An Evaluation of Eye Witness Testimony
Despite the fact that eye witness testimony is renowned worldwide, evidence supporting its validity and efficacy present a variety of different opinions. Everyday eye witness testimony is used to help the law convict criminals of various crimes but there is an academic debate as to whether it is a reliable method to potentially change someone’s life (Koen & Bowers, 2018). After research was carried out researchers began to believe it was not a scientific, valid method. The researchers believe that recalled memory is not reliable as people tend to leave out, change and add in information that did not happen based on their own personal schemas (Bartlett, 1995). They also believe that eye witness testimony is not valid as there is evidence that there are cross-linguistic (Fausey & Boroditsky, 2011) and age dependent factors (Robinson & Briggs, 1997) that effect the reliability of recalled information. However, there is evidence that shows that eye witness testimony can be highly accurate and reliable (Yuille & Cutshall, 1986). In terms of the case study the researchers believe that the two youths accused of the serious assault cannot be prosecuted based on purely subjective eye witness accounts, the evidence presented below will explain this decision.
An important factor of eye witness testimony being unreliable is recalled memory can be subjective and based on people’s personal schemas. Bartlett (1955) conducted an experiment based on reconstructive memory. The participants heard a story called war of the ghosts and were asked to recall it, first to one another and then they were asked to write it down. He found that in both cases crucial information in the story had been forgotten, changed and extra details had been added. He also found that the longer the recall time the more reconstructed the information became. Bartlett explained this through his theory of schemas, he explained how everyone has their own personal schema of the world and when recalling memory, it can be distorted due to individuals own personal perception of the world (McLeod, 2009). Bartletts study was repeated by a number of different researchers. The first was Ahlberg and Sharps (2002) who showed twenty young adults and nineteen older adults’ parts of the original text Bartlett (1955) used. There results highly correlated with Bartlett’s original study, both age groups had errors in their memory recall and the longer the recall time the more errors occurred in the memory. These studies were further replicated by Kellogg (2007) who had participants read war of the ghosts and either write it down or verbally recall the information. They found that there were more errors in recall when it was verbally spoken, but overall both methods of recall produced false information in comparison to the original text. Overall, the evidence presented shows that recalled information is not valid and highly unreliable as it is rarely recalled correctly and can be represented differently for each person due to their own personal experiences and schemas. Bartlett (1955) study was replicated many times and consistent results were found meaning this is a reliable source. In relation to the case study the information provided shows that eye witness accounts cannot be a basis to convict someone of a crime given there is no forensic evidence linking the accused to the felony.
Eye witness testimony can lack validity as there is evidence that there are age dependant and cross-linguistic factors that affect how people recall information. Fausey and Boroditsky (2011) conducted research comparing how English and Spanish speakers recalled information. They showed both samples a silent event one being intentional and the other being accidental (example from paper, someone intentionally knocks a box off a table, someone turns around and accidentally knocks a box off the table) and measured the information both groups provided. The conclusion showed that both English and Spanish speakers remembered intentional events correctly, but only English speakers remembered the key factors of the accidental events, Spanish speakers did not (Fausey & Boroditsky, 2011). This study shows that recalled information differs between cultures and therefore may not always be reliable. Another study that shows that age is also a confounding factor of recalled memory. Robinson and Briggs (1997) conducted an experiment on age and suggestibility. They used three age groups, four to five, eight to nine, and adults. All groups were shown the same video of a crime and were asked questions that included misleading information. They found that the younger the participant the more suggestible they were, but all participants struggled to recall information based purely on the video they were shown. This study shows that the younger the eye witness the less likely the information retained is to be reliable. When young children are witnesses to a crime their perception of the truth can be easily influenced. Overall, the cross-linguistic factors (Fausey & Boroditsky, 2011) and age dependant factors (Robinson & Briggs, 1997) back up the claim that eye witness testimony is highly unreliable and subjective, as different ages and cultures have different interpretations of recalled information. Linking to the case study, the eye witness testimony cannot be enough evidence to convict the accused as there is evidence that cultural and age limiting factors can influence the statements given therefore what has been said by witnesses cannot be enough to prosecute without strong forensic evidence to back it up.
Although the research presented shows eye witness testimony is not strong enough evidence alone to convict the accused due to its lack of reliability and validity, there is also evidence to support eye witness testimony. Yuille and Cutshall (1986) researched thirteen participants who has witnessed a shooting which killed one and seriously injured another four months earlier. All participants were. Interview at the crime scene by the police and these statements were cross examined to compare how accurate their recalled memory was four months later. They found that all the participants account of the events was almost identical and that over such a long period their memory of the event had hardly changed. They also found that although the participants were highly stressed this did not affect their ability to accurately recall information. Overall, they concluded that eyewitness testimony was accurate enough to be reliable evidence as the accounts were nearly perfect in comparison to the original event. However, they found that some variables such as height, colour, and weight did change. Due to this the study shows that eye witness accounts are never always correct, and these factors could be crucial when it comes to prosecuting the accused and finding incriminating evidence. Due to this the evidence deducing eye witness testimony as reliable can be discounted as it still backs up the main argument that eye witness account can never be one hundred percent correct and the missing or incorrect information could be key to solving the whole case. Taking this into consideration, the accused in the case study cannot be prosecuted based on eye witness testimony as there is no evidence to prove that the witnesses are being truthful.
To conclude, based on the evidence this essay presents eye witness testimony can be considered as subjective, unreliable and not valid. This conclusion is based upon the researcher of Bartlett (1955) who showed that reconstructive memory is based on people’s personal perceptions of the world due to schemas. Fausey and Boroditsky (2011) showed that cross-linguistic factors effect reliability of eye witness testimony. Yuille and Cutshall (1986) showed that eye witness testimony can be reliable, but this can be discounted as there was still important information missed out or incorrect. Due to this information the researchers believe that the two youths, one Caucasian and the other of Afro-Caribbean should not have been charged with the assault as there is no reliable, scientific incriminating evidence to prove it was them that committed the crime. The eye witness testimonies may be unreliable as the witnesses may have been drunk, they may have perceptions that they are more likely to commit the crime do their ethnicity and due to the main body of evidence coming from five friends who may all just be conforming to each other’s views