Eyewitness testimony is a type of evidence during court proceedings

Eyewitness testimony is a type of evidence during court proceedings

Eyewitness testimony is a type of evidence during court proceedings that are given by people who witnessed a crime occurs. Judges highly rely on this type of evidence, especially when scientific research conclusions concur with it. However, eyewitness evidence has been highly linked with weaknesses because a person can alter it, to favor a specific side (either the defendant or plaintiff) in a court proceeding. Studies establish that around 75 percent of all cases with wrongful sentencing in the US are influenced by false eyewitness evidence. This paper presents conclusions linked to eyewitness peer-reviewed articles, discusses whether eyewitness testimony is reliable, and relates the research to memory theory.

Houston et al. article examined the factors that may affect the eyewitness reliability with alcohol intoxication as the central question in the first study while how judges established true and false eyewitness evidence in courts in the second study. The results of the first study concluded that judges agreed that alcohol intoxication was a significant factor affecting a person’s memory; however, they agreed that eyewitnesses were capable of remembering post-crime events. The study also concluded that common sense was highly applied to determine if an eyewitness was giving true or false testimony.

Carpenter and Krendl’s research examined false memories for crimes involving in-group and out-group conflicts. In-group conflicts are disagreements or disputes between members of the same group, while out-group conflicts are disagreements or conflicts between members of different groups. The research concluded that eyewitness was more to present false evidence to intra-group conflicts compared to out-group conflicts. The researchers found that if crimes are highly emotional, an eye witness may divert his or her attention from the offense leading to false testimony.

Eyewitness testimony is not reliable at all. The study by Houston et al. links alcohol intoxication to false eyewitness evidence. However, in courts, we find judges giving chances to eyewitnesses who were under the influence of alcohol at the time of crime occurrence to testify. In such a case, there are high chances that the eyewitness may not remember all the events that occurred. This increases the chances of having a more biased eyewitness testimony. Though sometimes drunkards may have the memories, their statement should not be used as primary evidence in courts, especially when there is other evidence. When it is the sole evidence, it may cause a dilemma in whether to agree with the evidence.

The term common sense was highly agreed upon by the participants in the first article. Common sense cannot be the sole way judges define whether eyewitness is true or false. Yes, common sense indeed aids judges in establishing false testimony, but it cannot be relied on. Some eyewitnesses have high psychology skills, and thus, they have the capability of playing with the judge’s mind to make them believe their evidence. Houston note’s that 75 percent of all wrongful imprisonment involved false eyewitness testimonies. This is a clear indication that the juror is, in most instances, unable to establish if an eyewitness is giving false evidence or not. Many people have high psychology skills, and thus they can make judges believe what they are presenting by playing the judge’s mind.

False testimonies are indeed common with intra-group conflicts. It is difficult for an eyewitness to give an accurate testimony against a close person like a family member or friend if they may lead to imprisonment. Additionally, the study revealed that being emotional can hinder a person from being attentive to crime occurrences, resulting in biased testimonies. For instance, when an adult witness finds that his relative has killed a close friend, it is difficult for him to be attentive.

The filter theory by Broadbent suggests that people’s minds filter what they want their brains to process. This theory is linked to false testimony during court proceedings. The approach supports that the mind only gives attention to what a person wants it to process. If a person wants the mind to process false testimony in a court of law, then the mind is prepared to handle the same. This is why a person will present false evidence in a court, while the same person knows the truth.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that eyewitness is unreliable in a court of law and cannot be used as the primary evidence to make decisions. It highly depends on what a person wants to say in a court or on the mind’s status. The two articles conclude there is a significant loophole to eyewitness testimonies. This is also supported by the filter theory, which states that people filter what to give attention to and ignore.