Eyewitness Identification and Testimony

Introduction

Any witness's identification of a suspect is vital in the investigation of a suspect. It is equally significant in the criminal clearance process. Several persons who have gone through the process of being convicted for a crime have been made aware of their flawed convictions due to witness mistaken identity, thanks to scientific proof. One of the most common eyewitness flaws is misidentification. Over 70% of cases have been reversed by DNA involvement at one point or another. Eyewitness testimony is determined by the discrepancy between acquittal and prosecution (Costanzo & Krauss, 2018). Because it is also the most convincing evidence before the court, such testimony is critical to the criminal justice system.

When an eyewitness identifies a crime culprit, jurors frequently dismiss additional evidence. While eyewitness identification and testimony are employed by law authorities and throughout the judicial system, it is vital to identify the flaws in this method to address its policy adequately. According to research, eyewitness identification testimony might be exceedingly unreliable. Social scientists have demonstrated through research that there is a need to be concerned about the veracity of eyewitness identification testimony presented in court (Hurley, 2017). This paper discusses the eyewitness testimony issues that make the process uncredible and recommends policies and interventions that could be used to improve the process.

Eye Witness Issues

Eyewitness identification and memory process

An eyewitness's ability to correctly identify a culprit is primarily dependent on their recall. Eyewitness identification errors account for more false convictions than any other type of testimony. Understanding the trustworthiness of eyewitness testimony requires reconstructive memory. The recall is open to individual perception based on the individual's environment. These perceptions are influenced in part by social standards and, as a result, bias. As a result, we frequently alter our memories to make them more understandable to us. According to McLeod (2018), memory is a dynamic process that is influenced by an individual's perception or construction. The human mind does not store information in the exact way it was portrayed. As a result, eyewitness testimony may be erroneous.

Psychologists studying memory have explained that it is essential to distinguish between three component processes. These processes are encoding storage and recovery (Costanzo & Krauss, 2018). "Encoding entails acquiring data and converting it into a form that can be retained in memory; storage entails storing the encoded data in the brain over time; and retrieval entails accessing and retrieving the stored data at a later time" (Costanzo & Krauss, 2018). Furthermore, the studies claim that the memory residue deteriorates over time, making the eyewitness testimony inaccurate.

Trauma and environment of high stress

When a person is exposed to a high level of stress, his or her ability to observe and afterward narrate situational occurrences deteriorates. When confronted with a loud noise or the sight of a sharp blade late at night, for example, the natural reaction is to look for the sword first before finding cover. These traumatic and stressful circumstances put the witness in survival mode, and as a result, the witness will be unable to recall events such as rape, murder, or even robbery. Due to the stress produced by the horrific event, most witnesses may consider fleeing the area without naming the offender.

Weapon focusing

The suspect's weapon is always the focus of witnesses. Instinctively, the witness will recall the weapon's size, type, color, and shape, whether it is a gun or a dagger. What they cannot do is quickly reproduce the image of the suspect in their minds. This leads to a significant amount of bias in courtroom identification. As a result, it is difficult to track down the perpetrator. In addition, fear of the source of potential harm causes the witness to focus on the weapon; in this case, the can is the primary source of harm. E. F. Loftus (2019).

Suggestive identification

The investigators' presentation of the culprit to the eye witness has a big role in the eyewitness' misidentification. In other situations, the detectives may unintentionally provide indications to the eyewitness by gestures, hesitations, smiles, and pauses, obstructing the witness's ability to identify the offender they recognize correctly. Adopting the double-blind approach is the ideal solution. However, it is difficult for the detective to suggestively impact the witness's capacity to identify the specific suspect they can sense if the officer who displays the picture of the culprit does not know the suspect's name.

Show up method of eye witness identification

The show-up takes place when the detectives accompany the witness to present the suspect to the witness. In most cases, the witness will see the criminal in police custody, handcuffed, or in a police vehicle. The first presumption is that the investigators must have solid evidence against the suspect. The brain is misled by details, leading to the conclusion that the person seen with the cops is the person who was at the crime scene performing the crime. The witnesses are inundated with false information about their identity, which is erroneous. This is one of the main reasons why some courts refuse to permit this criminal identification technique. Since it has been discovered as a practice that causes suspect identification bias, several police personnel have been thoroughly taught to avoid the likelihood of bias during lineups. These processes include:

1. Ensuring that each lineup has only one suspect.
2. Assuring that all of the suspects' photos have comparable backdrops.
3. Giving all suspects six fillers, such as hairstyle, height, and weight.

The witness may try to identify a suspect using lucky guesses during this technique to appease the investigator. By the time the story reaches the courtroom, the suspect is confident that the person chosen was the true culprit, and there is no space for error. Several expert studies have found that when multiple images are shown in one location, such as a six-pack, the eye witness is more likely to make an incorrect or correct identification (Carlson et al., 2017). The witness recognizes a few photographs, but precisely, for the sequential presentation of the photographs.

