Causes
of Errors in Eye Witness Accounts
The
criminal justice system tremendously depends on eye witnesses in order to
determine the facts that surround criminal activities. Eyewitnesses might
identify culprits, remember conversations, or other significant information. An
eyewitness who is honest and has no intention to lie is a strong form of
evidence for the jurors, particularly if the eyewitness seem to be highly
confident regarding his memory. In the absence of evidence that is definitive,
the account presented by the eyewitness is accepted by judges, the police, as
well as prosecutors. However, in some instances, an error may occur in the
accounts that are presented by eyewitnesses. The psychological process that
leads to eyewitnesses’ error stands for a confluence of both memory as well as
social-influence variable that interrelate in complex ways. The use of DNA has
confirmed that eyewitness identification is at most times inaccurate.There are
different causes of errors in the accounts by eyewitnesses in relation to
criminal events.
Exposure
Duration: the amount of time that an eyewitness is available for observing a
criminal is positively related to the ability of a witness to accurately
identify a criminal. A meta-analysis by Barlow
(2005) showed that there is a correlation between the time of exposure in a
criminal event as well as accuracy of an account by eyewitnesses. The impact of
exposure time were demonstrated in a study carried by Parker (2008) where mock
witnesses watched a realistic crime that was videotaped and the perpetrator was
visible for 10 versus 50 seconds. After 40 minutes, the witnesses were tested
by use of target-present as well as target-absent arrays. They found that the
proportion of accurate identifications within the target-present arrays as well
as correct rejections within the target-absent arrays improved significantly
when the exposure time was increased from 10 seconds to 50 seconds. Even though
mistakes in identification within the target-absent arrays continued to be high
as well with longer exposure. According to Lally (2003), a psychologist, memory
weakens as time passes. As a result, the accuracy of eye-witness identification
during criminal-events is expected to decline as the time that is between the
time of crime and the test for identification increases.
Weapon
Focus: this refers to the visual focus that eyewitnesses provide to the weapon
of a criminal in the course of a crime. According to Greenberg
& Shuman (2007), it is expected that the attention that the
eyewitness gives to a weapon is during a criminal activity is anticipated to
reduce his capacity to remember later bout the details of the perpetrator of an
event. There are many researchers who have made efforts in assessing the
remembering capacity of eyewitnesses so as to establish the parameters of the
impacts of weapon focus on the memory.
Lack
of confidence: the lack of confidence by the eyewitness is a major cause of
errors that takes place when an eyewitness is giving a account. Confidence of
an eyewitness is a powerful instrument in identifying suspects in a criminal
event. Firstly, there is a resilient innate appeal that both confidence as well
as accuracy ought to be closely associated. Lack of reliability of an
eyewitness ought to be measured in terms of the confidence that he or she
expresses in giving an account of what transpired at a crime scene. Jurors who
are participating in a court trial consider confidence as being significant
prior to making a decision on whether an eyewitness has made correct
identification. At first, researchers on eyewitnesses placed emphasis on the
relationship that exist between the confidence portrayed by the eyewitness
during identification as well as the accuracy that will be attained. However,
it is presently clear that the relationship involving confidence as well as
accuracy tremendously varies as a function of several other factors. For
example, the error made is dependent, in part, on the similarity between a
mistakenly identified individual and the actual target (Greenberg & Shuman, 2009). The confidence of an eyewitness is
proportional to the amount of memory that he/she has in relation to a crime
event. The correlation between the confidence of an eyewitness and the accuracy
obtained should therefore be sufficient enough so as to avoid making errors
during the identification of criminal persons. According to Parker (2008), the
strength of this correlation should be
attained by means of accountability, context reinstatement, as well as other
thought influences, even though none of these has been successful in doing so.
Conducting of forensic and clinical assessment has a number of
similarities and differences. One such similarity occurs in their participation
as forensic experts during litigation in support of their patients. There is a
difference in approach in terms of the acquisition and verification f
information between the forensic and clinical assessment. Forensic experts use
several sources as well as techniques to collect information as they cannot
make an assumption of the veracity of any information. However, therapists do
not have a problem with the issues of veracity but are more interested with the
incentives for litigants.
The failure of an eyewitnesses’ memory. There are other situations
when the memory of an eyewitness may fail, therefore
resulting into errors in the identification of individuals involved in a crime
event. There are different types of skills as well as training that are
required in forensic and clinical psychology. According to Packer (2008),
forensic psychologists have basic clinical training and must also possess
specialized knowledge in addition to experience in relation to the law and its
concepts. This as well includes the functioning of the legal process. They also
have skills in specialized forensic tools, procedures, as well as the methods
that are concerned with the provision of expert witness testimony.
Practitioners of forensic psychology ought to be familiar with the legal cases
that act as guidance to judges in finding out if new methodologies like
psychological tests ought to be accepted as evidence.
Barlow (2005) asserts that conducting of assessments by forensic,
and clinical experts are similar in the sense that they are all based on
evidence. The U.S. courts recognize psychologists as having the capacity to
offer expertise in different legal issues, for instance, as witnesses in crime
cases. In a number of jurisdictions, forensic evaluations have a relation to
the criminal justice system, where they can assess the competency of a suspect
to stand trial. In a therapeutic work, the person who is under evaluation is
the client to the psychologist, and the duties, relationship, and nature of
relations emanates from this. However, a person who is under evaluation in a
forensic relationship is not a client to the psychologist. The person is under
evaluation as per the orders of the court. Forensic experts are also needed to
adopt an adversarial duty, and question the validity of the reports of an
individual.
According to Lally (2003), the testimony of a forensic expert
ought to be on the basis of scientific standards that have been accepted. For
instance, in the Frye v. United States, 1923, the appellate court made a ruling
that the initial form of polygraph is very experimental to be used as evidence.
Forensic psychologists must be well-informed on the legal rules that preside
over the admissibility of expert testimony. Packer (2008) states that the
practitioners who search for training experiences in the field of forensic psychology
should focus on the following: forensic interviewing methods, proper use and
interpretation of evaluation tools, report writing, ability to provide expert
testimony in an apparent and articulate way, and practice forensic psychology
in line with the guidelines of the specialty.
In
conclusion, efforts have to be made in order to address this issue concerning
errors that occur in the accounts that are given by the eyewitnesses.
Eyewitnesses account are essential to the forensic
evaluators, who then play an imperative role in the modern-day court systems.
Some of these roles have been described in the entertainment industry through
films as well as television. The approach that professionals in forensic
psychology apply in their treatment of criminal suspects is very different from
that which is being used by clinical treatment providers. This paper reviews
the articles in addressing the assessment as well as roles between forensic
evaluators and clinical treatment providers.
Additional articles
It is common knowledge that gender orients us in interacting with others and is paramount to our identities. However, we rarely ask ourselves what would happen if gender did not exist? Theorists acknowledge that one result of eliminating gender wo...A-World-Without-Gender …
Read ArticleIntroduction Involvement of researchers in administration of schools and leadership professions has resulted to ...Leadership-Communication-in-Education …
Read ArticleIn the reading “The New Sovereignty by Shelby Steele,†the author challenges the orthodoxy of diversity that is very common in university campuses (451). He describes the embarking of the US government in the alteration and expansion of the en...Synthesis-Essay …
Read Article