Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony
Student’s Name
Institution of Affiliation
Date
Eyewitness testimony is a legal term that refers to the account given by an individual of an event they witnessed. Based on this, the eyewitness is perceived to have knowledge of the event as they were physically present and saw everything that transpired. As a result, eyewitness testimony tends to be crucially important to the justice system (Wixted). However, the reliability of eyewitness evidence is questionable as it has led to the convictions of many innocent people, raising the question as to whether eyewitness is reliable and should be admissible in court. DNA evidence has revealed that some convicted individuals were wrongly accused and this has led to over 75% of exonerations of cases that involved mistaken eyewitness identification due to anxiety and stress, memory reconstruction, and visual problems (Wixted, Mickes & Fisher, 2018).
Regardless of whether the accounts provided are true or not, these accounts of the eyewitnesses tend to be significant in criminal trials as they help in reconstructing the facts from past events (Wixted). Since eyewitnesses have a detailed account of the events are they occurred, the justice system tends to trust the witnesses, and this has led to the conviction of many criminals. The jury tends to take into account the evidence brought by eyewitnesses as they strongly believe that ‘seeing is believing. There have been numerous criminal cases across the United States, and in most of these cases, there have always been people who saw what happened (Wixted). For example, in cases of robbery in a bank, witnesses can range from the security guards to the bank attendants, and all these accounts put together can be strong evidence against the defendant. In such cases, it is difficult for the defendant to prove their innocence as there are multiple counts of eyewitnesses who were present as the defendants perpetrated the crime (Wixted, Mickes & Fisher, 2018). In such a case, it is difficult to assume the presence of bias as the evidence of many people has collaborated, making eyewitness evidence irrefutable in such criminal cases.
Despite aiding to serve justice, eyewitness evidence has led to wrongful convictions. Memory reconstruction is one of the major reasons why there are lots of wrongful convictions (Mcleod, 2018). As stated earlier that ‘seeing is believing,’ has made many jurors believe the account of eyewitnesses, however, these accounts do not necessarily match the information provided in court. It is a common misconception that human memory works like a video recording, which allows people to replay events in their minds as they perceived them at the scene of the crime. Science has a different perception of human memory; it asserts that memories are reconstructed, and not replayed, which means that the human memory is not a recording (Wixted, Mickes & Fisher, 2018). As a result, the human mind tends to derive fragments of what they saw. These fragments are pieced together like a puzzle in their minds as they try to recall the information.
Also, the questioning of the eyewitness does not follow the same pattern as the individual witnessed, and this makes it difficult for the person to put the pieces together, leading to alteration of the witness memory, and consequently what they saw. People tend to store information in a manner that tends to make the most sense to them (Mcleod, 2018). Based on this, we make sense of information by trying to fit it into schemas, which are a way of organizing information. In a court of law, individuals are not asked to narrate what happened, but they are asked certain questions to which the prosecutor wants the witness to perceive the incident, and such twisting makes the witness retrieve only information that makes sense to them. By the end of the questioning, the witness is confused and cannot makes sense of what they saw, leading to wrongful convictions.
Anxiety and stress and weapon focus are other issues that can make an eyewitness provide wrongful information. Witnessing a crime can be a stressful experience and can increase the chance of trauma especially if the crime greatly affected the witness (Mcleod, 2018). Anxiety and stress can alter the perceptions of what the individual saw, leading to inaccurate information and identifications. In most crimes, the perpetrators are often armed with weapons to cause damage and defend themselves if the mission went wrong. In such circumstances, many people fear for their lives as they may not know what the perpetrator is thinking, and rather than focusing on who is committing the crime, most people focus on the weapons and picture how they will die. Being on the brink of death makes a person focus on other things such as their loved ones, and may not be able to capture details of the event as everything seems to move fast. Due to anxiety and stress, the witness may not provide reliable information that can lead to the identification of the right perpetrator, they will say what they think they saw which is not true. Evidence shows that some eyewitnesses are of two types, those who focus on the perpetrator and those who focus on the weapon (Mcleod, 2018). For example, a witness who saw the gun version tends to focus on the gun, and therefore, they are less likely to identify the perpetrator in an identity parade compared to those who focused on the perpetrator’s face.
