DON'T PANIC! This blog is authored by Seniors at Aragon High School, San Mateo, CA.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
False Eyewitness Testimonies Account for More Than Half of 2,000 Exonerations
The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported on a new archive which totals 2,000 exonerated convicts in the past 23 years. According to the article/archive, the most common cause of a wrongful conviction are false testimonies/identifications (SF Chronicle Article). This reminded me of a Sixty Minutes segment from about a year ago that delved into problems with eyewitness identification. Firstly, the "fight or flight" reaction of people under stress greatly reduces their ability to remember details which would help them identify a perpetrator later, as Gary Wells, an Iowa State psychology professor explains:
Secondly, even if the criminal is not present it a line up, as was the case with Jennifer Thompson-Cannino and Ronald Cotton (in which the former mistakenly identified the latter as her rapist),often people will compromise the picture in their head somewhat in order to be able to choose someone from the line up. Once that image is altered it is nearly impossible for the victim to identify his/her actual attacker. 60 Minutes Segment
<embed src="http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf" scale="noscale" salign="lt" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" background="#333333" width="425" height="279" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" FlashVars="si=254&&contentValue=50074285&shareUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5153451n&tag=mncol;lst;5" />
These phenomena raise the question: is eyewitness testimony reliable? Is it reliable enough to be as large of a factor in convictions as it currently is, especially with the existence of the death penalty?
Eyewitness testimonies are, in fact, proven to be susceptible to multiple erroneous influences through the Loftus and Palmer psychology experiment performed in 1974. In this experiment, two specific studies were performed, the results of which will be briefly detailed below. In study one, Loftus/Palmer demonstrated that the more severe the verb, the more likely we are to attribute a higher speed to an automobile collision. In study two, Loftus/Palmer showed that the more severe the verb (of automobile collision), the more likely we are to falsely believe that there was glass (or other dangerous objects) present on the scene. In both scenarios, Loftus/Palmer were testing the effect of leading questions on eyewitness testimonies and indirectly testing the vulnerability of aforementioned witnesses (especially in the context of traumatic events). As evinced by the results of the experiment (as well as other known phenomena about the distortion of memory when wrongly prompted), false eyewitness testimonies are common and certain do exist.
However, despite the possible error of eyewitness testimonies, they are nevertheless extremely crucial to the process of a trial, given the fact that they are the sole (hopefully unbiased) human beings who witnessed the situation aside from the persons involved. Thus, they provide an extremely important perspective to a case, and unfortunately it is usually impossible to tell the different between a truthful and false testimony. However, these eyewitness testimonies can be reduced from the risk of erroneous storytelling by removing leading questions (as shown by the Loftus/Palmer study) as well as by removing other forms of predetermined bias (such as by presenting a line up of candidate criminals that doesn’t even include the criminal). Unfortunately, it is difficult to resolve the haziness in memory that is associated with the “fight or flight” reaction, but the delicacy of the memory can certainly be preserved in eyewitness testimonies by, again, avoiding leading or suggestive questions.
I'd have to agree with Rebecca and say that eyewitness testimony is an important part in the justice system. With out it, the justice system would acquit many more criminals. I think the most important part to reform is how the eyewitness identifies criminals. Like Adrianne said, people will change there memory to fit what they see. I think if police showed suspects individually and told witnesses that this may or may not be the actually criminal people would think twice and make sure that they are certain the suspect is the same person they originally saw. Eyewitnesses are usually key to a case and should not be done away with. However, if police make it harder for eyewitnesses to wrongly accuse then there maybe fewer people wrongly convicted.
I think eyewitness type stuff is good for deeming someone as a suspect for a crime, but that it's not enough to convict or even reliably arrest someone. If people want eyewitness account to count for something, they're going to have to make the line-ups more rigorous, and preferably checked with multiple people. One possible way to do this would be to show the victim a series of pictures (or the actual people) one at a time, so they are less compelled to just pick one from the list.
Certainly, eyewitness alone is not enough to convict someone. Like what Rebecca said, an eyewitness is susceptible to suggestibility and reconstructed memory. Our memory does not take a picture of an event and make us remember every miniscule detail. We reconstruct our memory and an investigator’s way of questioning can further influence it. Our emotion or mood can also affect our memory. DNA testing has helped a lot in identifying the real suspect and exonerating many wrongly convicted prisoners. Despite its flaws, getting a statement from an eyewitness is important. They are present at the time and location of the crime. It is necessary that eyewitnesses should be asked questions right away. The more the investigators increase the time interval between the event and the questioning process, the more it is likely that the eyewitness will reconstruct his/ her memory. Moreover, I think that perjury is not the only reason why those people were unjustly convicted. There are other culprits such as police officers, plaintiff, defense lawyers, prosecutors, and even judges. Furthermore, we have to be extremely careful in a criminal case that involves capital punishment. Once executed, death penalty can never be undone.
Another side to what Christian said, is that the eyewitness may change their memories to fit what they see due to the stress of picking a convict out of the line-up as well as the stress of quickly getting justice or their own sense of revenge on the criminal that committed the crime against them. The conviction and arrest of someone should be backed up with considerable and thorough evidence besides the testimony of an eyewitness. I could see the logic of Brian's way but in the case between "Jennifer Thompson-Cannino and Ronald Cotton (in which the former mistakenly identified the latter as her rapist)" this choice could be mistaken as invalid either way.
