Psychological research shows that eyewitness testimony is not always accurate, therefore it

should not be used in the criminal justice system. Discuss.

There have been many cases where suspects have been positively identified by victims, but
only later to be found innocent by other means, mainly DNA evidence at a later date. No one
doubts that eyewitness testimony is risky, but also serve a part of the legal strategy that can
initially provide the relevant authorities with evidence that can lead to the arrest of the
suspect. But it does have its flaws, one famous case in point was that of Ronald Cotton in
1984, who was mistakenly identified for raping Jennifer Thompson. Ronald was found guilty
of rape and subsequently sentenced to life. But then Eleven years later was exonerated after
DNA evidence did not match Ronald, another man who was very similar in appearance was
found guilty of the rape (Bohannon, 2015). Eyewitness testimony is not always accurate, with
psychological research showing this, therefore it should not be used in the criminal justice
system. This essay will discuss different aspects of psychological research into eyewitness
testimony, and show that it is not always accurate, and in some cases should not be used in
the criminal justice system. It will use five different studies of eyewitness testimonies
presenting the results.

Since the early 1970s, psychological researchers have voiced concerns about the accuracy of
eyewitness identification. Using different procedures to acquire data, such as live and filmed
staged crimes and events, the researchers have noted that the rates for mistaken identity can
be startlingly high (Wells & Olsen, 2003). But even with this evidence put forward criminal
justice personnel did not begin to take the research seriously until the late 1990s. Wells and
Olson go on to tell of Estimator Variables that distinguish between precise and imprecise
witness testimony. A meta-analysis by Shapiro and Penrod (1986) suggested females
marginally were more likely to accurately identify a suspect, but at the same time make a
mistaken identity due to an attempt to actually make an identification. As well as the age of
an eyewitness has been regularly being linked to mistaken identification, with the young and
elderly falling into this grouping (Pozzulo & Lindsay, 1998). Whereas the ethninticity of a
witness while having no bearing on different outcomes does show that they are able to better
recognize faces from their own background rather from another race or ethnic heritage
(Messiner & Brigham, 2001). And then the description of a face that is regarded as attractive
or highly unattractive are easier to identify than an average face (Fleishman et al, 1976)
would go on to indicate that the general population is not as easy to identify.
If as though that the time an eyewitness is allowed to view a suspects face should increase
the reliability of the witness testimony, this is not always the case as other factors come into
play. Leippe et al. (1978) conducted a staged theft, while some were led to believe that the
package was worthless, others were led to believe it was valuable, and others only learnt of
the value after the event. The witnesses who knew that the item was of some value gave a
more detailed description, indicating events around the event influenced a more accurate
identification. This form of misinformation takes form in the witness statement of being over
confident about what was perceived and can lead to mistaken identities, or misleading
information provided. Therefore, indicating the value of the item realistic should not be
disclosed to the witness.

