Judging from past criminal trials, eyewitness testimony is probably one of the most convincing forms of evidence. The reason why is because people always trust what they have seen, and in return others trust them too. Not only that, but eyewitness testimony is believed to be reliable and accurate. Although eyewitnesses have helped solve crimes, there is a huge controversy surrounding the accuracy of an eyewitness’ testimony.
It is believed that humans are biased to notice and exaggerate some experiences to minimize others. Not only that, but many say memory doesn’t provide an exact “recording” of an experience but rather a personal sense of identity and a tool that helps us guide our actions based on our previous experiences. Experts believe that stress and terror can also disturb memory formation and that this can cause the witness to forget important details of the incident.
Studies, like the one done by the Innocence Project, have shown that out of the 358 people who have been convicted and sentenced to death since 1989, 71% of them had been convicted through eyewitness misidentification. Not only did these people have to face death for a crime they didn’t commit, but most had to serve over 10 years in prison beforehand. This isn’t the witness’ fault, in fact memory distortion happens unconsciously; but now it’s time to consider what steps need to be taken in order to prevent this from happening.
I always knew that eyewitness testimonys have been not the most accurate way to provide evidence. However, with that being said, I did not expect that 71% of all death sentences has been relied on eye witness misidentifications. To me that seems like a huge flaw in the justice system. What I find interesting is that the justice system is huge on reasonable doubt with evidence. They are also very strict on legally seized evidence as well. But how come we can come up with reasonable doubt when presented evidence, but have little doubt just from what somebody says? We technically cannot trust anyone because there is no literal proof that what they are saying is 100% true. So shouldn't all eye-witnesses be unreliable?
ReplyDeleteI also questioned what makes an eye witness reliable. The reason why I question this is because they can alter their alibi just to help their friend or someone else, knowing that no one will know if he actually testified/told the truth because he is the eye witness. Just like Megan, I also founded astonishing how 71% had been convicted, because of their eye witness. Depending on the situation of the case, this is another reason why I believe that eye witnesses should not be accounted for as much as they do because at the time of the scene they could've spaced off due to being shocked and in many other ways and cannot remember what happed. Again this all goes back to how our justice system works and has been working, not fixing their flaws.
ReplyDelete