Certainly, eyewitness alone is not enough to convict someone. Like what Rebecca said, an eyewitness is susceptible to suggestibility and reconstructed memory. Our memory does not take a picture of an event and make us remember every miniscule detail. We reconstruct our memory and an investigator’s way of questioning can further influence it. Our emotion or mood can also affect our memory. DNA testing has helped a lot in identifying the real suspect and exonerating many wrongly convicted prisoners. Despite its flaws, getting a statement from an eyewitness is important. They are present at the time and location of the crime. It is necessary that eyewitnesses should be asked questions right away. The more the investigators increase the time interval between the event and the questioning process, the more it is likely that the eyewitness will reconstruct his/ her memory. Moreover, I think that perjury is not the only reason why those people were unjustly convicted. There are other culprits such as police officers, defense lawyers, prosecutors, and even judges. Furthermore, we have to be extremely careful in a criminal case that involves capital punishment. Once executed, death penalty can never be undone.
6 comments:
Eyewitness testimonies are, in fact, proven to be susceptible to multiple erroneous influences through the Loftus and Palmer psychology experiment performed in 1974. In this experiment, two specific studies were performed, the results of which will be briefly detailed below. In study one, Loftus/Palmer demonstrated that the more severe the verb, the more likely we are to attribute a higher speed to an automobile collision. In study two, Loftus/Palmer showed that the more severe the verb (of automobile collision), the more likely we are to falsely believe that there was glass (or other dangerous objects) present on the scene. In both scenarios, Loftus/Palmer were testing the effect of leading questions on eyewitness testimonies and indirectly testing the vulnerability of aforementioned witnesses (especially in the context of traumatic events). As evinced by the results of the experiment (as well as other known phenomena about the distortion of memory when wrongly prompted), false eyewitness testimonies are common and certain do exist.
However, despite the possible error of eyewitness testimonies, they are nevertheless extremely crucial to the process of a trial, given the fact that they are the sole (hopefully unbiased) human beings who witnessed the situation aside from the persons involved. Thus, they provide an extremely important perspective to a case, and unfortunately it is usually impossible to tell the different between a truthful and false testimony. However, these eyewitness testimonies can be reduced from the risk of erroneous storytelling by removing leading questions (as shown by the Loftus/Palmer study) as well as by removing other forms of predetermined bias (such as by presenting a line up of candidate criminals that doesn’t even include the criminal). Unfortunately, it is difficult to resolve the haziness in memory that is associated with the “fight or flight” reaction, but the delicacy of the memory can certainly be preserved in eyewitness testimonies by, again, avoiding leading or suggestive questions.
I'd have to agree with Rebecca and say that eyewitness testimony is an important part in the justice system. With out it, the justice system would acquit many more criminals. I think the most important part to reform is how the eyewitness identifies criminals. Like Adrianne said, people will change there memory to fit what they see. I think if police showed suspects individually and told witnesses that this may or may not be the actually criminal people would think twice and make sure that they are certain the suspect is the same person they originally saw. Eyewitnesses are usually key to a case and should not be done away with. However, if police make it harder for eyewitnesses to wrongly accuse then there maybe fewer people wrongly convicted.
I think eyewitness type stuff is good for deeming someone as a suspect for a crime, but that it's not enough to convict or even reliably arrest someone. If people want eyewitness account to count for something, they're going to have to make the line-ups more rigorous, and preferably checked with multiple people. One possible way to do this would be to show the victim a series of pictures (or the actual people) one at a time, so they are less compelled to just pick one from the list.
Certainly, eyewitness alone is not enough to convict someone. Like what Rebecca said, an eyewitness is susceptible to suggestibility and reconstructed memory. Our memory does not take a picture of an event and make us remember every miniscule detail. We reconstruct our memory and an investigator’s way of questioning can further influence it. Our emotion or mood can also affect our memory. DNA testing has helped a lot in identifying the real suspect and exonerating many wrongly convicted prisoners. Despite its flaws, getting a statement from an eyewitness is important. They are present at the time and location of the crime. It is necessary that eyewitnesses should be asked questions right away. The more the investigators increase the time interval between the event and the questioning process, the more it is likely that the eyewitness will reconstruct his/ her memory. Moreover, I think that perjury is not the only reason why those people were unjustly convicted. There are other culprits such as police officers, plaintiff, defense lawyers, prosecutors, and even judges. Furthermore, we have to be extremely careful in a criminal case that involves capital punishment. Once executed, death penalty can never be undone.
Another side to what Christian said, is that the eyewitness may change their memories to fit what they see due to the stress of picking a convict out of the line-up as well as the stress of quickly getting justice or their own sense of revenge on the criminal that committed the crime against them. The conviction and arrest of someone should be backed up with considerable and thorough evidence besides the testimony of an eyewitness. I could see the logic of Brian's way but in the case between "Jennifer Thompson-Cannino and Ronald Cotton (in which the former mistakenly identified the latter as her rapist)" this choice could be mistaken as invalid either way.
Certainly, eyewitness alone is not enough to convict someone. Like what Rebecca said, an eyewitness is susceptible to suggestibility and reconstructed memory. Our memory does not take a picture of an event and make us remember every miniscule detail. We reconstruct our memory and an investigator’s way of questioning can further influence it. Our emotion or mood can also affect our memory. DNA testing has helped a lot in identifying the real suspect and exonerating many wrongly convicted prisoners. Despite its flaws, getting a statement from an eyewitness is important. They are present at the time and location of the crime. It is necessary that eyewitnesses should be asked questions right away. The more the investigators increase the time interval between the event and the questioning process, the more it is likely that the eyewitness will reconstruct his/ her memory. Moreover, I think that perjury is not the only reason why those people were unjustly convicted. There are other culprits such as police officers, defense lawyers, prosecutors, and even judges. Furthermore, we have to be extremely careful in a criminal case that involves capital punishment. Once executed, death penalty can never be undone.
Post a Comment