'Eye Witness Testimony Essay\r'

'â€Å" avow testimonial is so un tested that it should never be utilize in convicting criminals”. witness recommendation is a wakeless term. It refers to; an account given by person(s) of an event they’ve witnessed. Eyewitness evidence is admissible in a beg of law of nature to assist in the conviction of individuals. In 1976, the Devlin report examined over 2000 identity parades in the U. K. Of the 2000 parades, 45% resulted in a suspect being great deal and out of these, 82% were eventually convicted of a wickedness. In over ccc cases, the witness testimony was the furbish up â€Å"evidence” used in conviction. 4% of these 300 cases resulted in criminal convictions. The signifi idlerce of witness testimony was highlighted in this report and resulted in much more(prenominal) inquiry being under taken. Cohen delineates â€Å"err singleous eyewitness testimony” as being the â€Å"leading cause of unconventional conviction”. The m ulti memory board /Atkinson-Shiffrin property model was inaugural recognised in 1968 by Atkinson and Shiffrin. The model attempts to unwrap the process that a stimulus must go through to become a retrievable fund board. afterward being criticised for its supposed simplicity, Baddeley and Hitch (1974) developed the workings origin model.\r\nBoth of these models propose that h sometime(a)ing is a complex phenomenon that must go through numerous stages to become an immaculately recalled storehouse. It is this process that offers explanation into the complexness of memory and the patchy atomic number 18as that may result in memory confabulation. The Psychology of Rumour chew over by Allport & adenylic acid; post manhood’s (examined latter) as swell alludes to memory being more complex than previously suasion and streng whereforeces the theory that memory is a process as opposed to a simplistic film. Sir Frederic bartlett pear, (1932) introduced the theory of â€Å" constructive memory” & antiophthalmic factor; â€Å"schemas” to Psychology.\r\nSchemas where defined by microph cardinal Cardwell as; â€Å"packages of reading” or â€Å"unconscious psychological structures”. These mental structures argon acquired through our experiences, or as a result of our expectations and cultural norms. Bartlett proposed that commonwealth use schemas constantly to complete tasks and to assist in making sense of our surroundings. The theory of schemas excessively suggests that in that location are gaps in a person’s memory that are filled with confabulated learning when reconstructed. Sir Bartlett (1973) devised an experimentation to investigate the essences of schemas on slew’s memories.\r\nTwenty histrions read a tarradiddle called; â€Å"The War of the Ghosts”. The story was culturally different westbound literature, and was difficult for them to comprehend. subsequently some time, the ac tors were asked to repeatedly recall the story in as much tip as possible. After recalling the same story half(prenominal) dozen times, once even a year later, participants out of the blue shortened the story from 330 words to an average of 180. Participants also altered parts of it to better suit their westernized culture. A conclusion of this experiment is that Memory recall is influenced by our schemas of cultural background and pre-existing knowledge.\r\nThe experiment has been criticised for a lack of objectivity, being lax on covariant control and casual conditions. nevertheless, the experimenter’s findings were also change by Cromberg et al whom in 1996 queryed people one year after plane crash. Of the 193 questioned, 55% incorrectly said that they had seen the plane gibe the building and 59% inaccurately reported that a fire had started right off on impact. Allport and Postman (1947) conducted a discipline call: â€Å"Psychology of Rumour” with part icipants who were all white. They were shown a contrive of an argument amongst a dreary man and a white man on a train.\r\nThe white man is holding a razor and threatening the black man aggressively. The participants were divided into groups of seven. ace participant from each group was shown the picture and asked to cover it to the second participant, who described it to the third, and so forth. Over half the participants who received the final description reported that the black man, not the white was holding the razor. This was wrong and shows that memory is susceptible to alteration by our own biases and prejudices inwardly society. This experiment has been at the forefront of the interface amidst law and psychology.\r\nThe findings gestate been repeatedly relayed in courts of law to express the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. barely, inaccurate accounts of the procedures and implications of the study have been substantially misunderstood and altered. Language is precise important in eyewitness testimony; the means that memory is retrieved from a witness strongly moves what that person recalls. Loftus proposed that witnesses could accept false information which would dramatically be active the reliability of their testimony. This is called: â€Å"misinformation acceptance” and May happen in a post event situation such(prenominal) as being interviewed.