Over time it has been well reported that witnesses are impressionable to verbal suggestion,
but little attention towards nonverbal interactions of misinformation has been noted. Gurney,
Pine and Wiseman (2013) conducted a series of experiments where participants were shown a
recording of a crime scene before being interviewed about what was shown. Three
experiments being mentioned below were conducted by Gurney et al, 2013. The first revealed
that gestures while questioning by a video recording, caused false memory responses, with
questioning directed at stating jewellery was present, but the gestures put forward by pointing
to the wrist, which in turn elicited the response of either a watch or bracelet, whereas the
jewellery in question was a ring. In the second experiment, also by a video recording, it was
more related with questions involving both jewellery and facial features, in this instance no
jewellery was worn, and no distinguishing facial features were present. The results of the
questioning, while indicating the presence of such with hand gestures in turn altered the
responses of the eyewitnesses to include such things as a watch, ring, beard, glasses and a hat.
None of which were present. The third experiment having basically the same premise was
conducted by an interviewer in person, once again with subtle gestures the same responses
were given by the eyewitness, showing that in these instances it might be easy for an
interviewer to make subtle suggestions that can alter the memory of the event and either turn
the result to a positive or negative result. With this in mind both parties involved in the
process should be made aware of such subtleties and this should be taken into account,
unfortunately most of these indicators might be unaware to the jury, ethical integrity would
have to play an important part of this type of manipulation.
Whilst human memory is proving to be very malleable, and suggestive questioning is proving
that it can easily influence memory. It is showing that it is basically a blend or mixture of
subjective events, or what a subjects perceived reality is of the event being questioned or
described. There has been research conducted to see if it is possible to implant a false
memory. One of the most notable of theses was conducted by Loftus and Pickrell (1995), the
study titled Lost in a Shopping Mall. Where most research involves twisting the memory,
this experiment was to implant a new memory of a fictitious event. In the experiment twenty-
four subjects along with someone who knew the subjects past intimately. This was so the
subject could be given three memories that were true and one that was false. In the sort time
frame, the subjects were mailed a booklet containing the four memories, asked to write
comments and then return them. Approximately one to two weeks later they were then asked
to attended an interview, where they were asked about the memories ad rate them on how
clear they were, after another one to two weeks, it was repeated but with the added difference
of being told one was a false memory, then asked which memory was false. The results
indicated that 29% believed the false event was true. Even though this research is over 20
years old, it still shows current with a similar experiment done in New Zealand by Wade,
Garry, Read, & Lindsay (2002), but this time with photographs, three true and one false, by
the end of the experiment 50% of subjects believed the false memory was true. The two
above experiments had very similar procedures and showed that the researchers were able to
implant false memories in a very short time frame. The significance of this is present when
applied to time frames involved from interview to witness statement in court. With both
authority figures and possible justice representatives easily being able to manipulate
memories by applying similar techniques to achieve desired outcomes.

Human memory has the ability to describe events and correctly identify potential suspects,
and even though studies have shown that false memories can be implanted, time-based
factors can and sometimes effect the correctness of suspect identification. A study conducted
by Memon, Hope & Bull (2003), where 164 participants were shown a video reconstruction
of a robbery. Where half of the participants were shown 45 seconds of clear exposure of the
suspect, as opposed to the other half only having 12 seconds (Memon et al. 2003). They were
all then given a questionnaire to fill out before undertaking the line-up identification process.
For this they were told that the suspect may or may not be present. Once having made their
decision about the suspect they were also asked to rate how confident they were in this
decision. Memon et al. reported in their study that the accuracy of identifying the suspect
increased significantly. As well as stating that the longer the witness viewed the suspect, the
more confident they were in identifying them. According to Memon et al. (2003) the most
important factor of their report was that confidence is not a reliable indicator of positive
identification, and then continues with stating that juries are often influenced by the
confidence of a witness. This shows that although a witness might be confident in their view
of events, but being over confident could sway the jury with a false sense of events.
Another factor that relates to time issues is what is commonly known by experimental
research is the 10-12 second rule. Dunning & Peretta (2002), who undertook 4 studies of line-
ups, found that witnesses that were able to identify the suspect in less than 12 seconds had an
accuracy rate of 90%, whereas only a 50% accuracy was recorded for those who took longer.
What the researchers were indicating is that although eyewitness accounts of accuracy are a
subtle and fragile event, which can easily be spoiled by occurrences in and around the crime
scene, the identification attempt. The emphasis is that of eyewitnesses can be accurate, but
finding ways of separating accurate witnesses from inaccurate ones. Thus, one way would be
the 10-12 second rule, someone taking longer than this could easily be just as correct as
incorrect about the identity of the suspect (Dunning & Peretta, 2002).