Correlation Between DNA Analysis and Eyewitness Identification

The development of DNA analysis has changed forensic science, providing a better level of precision in identifying individual offenders versus innocent persons wrongfully convicted of a crime. Many resolved disputes have been re-examined due to DNA research (Chew, 2018). Courts paid little attention to the difficulties of finding eyewitness testimonies until DNA proof began to be used (Hurley, 2017). Individuals both inside and outside the judiciary have contested the grounds that contributed to each unjust conviction in undeniable cases of wrongful conviction. The fundamental cause was discovered to be inaccurate eyewitness identification. "More than any other cause, faulty eyewitness testimony has been involved in at least 75 percent of DNA acquittal cases" (Laney & Loftus, 2020). In a court case, jurors are provided with multiple testimonies; as a result, they may be required to evaluate contradicting facts when deciding on an appropriate decision. Eyewitness testimony and DNA evidence are generally seen as compelling and credible sources of evidence. However, evidence indicates that DNA proofs have a more significant impact in the jurisdiction (Maeder et al., 2016). DNA evidence is primarily considered irrefutable, according to Wixted (2016).

Similarly, eyewitness identification testimony and DNA analysis might be suspect, especially if it is tampered with. Wixted (2016) argues that tainted forensic evidence of any kind, not simply contaminated eyewitness testimony, can lead to a false conviction. Therefore, wrong eye witness identification can give wrong motives for tampering with DNA samples by the legislation team and even involved officers.

Eye Witness Identification Reformation Suggestions

Before beginning the identification process, investigators must obtain a complete account of the criminal suspect from an eyewitness. As a result, the data of the assurance statement will be taken by the investigators. The investigators should try to record the precise phrases and include them in the full report if possible. Furthermore, the eyewitness should be asked to write the date on the front of the accused person's photo and sign it. Any gesture or remark that gives the impression to the witness that a good reaction is expected or that the witness is being congratulated for responding to the detective should be discouraged. In every technique employed, a detailed report noting whether the eyewitness confirmed the recognition or not should be presented.

Even under the best conditions, memory is not perfect, and many crimes do not occur in the best ways (Costanzo & Krauss, 2018). Research indicates that stress has an impact on eyewitness identification accuracy. The impact of stressful conditions on eyewitness identification ability during the incident has been proven to be negative, making eyewitness evidence questionable for identifying a suspect (Hurley, 2017). Police departments should examine approaches such as double-blind eyewitness identification processes due to outstanding memory difficulties. In a double-blind setting, the unconscious provision of information on a suspect is impossible. The double-blind method is employed in psychology and cognitive science studies, and it appears to be effective.

Furthermore, courts should take into account the flexible nature of a witness's memory. Moreover, the jurors should be advised to reject evidence that seems untrustworthy. Law enforcement departments should implement research-based procedures, such as introducing "blinded" eyewitness identification techniques (National Research Council, 2014). Collaboration between scientists and law enforcers will aid in the discovery of the best processes for improving eyewitness identification procedures.

Recommendations

Avoiding show up: When performing the line-up method, these approaches should be avoided as much as possible. However, in any situation where this approach must be utilized, routine precautions required in the line-up should be utilized. This includes, but is not limited to, the avoidance of suggestive indications that give the impression that the person held is only a suspect and not a criminal.

Another essential suggestion is to use scientific methods and expert witnesses since juries will require help in comprehending the aspects that can alter the accuracy of an identification. In addition, expert witnesses can provide in-depth explanations of scientific research, catch the complexity of the study, and center the evidence on the most important studies. However, experts should not be allowed to testify beyond the scope of his or her competence.

Even if the bystander recognized the perpetrator in the first step, repeating identification methods with the same likely culprit and witness should be avoided. This suggestion is helpful in most circumstances since it aids in the prevention of provocative clues regarding a suspect. However, when the same suspect is utilized repeatedly for one witness, the witness may form the impression that the recurrent subject is the targeted offender. This introduces the concept of bias.

 Photograph of a suspect should be carefully chosen when compiling a Lineup so that he or she does not receive undue attention. Non-suspect pictures and fillers should be used to ensure that the suspect does not stand out, therefore, making the identification process thorough. Fillers must be chosen utilizing a hybrid technique that considers the fillers' features to the eyewitness description and their similarity to the suspect (Wixted & Wells, 2017). Furthermore, to avoid unintended bias, double-blinding techniques are suitable, in which the administrator is oblivious of the layout of the pictures since this will aid dissuade any possible effect from them to the eyewitness.