\r\nLoftus believed some interviews contained â€Å"leading questions”. A leading question is defined as a question that is phrased in a way as to influence or prompt a particularised form of answer. To test suffer leading questions could distort eyewitness testimony, Loftus and palmer (1974) conducted the: â€Å"Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction” experiment. forty five Ameri spate students were split into 5 subgroups. After being shown mingled car collisions on slides that were qualified variables for each group, Participants were instructed to answer qu estions on what they had witnessed.\r\nThe groups where asked to estimate the travel of the cars before they either: â€Å"hit/smashed/collided/bumped/contacted”. all(prenominal) subgroup was asked the same question but with different verbs (the indie variable. ) A week later participants were also asked questions such as; â€Å"Did you see any broken render? ” when none such existed. The findings of this experiment were that the verb used to describe the collision minted the participants speed estimate given. The persuadeing questions which they answered systematically attained the participant’s memory of the accident.\r\nThe participants in the â€Å"smashed” condition reported the highest speeds, followed by â€Å"collided”, â€Å"bumped”, â€Å"hit”, and â€Å"contacted” in descending order. The â€Å"smashed” group also had more participants reporting to have seen glass when there was none. This experiment s hows that memory is easily distorted by questioning techniques and information can be current post event causing confabulated memory. Strengths of this experiment are that it was conducted within a controlled environment and has serious implications for interviewing witnesses.\r\nHowever there is weakness’s to the experiment such all participants were students and not a wide rake of people. Also, the collisions where viewed on video not in substantial life. Videos may lack the emotional impact caused when witnessing a real-life accident Loftus et al (1978) proposed that emotion can affect memory. Loftus stated that emotional arousal during an event can lead to a step-down in accurate memory recall. Loftus et al conducted an experiment of the effect of emotion on memory by showing both films of an armed robbery to participants. unmatched film was violent, the early(a) was nonviolent.\r\nThey then tested the participant’s memories for detail of what they had wit nessed. The findings showed that the high-arousal version of a young boy being shot and falling to the floor, led to impaired memory recall. This was when compared to the low-arousal version. These findings show that emotions can affect memory. This experiment is research testing ground based and findings may be difficult to exchange into real-life environment. However, being conducted in a controlled environment gives it heighten ecological validity. Peters (1988) supported Yerkes & Dodson that illustrated an optimum take of emotional arousal enhanced memory.\r\nPeters found that when receiving inoculations in a clinic (an anxiety generating event) patients found it difficult in accurately recognizeing the nurse who issued their jab. One can terminate that this was due to the high levels of arousal surrounding the participant during the time of the jab. at that place is conflicting evidence weather emotions strengthen or weaken the accuracy of eyewitness testimonies. How ever, both theories support the idea that emotion has an effect on memory. Eastbrook (1959) proposed that arousal narrows the focus of attention.\r\nThis causes improved memory for central details but impaired memory for peripheral details. An early(a)(a) factor that affects the reliability of eyewitness testimony while witnessing an event is the: â€Å" weapon systems focus affect”. Weapon focus refers to the concentration of attention on a weapon by the witnesses of a crime. Loftus et al claimed that this diverted their attention and resulted in a reduction of remembering numerous other details of the crime or criminal. Loftus (1979) conducted an experiment to study whether the front of a weapon in an emotionally heightened state could affect eyewitness memory.\r\nParticipants believed they were waiting to participate in a memory study and were waiting outside a laboratory. As they waited, participants in â€Å"condition 1” overheard a staged yet civil talk glid e path from a room regarding equipment failure. A man then exited the room with a greasy hand holding a pen. specialise 2 participants were also mystic to a staged conversation from an unseen room. This conversation was â€Å"hostile” and was accompanied by the sound of suspension class and broken furniture. A man then exited the room holding a blood cover knife.