Lineup issues are another major challenge that has led to wrongful convictions based on an eyewitness account. Suspected crime perpetrators are put in lineups both physically and in photographs, and the witnesses are asked to identify the person who they think was the perpetrator. The suspects brought for identification are almost identical and this includes the photographs as well. If the proper procedures are not followed, the law enforcers might give the eyewitness a hint of whom they should identify (Wixted). For example, if the photographs used are of different lighting and sizes, it may cause one picture of the suspect to stand out over others. As a result, the witness may take the standout image as the perpetrator which might not actually be the case. Also, considering the weapon focus and anxiety issues during the crime, some of the eyewitnesses may not have identified the perpetrator as they were busy focusing on other issues. In this case, they might be guessing who might be the perpetrator and might use the facial appearance of the criminals to make their claim (Wixted, Mickes & Fisher, 2018). As a result, the person who is most likely to have bad looks will be assumed to have been the perpetrator, an indication that eyewitness evidence is subject to bias.
Visual characteristics are another major issue in eyewitness evidence. In most cases, witnesses base their identification of a suspect on the defining features (Gustafsson, Lindholm, & Jönsson, 2019). However, criminals are well aware of this, and therefore, they come prepared, with most of them dressing in disguise. For example, a crime may be perpetrated by a woman wearing a mask and dressed and talking like a man, and since their face cannot be seen, it will be difficult to identify whether it was a woman. When it comes to identification, there are higher chances that most eyewitnesses will pick a male suspect who is of the same height and stature as the woman who committed the crime. In such a case, the perpetrator will be free while an innocent person will be sent to jail for a crime they did not commit. In the same context of visual characteristics, racial differences between the suspect and the witness can as well affect the identification of a suspect (Gustafsson, Lindholm, & Jönsson, 2019). Individuals are generally better at identifying members of their own race, and therefore, tend to be highly inaccurate in identifying individuals from other races. Based on this, witnesses might not be sure of whom committed the crime and this might lead to wrongful detention and prosecution.
Finally, distance is another major issue to consider in determining the reliability of eyewitness evidence. As distance increases, blurriness also increases, and this affects the ability of the witness to identify the perpetrators of a crime. The closer the witness is to the crime; the more accurate details will be captured and this will help identify the perpetrator of a crime. For example, at 10 feet, the eyewitness can see a tattoo in the hands, at 200 feet, it would be impossible to see the individual’s eyes, and at 500 feet, it would even be difficult to identify a person since their head can be seen as just one big blur (Stambor, 2006). Based on this, there is equivalence between the size of an individual and blurriness by distance as things get smaller, and by this, finer details are lost. Even though some claim to have seen the perpetrator from a distance during the day, this might not happen during the night as even with artificial lighting, it would be difficult to identify a person who is just 10 feet away.
In conclusion, while eyewitness evidence has been highly valuable in the courts of law and has aided in convicting a large number of criminals, this kind of evidence may not be reliable as it is prone to human errors. The human memory is not like a video recorder and uses memory reconstruction to retrieve information. While the human mind is subject to memory loss, it is also subject to storing information in the form that suits the individual. When it comes to retrieval, only what seems to make sense is retrieved. Most prosecutors ask twisted questions that might be confusing to the witness, resulting in memory alteration due to disorientation. Also, distance, weapon focus and anxiety, and visual characteristics may lead the witness to choose the wrong person. Finally, most of the suspects put on parades or photographs are almost identical and since most of the witnesses might not have captured fine details about the perpetrator, they might be confused and choose the wrong person. Based on this, it is evident that eyewitness accounts are not reliable, but they can be used to reconstruct the events at the scene of the crime. As a result, this evidence can be admissible in court, but can only be used along with other evidence such as DNA to prove the perpetrator guilty.
References
Gustafsson, P. U., Lindholm, T., & Jönsson, F. U. (2019). Predicting Accuracy in Eyewitness Testimonies With Memory Retrieval Effort and Confidence. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 703. Retrieved from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00703/full
Mcleod, S., (2018). Eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness Testimony | Simply Psychology. Retrieved from: https://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitness-testimony.html
Stambor, Z. (2006). How Reliable Is Eyewitness Testimony?. Monitor on Psychology. American Psychological Association. 37(4), 26-27. Retrieved from: https://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness
Wixted, J. (2017, June 13). Eyewitness memory is a lot more reliable than you think. Scientific American. Retrieved from: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eyewitness-memory-is-a-lot-more-reliable-than-you-think/
Wixted, J. T., Mickes, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2018). Rethinking the reliability of eyewitness memory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(3), 324-335. Retrieved from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617734878
