The unreliability of eyewitness evidence is, at first glance, counter intuitive - after all, what better proof could there be than a person who has seen the crime firsthand? After reading several journal articles in Psychological Science and Law and Human Behavior, I have found that eyewitness accounts are essentially recollections from memory, and memory is fallible. Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus suggests that our original memories can be supplemented with new information or even modified with inconsistent information. In an experiment, Loftus, Miller, and Burns (1978) had participants view slides of a car accident at an intersection with a stop sign. Immediately after viewing these slides, the participants answered a set of questions. Half of the participants read a question that included the consistent phrase “stop sign,” whereas the other half read an inconsistent question with the phrase “yield sign.” Then, the participants were shown pairs of slides and asked to choose which in the pair they had seen earlier. Participants who received the inconsistent information about the yield sign in the questions were more likely to have said that they saw the slide with the yield sign, compared to those who did not receive the inconsistent information. These findings imply that memory may not be the most reliable tool for conviction, and hence eyewitness identification procedures should be revised and carefully carried out.
It is easy to assume that the best proof that someone committed a crime is having an eyewitness stand up, point to the suspect, and say confidently, “He (or she) did it!” However, decades of research reveal that eyewitness identification and testimony are unreliable and are the leading cause of wrongful convictions; nevertheless, only a few states have enforced guidelines on carrying out stricter identification procedures. For example, the New Jersey Supreme Court last July enacted new rules regarding eyewitness identification instructions to jurors. Under the revised court rule, jurors will now be told the factors that may have affected the reliability of identification evidence at a trial. Of vital concern is the fact that there exists no national policy on the eyewitness identification procedures - this forms the basis for my research question, which I will explore in depth in the coming months. The unreliability of eyewitness evidence is, at first glance, counter intuitive - after all, what better proof could there be than a person who has seen the crime firsthand? After reading several journal articles in Psychological Science and Law and Human Behavior, I have found that eyewitness accounts are essentially recollections from memory, and memory is fallible. Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus suggests that our original memories can be supplemented with new information or even modified with inconsistent information. In an experiment, Loftus, Miller, and Burns (1978) had participants view slides of a car accident at an intersection with a stop sign. Immediately after viewing these slides, the participants answered a set of questions. Half of the participants read a question that included the consistent phrase “stop sign,” whereas the other half read an inconsistent question with the phrase “yield sign.” Then, the participants were shown pairs of slides and asked to choose which in the pair they had seen earlier. Participants who received the inconsistent information about the yield sign in the questions were more likely to have said that they saw the slide with the yield sign, compared to those who did not receive the inconsistent information. These findings imply that memory may not be the most reliable tool for conviction, and hence eyewitness identification procedures should be revised and carefully carried out. From my research this week, I learned a few things about writing; first, I learned that there are a lot more differences between British and American English punctuation than I thought there would be. For example, I learned that placing a comma or period within quotation marks is a punctuation rule exclusive to Americans. Besides that, I realized that in doing more research on a topic, one is likely to uncover even more useful information sources. This slowed my writing process down substantially, because every time I would find a good source, I would find a better source minutes later. Having to choose between sources to write about was ultimately what made this such a tough assignment. I think I will start doing research on my topic earlier in the week, so that I don’t get stuck in this phase as much in the future.
3 Comments
2/24/2013 11:54:38 am
Hey Eureka!
Reply
Eureka Foong
3/8/2013 10:50:05 pm
Hey Austin, thanks for commenting! I've tried using JSTOR, and actually found some of my articles there. Actually, English is my first language.. But for the past 5 years I've been more attuned to using British English. :P
Reply
11/24/2021 08:08:45 am
Hello, where did you get the slides or video of the car crash of the loftus miller and burns experiment?
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
The Psych ApprenticeEyewitness Identification and the Manson TestShould a new legal framework for assessing the reliability of eyewitness identifications be put into place to overcome the flaws of the Manson test? Archives
May 2013
Categories |