Biblical view

The Bible describes two types of eyewitness testimony: "genuine" and "false" witness. Jesus and His apostles warned against false witnesses’ numerous times. Because they were Jesus' classmates, it is thought that Jesus' followers had a distinct edge over current eyewitness. "Unlike unprepared witnesses to a crime, the disciples were raptly attentive to Jesus' words and acts, and I suppose their attention to detail grew even sharper with each miraculous event" (Warner, 2018). Writers of the Gospels were extraordinary eyewitnesses who knew the importance of their testimony. "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched —this we proclaim concerning the Word of life" (John 1:1-3NIV). "We have seen and testified to the life that has appeared, and we announce to you the everlasting life that was with the father and has appeared to us. We want to share what we have seen and heard with you to join us in our fellowship. And it is with the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, that we have fellowship. We are writing this to make our happiness complete" (John 1:14). The disciples studied and learned from Jesus' words and acts while he was on earth.

Furthermore, in a court of law, eyewitness evidence is critical in strengthening an argument. The prosecution is regarded to have more legitimacy if the eyewitnesses are more dependable and believable. The apostles were encouraged by Jesus and the Holy Spirit. As they recorded their travel and experiences, the apostles received direct revelation from God. Many eyewitness stories include several, rather than particular, encounters, which lends weight to the documents. The witness's point of view allows the various reports prepared by different agencies to have slight discrepancies, which lends credibility to the evidence by indicating that they were not involved in a conspiracy.

Conclusion

The problem of poor witness identification is a primary concern worldwide; however, there are numerous improvements that may be implemented. Many countries have lately implemented eye witness identification procedures. The use of double-blind methods aids in the reduction of witness prejudice. The eyewitness identifications create relatively few erroneous convictions when numerous photos are shown in succession. However, there are a variety of regulations and processes that, when considered, can help reduce witness identification errors.

Eyewitness Identification and Testimony

Introduction

1. Any witness's identification of a suspect is vital in the investigation of a suspect.
2. It is equally significant in the criminal clearance process.
3. Several persons who have gone through the process of being convicted for a crime have been made aware of their flawed convictions due to witness mistaken identity, thanks to scientific proof.
4. One of the most common eyewitness flaws is misidentification. Over 70% of cases have been reversed by DNA involvement at one point or another.
5. Eyewitness testimony is determined by the discrepancy between acquittal and prosecution (Costanzo & Krauss, 2018).
6. Because it is also the most convincing evidence before the court, such testimony is critical to the criminal justice system.
7. When an eyewitness identifies a crime culprit, jurors frequently dismiss additional evidence.
8. While eyewitness identification and testimony are employed by law authorities and throughout the judicial system, it is vital to identify the flaws in this method to address its policy adequately.
9.  According to research, eyewitness identification testimony might be exceedingly unreliable.
10. Social scientists have demonstrated through research that there is a need to be concerned about the veracity of eyewitness identification testimony presented in court (Hurley, 2017).
11. This paper discusses the eyewitness testimony issues that make the process uncredible and recommends policies and interventions that could be used to improve the process.

Eye Witness Issues

Eyewitness identification and memory process

1. An eyewitness's ability to correctly identify a culprit is primarily dependent on their recall.
2. Eyewitness identification errors account for more false convictions than any other type of testimony.
3.  Understanding the trustworthiness of eyewitness testimony requires reconstructive memory.
4. The recall is open to individual perception based on the individual's environment.
5. These perceptions are influenced in part by social standards and, as a result, bias.
6. As a result, we frequently alter our memories to make them more understandable to us.
7. According to McLeod (2018), memory is a dynamic process that is influenced by an individual's perception or construction.
8. The human mind does not store information in the exact way it was portrayed. As a result, eyewitness testimony may be erroneous.
9. Psychologists studying memory have explained that it is essential to distinguish between three component processes.
10. These processes are encoding storage and recovery (Costanzo & Krauss, 2018).
11. "Encoding entails acquiring data and converting it into a form that can be retained in memory; storage entails storing the encoded data in the brain over time; and retrieval entails accessing and retrieving the stored data at a later time" (Costanzo & Krauss, 2018).
12.  Furthermore, the studies claim that the memory residue deteriorates over time, making the eyewitness testimony inaccurate.

Trauma and environment of high stress

1. When a person is exposed to a high level of stress, his or her ability to observe and afterward narrate situational occurrences deteriorates.
2. When confronted with a loud noise or the sight of a sharp blade late at night, for example, the natural reaction is to look for the sword first before finding cover.
3. These traumatic and stressful circumstances put the witness in survival mode, and as a result, the witness will be unable to recall events such as rape, murder, or even robbery.
4. Due to the stress produced by the horrific event, most witnesses may consider fleeing the area without naming the offender.