\r\nParticipants were asked to draw the men they saw from fifty photographs. Condition one participants accurately identified the man 49% of the time. However, condition two participants were able to accurately identify the man only 33% of the time. From these results, Loftus concluded that presence of a weapon and a hostile clash affected witness’s ability to identify the individual. They were unable to focus attention on the man because more attention was concentrated on the weapon. This study is important in demonstrating the impact a weapon has on the reliability of eyewitness’s testimony.\r\nH owever, there have been more criticisms of these experiments. No distinction is do as to whether the hostile experience affected participant’s memories or simply the weapon. There are also huge concerns over the ethics of this experiment, participants could have been psychologically damaged by the experience and were unable to withdraw from it as they were unaware it had already begun. This experiment was conducted under controlled conditions within a controlled environment; this strengthens the information obtained by increasing the ecological validity of the experiment.\r\nThe findings are less transferable to real life situations. Chrstianson & Hubinette (1993) demonstrated that in real life settings, memory can be accurate with acute stress. Eyewitness testimony is heavily dependent upon face actualization, and so the study of this subject has acute implications in judgment how reliable memories of faces are. Research shows that people have impediment accurately recognizing individual members of a different race. One explanation for this is that we use specific features to distinguish between members of our own race and those features are not eer present between other races.\r\nIn a study done by Platz and Hosch, (1986) convenience store clerks were asked to identify three customers: one white, one black, and one Mexican American, all of whom stopped in the store earlier that day. The results of the study showed that each of the clerks identified customers be to their own race accurately, but when attempting to identify members of the other races, they stated â€Å"they all look alike. ” Cross-Race Identification Bias demonstrates how prone people are to making false identifications when asked to identity people from a different racial or ethnic background other than their own.\r\nThis research offers some support to the existence of cross-race identification bias. However the experiment has many weaknesses; the participants may ha ve seen many people that day and it’s un absorb whether they were briefed forward to the experiment. This experiment has enhanced ecological validity because it is set in one environment. There are many independent variables within this research that if altered, may dramatically distort the previous findings. Fisher and Geiselman (1992) developed the cognitive interview” This is a specialised interviewing technique knowing to growing the accuracy of information given and inform false testimony. The interviewer attempts to eradicate all verbal & nonverbal responses that may affect the witness’s testimony. This is to avoid the â€Å"Clever Hans” effect where a witness’s may pick up cues. There are four basic principles of the cognitive interview; firstly to report everything; all details of an event, including information deemed irrelevant.\r\nMental reinstatement of original context is another; the interviewee mentally recreates the incident fully. The interviewer may also change the timeline of events by reversing the events in order. Finally, the interviewee is instructed to imagine how other witnesses saw the incident. A meta-analysis found in 53 cases, an average increase of 34% in correct event recognition compared to a non-cognitive interview. However this was conducted within a laboratory not a real-life setting. Mine & pig bed (2002) decided to test each of the four cognitive principles separately.\r\nParticipants were interviewed with one cognitive principal as compared to the four. think back of accurate information was broadly similar to other participants in a control group who were cognizant to â€Å"try again”. However, when participants were interviewed using a cabal of the cognitive principles their components were significantly higher. Extremely young and old people tend to have an increased efficiency to suggestion (Ceci & Bruck, 1993; Cohen & Faulkner, 1989) as well as those wh om score high on measures of dissociation.\r\nIt is clear that eyewitness testimony is not as reliable as a means of conviction as generally thought due to many various factors. There is however many improvements and safe guards that can be utilized to improve the reliability of eyewitness testimony such as; performing cognitive interviews and using multiple testimonies. Key factors such as: age, race, and the emotional stimulus of an event should be taken into account. Eyewitness testimony is a vital animal in convicting criminals but may not be accurate enough as a bushel means of conviction.\r\n'