Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony

The exactness in eyewitness testimonies is pivotal in the direction of the criminal investigation activities. What an eyewitness gives in a court of law determines the fate of the person under investigation. The study will take place in the juvenile criminal and investigation department since children have been accused in many instances. Adults have taken advantage of the minors by giving false testimonies about them. Besides, minors have been corrupted and advised to give false testimonies since any courtroom testimony is treated with seriousness.

Many research types have investigated how memories are retrieved from the brain and their effects in a courtroom (Loftus, 2019). Therefore, a minor's memory is not like one for an adult, and therefore they can base their testimony on one thing and fail to be affected by the leading questions. Therefore, the study investigates how the juvenile systems treat no eyewitness, discredited eyewitness, and unchallenged eyewitness conditions based on the juveniles' psychological attributes.

One of the most well-known studies on unchallenged eyewitness was carried out systematically by Loftus in 1974.

Get quality help now

Doctor Jennifer

Verified writer

Proficient in: Criminal Psychology

5 (893)

“ Thank you so much for accepting my assignment the night before it was due. I look forward to working with you moving forward ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

The study happens to be influential in criminal trials where the Loftus presented the research respondents with one explanation of crime, where an imaginary defendant had been found guilty of murder and robbery with violence. In one scenario, the respondents were equipped with situational evidence and one explanation of crime brought forward by the imaginary prosecution team.

In the second scenario, the participants were provided with evidence and the same definition of crime; however, they were notified that there was an eyewitness.

In the third situation, the participants had the same definition of crime, the same evidence, but they were notified the eyewitness was to wear a pair of glasses. Loftus concluded that the team was more likely to find the defendant guilty in the last scenario since the eyewitness was discredited. In the second scenario, the eyewitness was unchallenged, and the team could find the defendant guilty three more times than the scenario that lacked eyewitness (Wise & Kehn 2020).

Therefore, since the study's publication, it was found out that the study findings have been replicated more than five times. However, consistent meta-analysis attempts have found out that the three scenarios have some variations in the findings. Some critiques have recognized some limitations from the study methodology used. Therefore, the current research focuses on addressing the other existing studies' variations and give recommendable findings. When an eyewitness graces a courtroom and explains what transpired from their view, the testimony can be compelling. It is hard for those hearing the testimony to compromise it. Therefore, the pieces of evidence from the studies carried out over the decades propose that eyewitness testimony is likely to persuade the evidence presented in the courtroom. When the eyewitness testimony has misunderstood, the conviction in many cases is wrong.

75% of the implicated eyewitness scenarios are faulty. Incidences of people being in jail for reasons they are not accountable for have been rampant. Psychological differences among the eyewitness apart from being unchallenged and discredited have been found out to have a significant effect on the verdict given to the defendants. Psychological science has to be integrated during court sessions to avoid repercussions associated with it. Some of the consequences are misinformation and have to be avoided.

The misinformation comes when the information is psychologically created before an event, during the event, and during the reporting time. This is because some eyewitnesses might have a clue, for instance, what happens during a road accident and give misinformed evidence instead of what happened. Others offer distorted information, which could make one liable for mistakes they did not commit. In situations where there are co-witnesses, the accuracy mostly is 79%, while 34% is for the ideas they had shared. This is because the witnesses sometimes allow each other to corrupt each other's ideas; hence, the misinformation.

Identifying perpetrators is another issue that must be scrutinized well to avoid negative consequences that accrue with the verdict given. Also, to accurately remember the exact details of the crimes they encounter, eyewitnesses ought to recall the faces and identify the perpetrators of those crimes. In most cases, the eyewitnesses are requested to explain that perpetrator to the law and highlight their exact views later. Their views may be based on the lineups, which include photos for the eyewitness to justify. The eyewitness may be given like eight photos where people might be dressed in the same attire for the eyewitness to justify who committed the crime (Nayak & Khajuria 2019). Therefore, in this situation, the executing jury must scrutinize if the eyewitness is unchallenged or uncredited to avoid delivering wrong verdicts.

In some situations, eyewitnesses suffer from memory bias, especially from errors and susceptibility. This is because people may forget what exactly happed to them of others and, in some situations, people they know. Some memory bias is more difficult; for instance, our expectations of how the world works, motivating factors, personality, and how we perceive information can affect the eyewitness memory to give wrong information. Memory bias happens because our daily encounter is full of redundant activities and may influence the information given the eyewitness.

False memory also affects what the eyewitness can deliver in a courtroom. This is because false feedback manipulation has been used in some incidents to violate substantial minorities and majority subjects in courtrooms (Goodman et al. 2017). Interviewing approaches have been found out to have significant effects on the memory of the eyewitness. In ac cognitive interview, the witness is likely to recall a lot. The free recall approach is likely to remember the exact happenings and avoid their minds from being corrupted.

Research about ethnic stereotypes has not been conducted recently where misidentification has been an issue in the courtrooms. Also, race mythologies have not to be tackled to avoid some races associated with some crimes in the court of law. Temperament situations like mood variations during the recall events have not been investigated to determine their effect on the testimony. The passage of time in inference to the time the testimony is given has not been appraised to ascertain the exact influence on the testimony.

Eyewitness testimony is very influential in a courtroom and conviction, although in some instances, it is not dependable. Over the decade, people have been sending behind bars while others have been fined for crimes and they did not take part in. this is a result of what an eyewitness gives the courtroom since their information is ever compelling and influential. Psychological and biological problems associated with the eyewitness at a time influence their choice of information they testify.

The eyewitness mind may be corrupted by the questions and the lines that he or she is subjected to testify either for or against. Memory problems are real legal problems, and they need to be fixed to avoid negative repercussions of the verdicts given (Wixted & Wells S2017). Therefore, the research is significant in helping the persecution, and criminal investigation departments avoid misinformation from the eyewitness. The study also aims to help how the criminal investigation and justice systems avoid taking lightly testimonies given by both unchallenged and uncredited eyewitnesses; in situations where there two witnesses, the testimony has to be evaluated to avoid the errors that may subject an innocent person to be jail terms.

The study aims to investigate eyewitness conditions based on the characteristics of the participants. The characteristics are based on the following aspects; psychological, biological, political science, and criminal justice. Besides, the study's purpose is to evaluate character skepticism to determine if the study variables describe the participants’ guilty scaling in response to the conditions of the eyewitness.