Eyewitness testimony can be accurate in some cases, but is not always and as a result of this
should not be used in the criminal justice system. Even though eyewitness accounts can be
beneficial if correctly administered, the empirical research that is readily available concerning
the human memory, and the malleability of it is overwhelming. As stated earlier the research
started in the early 1970s, with researchers voicing concerns. It has been shown that females
tend to remember more details, which although there is no direct statistics on what percentage
of female to male witness, a quick search reveals that in major court cases around the world,
male witnesses out number females, so this presents an issue of accuracy. It has been shown
that when a crime is perpetrated and the witness thinks that the item or items are valuable in
nature that they can give a more detailed description, indicating that if a witness thinks the
crime is trivial, the statements will be less accurate and possibly contain false or misleading
information. Which leads to the next point, some interviewers are aware of verbal suggestion,
or manipulating a witness testimony by giving subtle gestures which can alter the witnesses
view of the event. This could be used either by both parties to try and alter a testimony to get
the desired outcome. Something that should not happen but does. With the human memory
being subject to various factors that continually alter the perception of memory, this has been
indicated by the 12 second rule that researchers have indicated gives a much greater positive
outcome, it appears that although a longer exposure to an apparent subject will give a better
positive identity, the same cannot be said for a line-up identification. With all the arguments
for and against witness testimony this essay has only put forward a small amount of
arguments against the use of them. With the advent of more technology, for example DNA,
and increasing levels of surveillance and the subjectivity of memory being constantly
questioned, witness testimony cannot be solely used anymore in the criminal justice system
as a means of determining the guilt or innocence of a suspect.
 References

Bohannon, J. (2017). Shibboleth Authentication Request.

Sciencemag.org.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au. Retrieved 20 January 2017, from
http://www.sciencemag.org.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/news/2015/12/eyewitness-
testimony-may-only-be-credible-under-these-circumstances

Dunning, D. & Perretta, S. (2002). Automaticity and eyewitness accuracy: A 10- to 12-second
rule for distinguishing accurate from inaccurate positive identifications. Journal Of
Applied Psychology, 87(5), 951-962. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.5.951

FLEISHMAN, J., BUCKLEY, M., KLOSINSKY, M., SMITH, N., & TUCK, B. (1976).
JUDGED ATTRACTIVENESS IN RECOGNITION MEMORY OF WOMEN'S FACES.
Perceptual And Motor Skills, 43(3), 709-710.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.1976.43.3.709

Gurney, D., Pine, K., & Wiseman, R. (2013). The Gestural Misinformation Effect: Skewing
Eyewitness Testimony Through Gesture. The American Journal Of Psychology, 126(3),
301. http://dx.doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.126.3.0301

Leippe, M., Wells, G., & Ostrom, T. (1978). Crime seriousness as a determinant of accuracy
in eyewitness identification. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 63(3), 345-351.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.63.3.345

Loftus, E. & Pickrell, J. (1995). The Formation of False Memories. Psychiatric Annals,
25(12), 720-725. http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/0048-5713-19951201-07

Meissner, C. & Brigham, J. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in
memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, And Law, 7(1), 3-
35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//1076-8971.7.1.3

Memon, A., Hope, L., & Bull, R. (2003). Exposure duration: Effects on eyewitness accuracy
and confidence. British Journal Of Psychology, 94(3), 339-354.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000712603767876262
Pozzulo, J. & Lindsay, R. (1998). Identification accuracy of children versus adults: A meta-
analysis. Law And Human Behaviour, 22(5), 549-570.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/a:1025739514042

Safer, M., Murphy, R., Wise, R., Bussey, L., Millett, C., & Holfeld, B. (2016). Educating
jurors about eyewitness testimony in criminal cases with circumstantial and forensic
evidence. International Journal Of Law And Psychiatry, 47, 86-92.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.02.041

Shapiro, P. & Penrod, S. (1986). Meta-analysis of racial identification studies. Psychological

Bulletin, 100(2), 139-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.100.2.139

Wade, K., Garry, M., Don Read, J., & Lindsay, D. (2002). A picture is worth a thousand lies:
Using false photographs to create false childhood memories. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 9(3), 597-603. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/bf03196318

Wells, G. & Olson, E. (2003). Eyewitness Testimony. Annual Review Of Psychology, 54(1),
277-295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145028