts save subjective, interpretive realities. Because these processes are unconscious, individuals generally perceive their memories as completely accurate and their reporting of what they remember as entir ely truthful, no matter how distorted or inaccurate they, in fact, may be.An individuals memories become distorted even in the absence of foreign suggestion or internal individual(prenominal) distress. Naturally, people tailor their weighty of events to the listener and the context. (Loftus & Ketchum 1991). Many conditions much(prenominal) as fear, lighting, distance from the event, surprise, and personal biases all affect memory and recall. Human memory is indeed delicate, particularly 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 upturned emotional state. Many victims and witnesses experience 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 a nd enable the judge and the jury to put the proper value on such(prenominal) 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 twelve minutes, or whether a distance was three hundred or four 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 practice of lawThe service of psychology to law can be very great, provided owing to the necessary conservatism of the courts, it will be a abundant time before they will make much use of psychological knowledge. Perhaps the greatest service will be in determine 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 perceive and saw and did, often months and even years previously. The expert clinical psychologist can tell the court the probability of such evidence being true.Experiments have shown that there is a large percentage of error in such evidence. The additional value that comes from the oath has been measured. The oath increases the liability of truth only a small percentage. Psychologists nearlytimes provide expert testimony in the form of general testimony where theory and research is described and apply to a problem before the court. The expert would not provide opinions about any party involved in the case before the court, but major power give opinions about substantive research that is relevant to the issues. procedure of Psychology Professional in Forensic MattersClinical-forensic psychologists are employed in a variety of settings including state forensic hospital s, court clinics, mental wellness centers, jails, prisons, and juvenile treatment 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 pass judgment a person and provide the court with an expert opinion, any in the form of a report or testimony.For example, clinical-forensic psychologists frequently evaluate adult criminal defendants or children involved in the juvenile justice system, offering the court information that might be relevant to determining (1) whether the defendant has a mental disorder 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.Incre asingly, clinical-forensic psychologists are being called upon to evaluate defendants who have gone to trial and who have been found guilty 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 concern to the particular defendant. Clinical-forensic psychologists overly evaluate persons in civil (i. e. , non-criminal) cases.These psychologists may evaluate persons who are undergoing guardianship proceedings, to assist the court in determining whether the person has a mental disorder that affects his or her ability to make eventful life decisions (e. g. , managing money, making health care decisions, making legal decisions). Clinical-forensic psychologists alike 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 abused or neglect and the effects of such abuse or neglect, and offer the court recommendations regarding the stance 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 focused 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 treat 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 address of wrongful convictions in the United States. Yet courts current collect process analyses are unsuccessful in ensuring fair procedures and preventing wrongful convictions. A due process analysis alone is inadequate, in part because a due process analysis is essentially a fairness inquiry, and courts regard it as unfair to exclude a correct, yet suggestive identification, from evidence.