Introduction
Justice and fairness have been an area of significant concern for researchers. Providing appropriate solutions to societal problems remains a problem despite the remarkable advancements in law. Technology has significant impacts on development, yet ineffective judicial systems are still experienced. Societal problems such as domestic violence, robbery, and corruption can be associated with judicial injustice practices. Frequent campaigns suggest that the legal accountability of the court system is questionable. Increased cases of wrongful convictions constitute a miscarriage of justice. The conduct of police officers and criminal investigators determines the reliability of evidence presented during court proceedings. Criminal injustice and innocent defendants’ convictions are associated with ineffective judicial proceedings. Eyewitness evidence is significantly used in basing court decisions. Researchers suggest that cognitive theories of conditioning, memory, learning, and behavior can be related to eyewitness evidence. This analysis details eyewitness testimonies and their reliability in a court of law.
Background of the research presenting both sides of the debate
The reliability of eyewitnesses contributes to effectiveness in the court of law. According to Feldman (2013, Pg 66), observing the outer person provides reliable evidence and can be objectively measured; hence observable behavior is essential for field investigators and hence in criminal justice. Feldman (2013, Pg 66) argues that a study by John B. Watson in 1920 reveals that modifying and studying the environment in which people operate facilitates a complete understanding of behavior. The perspectives of learning processes have diverse contributions to solving aggression and violence, preventing drug abuse and sexual problems, and treating mental disorders. According to Feldman (2013, Pg 70) and Jiang & Luo (2016 Par 7), the psychodynamic perspectives of clinical psychologists suggest that the extent of cognitive consciousness hence a conscious eyewitnesses’ evidence, should provide a critical basis for decision making in court proceedings. However, the opponents of eyewitness evidence claim that they are unreliable and contribute to the ineffectiveness of the judicial system. Memory coordinates the functioning of sensory organs such as the eyes and ears. The neurobiology theory suggests that the neuron cells of the memory are modified to control and stimulate synaptic activities of the sensory organs (Wixted et al. 2018, Par 4). Changes in synaptic activation interrupt the integration of the cognitive and neurophysiological conception of memory and learning. Classical conditioning theory suggests that external factors influence learning and memory and determine individual response and behavior. Contrary, Pavlov suggests that classical memory conditioning is subject to factors such as interpretation and perception of behavior. The cognitive ability of the memory is influenced by synaptic plasticity, long-term depression, and memory potentiation. Feldman, (2013, Pg 68) argues that police investigators’ interviews disregard the eyewitness emotions clouding the memories of the crime scene; hence they often give incorrect responses. According to Jiang & Luo (2016, Par 8) and Feldman (2013, Pg 70), eyewitnesses’ evidence is influenced by unseen thinking processes and cognitive psychological disorders such as stress, yet the court of law bases their decisions on the outside observable behavior. An estimate of at least half of all wrongful convictions resulting in miscarriage of justice is influenced by eyewitness errors.
According to Jiang & Luo (2016, Par 5), research conducted by psychologists in 2009 found that eyewitness evidence is unreliable in basing the court’s opinion. Jiang & Luo (2016 Par 6) suggest that a study to determine the knowledge of legal professionals such as police officers, criminal investigators, and defense attorneys shows that most of them are unaware of the influence of psychological disorders on the accuracy of eyewitness testimonies. According to Wixted et al. (2018, Par 2), the malleability of the memory influences eyewitness misidentifications. Memory malleability contributes to innocents’ exonerations in DNA criminal investigations. Wixted et al. (2018, Par 4) suggest that the case of the United States Vs. Wade, in 1967 described eyewitness evidence as notoriously unreliable as the court determined the inherent qualities of the suspect. Many researchers have shown the importance of eyewitness testimonies in deciding cases. However, a significant number show many defects associated with eyewitness testimonies; hence it is unreliable.
