Eyewitness Evidence Reliability In The Criminal Justice System

Introduction

Eyewitness testimony is an account given by a person who witnesses an occurrence happening. For instance, an individual giving a robbery description at a trial or a road accident. It mostly includes identification of crime scenes, perpetrators among other details. This kind of evidence plays a significant role in the criminal investigation as well as prosecution. However, studies point mistakes in eyewitness evidence results in serious consequences (Megreya & Burton, 2008). Studies have suggested that, though the evidence is convincing it is not as accurate as it is suggested to be and that eyewitness testimony is more fallible compared to what most people assume (Yarmey, 2001). For instance, the advent of DNA analysis by the 1980s resulted in several changes in the forensic science sector which came up with an unprecedented accuracy level while identifying crime perpetrators and innocent individuals who were falsely accused of crimes. This resulted to review of several already settled cases. Regardless of eye witness evidence being reliable and useful in many cases, eyewitness identification can be distorted without the witness’s awareness (Megreya & Burton, 2008). This paper will critically discuss how reliable/ useful is eyewitness evidence in the criminal justice platform according to classic and contemporary psychological theories of memory.

Eyewitness evidence reliability in the criminal justice system

Traditionally, the challenge of eyewitness identification has been approached via applied studies that were aimed at understanding how reliable eyewitness information was (O'Neill et al., 2011). According to the multi-store model, information in the mind of an individual exists in either, short-term, the sensory as well as in the long-term stores. In most cases, the information goes from one phase to another depending on how individuals rehearse it in their minds (Neisser & Harsch, 1992). This indicates that, since the crime scene is usually traumatic, individuals should remember what happened often, therefore, making the information stick to the individual mind permanent. The theory also suggests that most sensory information is forgotten over time. However, rehearsal results in the information being passed to the short-term memory, where it’s stored for up to several days. Further rehearse transfers the information to the long-term memory, where it is stored for years. This suggests that eye witness evidence can be reliable even after the event occurred many years ago (Baddeley & Hitch, 2001).

The theory is based on wide research which supports distinct LTM as well as STM’s system ideology which makes it valid in assessing the quality of evidence given by eye witness. Moreover, the theory suggests that LTM memories are encoded semantically and this makes it clear that, the eye witness evidence can be relied on. However, in the case of eye witness evidence reliability, the theory fails to consider some effects that may affect memory and storage of information.

For instance, studies have suggested that most individuals have a challenge in identifying the faces of an individual (Megreya & Burton, 2008). The study also suggests that participants presented with memory tests involving an array of photos experience the challenge of accurately identifying the photos. This creates a foundation for doubting the eyewitness accuracy in identifying perpetrators. Additionally, the study suggests that it is very challenging for an individual to encode faces, especially while in a traumatic occurrence. Bruce et al., (1999), also acknowledge that, it is vital to know that face identification often not accurate. Moreover, the theory failed to put stress and trauma into consideration. Studies have indicated that trauma and stress, especially during an occurrence, impact memory encoding (Qin et al., 1997). The memory of an individual witnessing a stressful crime can be dissociated where the individual mentally becomes absent from the occurrence which is a memory adaptation mechanism. Furthermore, the theory contradicts itself in that, it suggests that memory fades away when the individual fails to pay enough attention to the information. This idea contradicts the storage of memory and raises questions on which attention is enough to provide reliable evidence in an occurrence.

Another theory that supports the validity of eyewitness evidence is the flashbulb memories theory. Flashbulb memories refer to the memory of circumstances in which an individual first learn of a very surprising and consequential event. However, the theory suggests that flashbulb memories were close to photograph-like, and most of the details concerning the context scene were recalled later (Conway, 2013). This suggests that eyewitness evidence can be relied on in especially in a court proceeding where no other evidence available. Other studies that seem to support this theory suggest that the brain usually detects negative information faster compared to positive information (Brewin, 2005). This seems to support why eyewitness evidence can be supported and validated as a reliable source of evidence.

One strength of the theory is that it details why increased emotional connection memory is often rarely forgotten and also proves that various sections of the human brain are active while remembering flashbulb memories. However, most psychologists have failed to support the flashbulb memory model specifically from the claim that, flashbulb memories are uniquely accurate. According to the Multi-Store Model information theory and the Neisser studies, people remember certain occurrences in great detail due to their ability to rehearse. Amir et al., (2010), suggest that the theory also fails to consider post-traumatic stress disorder where memory is affected by stress disorder and which make an individual struggle to remember explicit phenomena in memory. From the ability of the mind to adapt to an event, individuals may prefer not to think about the unpleasant memory and might even involuntary forget.

Moreover, the study is contradicted by Hirst et al., (2009) who suggest that Neissar and Harsch (1992) discovered that, memories for traumatizing occurrence sometimes inaccurate, regardless of people being highly confident. This suggests that this kind of memory is not appropriate, because memory cannot be as accurate as a camera.

