Eye Witness Key Issues, Essay Example

Psychology and Eyewitnesses

The prosecution of cases in all jurisdictions is dependent on evidence that is adduced in court and the extent to which the guilt of the accused can be proven. In all jurisdictions, all people accused of committing crimes are assumed innocent until proven guilty. Both the civil law and the common law systems advocate for a fair hearing of the details pertaining a case before a verdict is delivered on a case. In Shariah law, though it is considered rather radical and punitive, it still advocates for a fair hearing of all the facts surrounding a case before a verdict is delivered and the retribution meted upon the offender. The common law had such serious considerations for justice and fair hearing to the extent that equity was introduced with its maxims in an effort to give enough space for the administration of justice.

The burden of prove lies squarely with the person who lays the charges. To this end, the accusers must always give sufficient evidence to prove the accusations laid against the accused. Though in criminal cases the accuser is the government, the prosecution must prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt. Similar rules apply to the civil cases where the defendant must be proven to have violated the civil rights of the complainant.  To satisfy this requirement eyewitness testimony is fundamental for lawyers and crime investigators as well as the other complainants.  A witness has a civic duty of reporting crime to the police and later in the court the witness may be summoned to give answers to questions. The strength and specificity of detail that is delivered in the process of prosecution determines the ease with which cases are dispatched. Eye witnesses have attracted a lot of attention and popularity of late due to these factors (Law and human Behaviour 2006)

According to Ogloof (2002) there are certain specific requirements that one needs to satisfy before they can testify in a court of law. First one ought to understand the essence of a court system. This means that if it is a child whose the child has to be able to respond to the affirmative that they understand the function of a court and the responsibility that the judge discharges. Secondly, the witness has to be over sixteen years and to be able to discern the implications of giving the evidence under oath. This is so especially since once one is sworn, they are duty bound to testify the truth or stand a risk of being accused of being a hindrance to justice. This evidence that one gives as eye witness testimony should be witness that can be corroborated. The witness should also be able to provide truthful answers. This therefore

Evidence that is normally adduced in court should be Campbell D (2005) explains the three stages that a human memory consists of, these are: storage,  retention, and recall. Failure to store information can affect the memory and lead to failure to recall the information appropriately. If for example one seeks to know the number of buttons on your shirt, you might fail to know since the information was not stored in the first place.

Campbell further explains that after witnessing an event, the events that we are subsequently exposed to and the new information can actually change our memory.  The impact of the subsequent events comprise of what is called the  “post-event information effect” this often comes about as a result of our interaction and conversations with other people. This is the case for instance when one witnesses an occurrence and subsequently engages in discussions with other people on the incidence in such discourse, the  eyewitness and others may speculate as to the  exactly events that transpired, the sequence in which it occurred, and the extent of involvement of the various participants. Such dialogue does not facilitate reproductive memory but rather enhances reconstruction of the events in the eye witnesses mind. Under such conditions, the   reconstruction of the past may in most cases turn out to be quite inaccurate be quite inaccurate. This is especially due to the fact that it responds more to considerations of plausibility than fact. This implies that the discussions that happen after the occurrence of an event may alter the events as they occurred since the story as reconstructed by the colleagues might seem more plausible to the eye witness.

The juries that are looked upon to determine the outcome of cases are normally overly reliant on eye witnesses with very little regard to the sincerity of the evidence given by the eye witnesses (Hastie 2006). The psychologists should provide an expert opinion based on the observation of human behaviour. This therefore implies that these experts should only serve as watchdogs that help the adjudicators get the best from a eye witness account of the proceedings of an incident. The testimony given by eye witnesses is at most highly biased and distorted, for the jury to be at a position to make a good unbiased decision or award, they should get an expert opinion on some of the eye witness accounts before arriving at a decision.  Further more as Campbell puts it, human memory  is basically subject to many other effects it does not operate as if it were a videotape camera that does record information in the memory and just later retrieve it, rather several memory forces and factors determine the accuracy of the witness account.

In recent years several cases have seen DNA evidence used to exonerate

Individuals who were previously convicted primarily on the basis of eyewitness testimony have this has shown that eyewitness evidence is not infallible. Though most eyewitnesses might try to be both honest and objective, they are also likely to make the likely human mistakes in recalling and interpreting and portraying an event they had witnessed event; that is how the human memory is. Researchers in the field of eyewitness have groped with this issue for over a decade to date. The National Institute of Justice convened a technical working group of law enforcement and legal experts and practitioners, together with these researchers, they were mandated to explore the development of improved procedures for the collection and preservation of eyewitness evidence within the criminal justice system (National Institute of Justice).

The aim of a good prosecution is to highlight all the material facts of a case to the jury and the presiding judge to enable them to arrive at the fairest possible verdict. One of the key features of any such proceedings of a case is where the eyewitness is called upon to give their accounts of the proceedings of an event as they happened. Upon the delivery of such evidence, there is always a chance for both the prosecution and the defence counsel to cross examine the witness in an effort to determine whether the witness is speaking the truth. Such opportunities have been often abused by the lawyers to the point where the witness at times ends up being viewed as a villain. To enable the jury have an objective opinion of the witness, it is therefore necessary that the jury gets an independent and professional analysis of the witness. The fact that the psychologists will profile the witness and give and independent and unbiased opinion of the witness and the testimony that they delivered to the jury helps in deciding the case. In other instances, many witnesses might collude to give a corroborating story, these experts are also able to look at the witness and assist in determining the extent to which the eyewitnesses account is true.

In conclusion, eye witnesses are not only vital parts of the judicial process, but also important links in ensuring that justice is delivered. However, many cases come up for hearing many months or even years after the actual occurrence. The human memory is normally a function of health which cannot be guaranteed. To avoid the loss or destruction of such evidence through reconstruction, the psychologists are always quite vital in the court room.

References

Campbell D (2005), Issues in Forensic Psychology: Eyewitness Recall. Retrieved 09 August 2009 from http://www.campsych.com/eyewitness.htm.

Hastie Reid 1996. Notes on the psychologists Expert Witness.  Law and  Human Behaviour.  Vol. 20 No ½

Heilbrun Kirk (2006) Principles of Forensic Mental Health Assessment. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic

Ogloof J, (2002). Psychology and Law. London: McGraw Hill.

U.S. Department of Justice (1999). Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement. Retrieved 09 August 2009 from http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/178240.txt