Why eyewitness testimonies are unreliable
Differences in perception affect the reliability of eyewitness testimonies. According to Albright (2017, Par 9), personality traits impact perception and the cognitive ability to remember activities. Observation of an incidence results in differences in perception, which determines the interpretation. Cognitive ability determines an individual’s psychological and emotional well-being. Personality traits influence perception and hence interpretation of activities. The evidence collected from eyewitnesses is based on the observation method; thus, the testimonies are subject to poor perception differences and misinterpretation of information. Perception differences cause inaccuracy in providing information. The extent of accuracy of the evidence given by eyewitnesses cannot be correctly determined. Court decisions based on eyewitness evidence are subject to issues of the wrong perception impacted by differences in cognitive personalities. Making wrong court jurisdictions due to relying on eyewitnesses can result in wrongful convictions hence influencing legal unaccountability. Eyewitness evidences are unreliable as they are subject to perception differences.
Eyewitness evidence is subject to the cognitive ability to remember. Cognitive abilities are defined by anxiety levels, variations in memory sharpness, and visual acuity (Albright 2017, Par 4). Environmental factors and past experiences influence cognitive abilities. Anxiety levels are affected by depression, and emotional and psychological distress. Anxiety levels and memory variations cause differences in remembrance of activities. Differences in memory sharpness, anxiety levels, emotions and psychological distress affect the eyewitness’s ability to remember information. Inability to remember critical information results in making wrong court decisions. Besides, insufficient evidence can result in long-staying periods for court cases due to a lack of enough confession to base conclusions and decision-making. Besides, the failure of eyewitnesses to reveal critical information while giving confessions can contribute to biased jurisdiction in the court proceedings. Significant cases of wrongful conviction resulting in miscarriage of justice are associated with biased jurisdictions. Eyewitness testimonies are subject to transparency and individual perceptions; hence they are unreliable.
The eyewitness evidence is subject to consciousness differences and the malleability of the memory. According to Wixted et al. (2018, Par 4), studies concerning court evidence show that the malleability of the memory affects eyewitness testimonies. Individual memory is affected by factors such as psychological distress and depression. Human senses influence individual consciousness, affecting eyewitnesses’ ability to perpetrate a crime. Emotional distress reduces the ability to reveal critical information used for basing jurisdiction. The malleability of the memory facilitates inaccurate observations, poor interpretation, and unconsciousness. Psychological distress impacts misinterpretation hence contributing to the unreliability of eyewitness testimonies. Ineffective decisions in the judicial system result from the dependence on eyewitness evidence to make court decisions. The unreliability associated with eyewitness evidence reduces legal justice accountability. Eyewitness testimonies are unreliable; hence they should not be considered in a court of law.
Conclusion
The injustices in the justice system attract significant interest to researchers. Poor jurisdiction experienced in the court of law is associated with legal unaccountability and low integrity. Researchers suggest that the quality of evidence determines decisions made during court proceedings. Eyewitness is one of the strategies adopted by police officers and prosecutors to derive evidence. Researchers suggest that eye witness contributes to effectiveness in the court of law as testimonies are based on observable behaviour and can objectively be measured by field investigators, providing reliable evidence. However, critics of eyewitness evidence argue that it contributes to the injustices in the justice system by giving unreliable evidence. Eyewitness is influenced by the unseen thinking process and psychological disorders such as stress and depression, causing biased juries. Besides, corruption practices of police officers and investigators divert the interests of eyewitnesses hence resulting in the provision of false evidence. The transparency of eyewitnesses is subject to their perceptions, hence failing to provide critical testimonies for basing court decisions. Eyewitness is a significant contributing factor to criminal injustices and wrongful convictions, and therefore it is unreliable in a court of law.
References
Albright, T. (2017). Why eyewitnesses fail. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences, 114(30), 7758-7764. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706891114
Feldman, R. (2013). Psychology and Your life (2nd ed.).
Jiang, L., & Luo, D. (2016). Legal Professionals’ Knowledge of Eyewitness Testimony in China: A Cross-Sectional Survey. PLOS ONE, 11(2), e0148116. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148116
Wixted, J., Mickes, L., & Fisher, R. (2018). Rethinking the Reliability of Eyewitness Memory. Perspectives On Psychological Science, 13(3), 324-335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617734878
write