Other memory theories contradict the idea of the validity of eyewitness evidence. For instance, the memory decay theory suggests that memory is forgotten because of the passage of time. This is an indication that information becomes less available for later remembrance with time (Berman et al., 2009). The study also suggests that a neurochemical "memory trace" is developed once an individual learns something new (Ciccarelli & Meyer, 2006). However, this trace disintegrates slowly with time and actively rehearsing information may prevent this disintegration. This theory is widely supported by the interference theory which suggests that individuals forget memories because of interference from other memories. The theory suggests that interference may be proactive or retroactive and new information often interferes with older memories ( Ciccarelli & Meyer, 2006). Furthermore, information already in mind can be a barrier to the memorization of new information. This suggests why an individual may give false evidence on crime occurrence. The theory is also supported by the false memory theory. The theory suggests that false memories be implanted in people’s brains. Studies suggest that memories that are already in or mind can be manipulated after their encoding (Qin et al., 1997). This means that an individual gives invented accounts of an occurrence, therefore creating false memories that are accepted by the mind. From all these theories, I can suggest that eyewitness evidence cannot be reliable, which contradicts earlier thought from the earlier discussed theories.

The decay theory is valid since it suggests that memory is not permanent and time passage produces forgetting. This evidence can be reliable due to other studies that support the idea. Moreover, neuroimaging has confirmed that there is rapid and then gradual deactivation of particular neural pathways when we forget (Ciccarelli & Meyer, 2006). However, the theory fails to explain why forgotten information is sometimes recalled once the appropriate retrieval cues are availed. Also, studies have suggested that the amount of information and complexity contributes more to forgetting compared to time passage. The theory can be disapproved since it fails to explain why a person remembers childhood experienced better compared to experience from the previous few days. Therefore, with this evidence of the failure of the theory, the debate still continues to widen on the validity of eye witness evidence. On the other hand, the theory contradicts itself in that, the theory usually influences the short-term memory system which indicates that older memories are rarely affected. Therefore, with a combination of studies which suggest that crime event is mostly traumatic and stored in the long-term memory, the ideology of decay may not be valid. Discover additional insights on Examining the Convenience of White-Collar Financial Crimes by navigating to our other resources hub.

Conclusion

From the classic and contemporary psychological theories of memory, eyewitness evidence in the criminal justice platforms can be suggested to be reliable in one way. For instance, from the multi-Store model information and the flashbulb Memories theory, there is strong evidence which indicates that eyewitness testimony in the criminal justice system is a valid form of evidence that can be relied on. On the other hand, from the information which contradicts the two theories and the decay theory, it is evident that information can be forgotten, people face challenges in remembering information such as trauma, stress, and challenges in identifying faces. This invalidates testimonies of eyewitness in criminal justice platforms. However, based on my understanding, eyewitness evidence is a reliable form of evidence given that, people rarely forget stressful experience thus crime scene being mostly traumatizing, it is hard to forget.

References

• Amir, N., Leiner, A.S. and Bomyea, J., 2010. Implicit memory and posttraumatic stress symptoms. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34(1), pp.49-58.
• Berman, M.G., Jonides, J. and Lewis, R.L., 2009. In search of decay in verbal short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), p.317.
• Brewin, C.R., 2005. Encoding and retrieval of traumatic memories. Neuropsychology of PTSD: Biological, cognitive, and clinical perspectives, pp.131-150.
• Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Greenwood, K., Hancock, P.J., Burton, A.M. and Miller, P., 1999. Verification of face identities from images captured on video. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5(4), p.339.
• Ciccarelli, S.K. and Meyer, G.E., 2006. Psychology. Pearson Education.
• Conway, M., 2013. Flashbulb memories. Psychology Press.
• Hirst, W., Phelps, E.A., Buckner, R.L., Budson, A.E., Cuc, A., Gabrieli, J.D., Johnson, M.K., Lustig, C., Lyle, K.B., Mather, M. and Meksin, R., 2009. Long-term memory for the terrorist attack of September 11: Flashbulb memories, event memories, and the factors that influence their retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(2), p.161.
• Megreya, A.M. and Burton, A.M., 2008. Matching faces to photographs: Poor performance in eyewitness memory (without the memory). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(4), p.364.
• Neisser, U. and Harsch, N., 1992. Phantom flashbulbs: False recollections of hearing the news about Challenger.
• O'Neill Shermer, L., Rose, K.C. and Hoffman, A., 2011. Perceptions and credibility: Understanding the nuances of eyewitness testimony. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 27(2), pp.183-203.
• Qin, J., Quas, J.A., Redlich, A.D. and Goodman, G.S., 1997. Children’s eyewitness testimony: Memory development in the legal context. The development of memory in childhood, pp.301-341.
• Yarmey, A.D., 2001. Expert testimony: Does eyewitness memory research have probative value for the courts? Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 42(2), p.92.