Psychological Research Shows That Eyewitness Testimony Is Not Always Accurate, Therefore It Should Not Be Used in the Criminal Justice System

Psychological research shows that eyewitness testimony is not always accurate, therefore it should not be used in the criminal justice system. Discuss.

There have been many cases where suspects have been positively identified by victims, but only later to be found innocent by other means, mainly DNA evidence at a later date. No one doubts that eyewitness testimony is risky, but also serve a part of the legal strategy that can initially provide the relevant authorities with evidence that can lead to the arrest of the suspect. But it does have its flaws, one famous case in point was that of Ronald Cotton in 1984, who was mistakenly identified for raping Jennifer Thompson. Ronald was found guilty of rape and subsequently sentenced to life. But then Eleven years later was exonerated after DNA evidence did not match Ronald, another man who was very similar in appearance was found guilty of the rape (Bohannon, 2015). Eyewitness testimony is not always accurate, with psychological research showing this, therefore it should not be used in the criminal justice system. This essay will discuss different aspects of psychological research into eyewitness testimony, and show that it is not always accurate, and in some cases should not be used in the criminal justice system. It will use five different studies of eyewitness testimonies presenting the results.

Since the early 1970s, psychological researchers have voiced concerns about the accuracy of eyewitness identification. Using different procedures to acquire data, such as live and filmed staged crimes and events, the researchers have noted that the rates for mistaken identity can be startlingly high (Wells & Olsen, 2003). But even with this evidence put forward criminal justice personnel did not begin to take the research seriously until the late 1990s. Wells and Olson go on to tell of Estimator Variables that distinguish between precise and imprecise witness testimony. A meta-analysis by Shapiro and Penrod (1986) suggested females marginally were more likely to accurately identify a suspect, but at the same time make a mistaken identity due to an attempt to actually make an identification. As well as the age of an eyewitness has been regularly being linked to mistaken identification, with the young and elderly falling into this grouping (Pozzulo & Lindsay, 1998). Whereas the ethninticity of a witness while having no bearing on different outcomes does show that they are able to better recognize faces from their own background rather from another race or ethnic heritage (Messiner & Brigham, 2001). And then the description of a face that is regarded as attractive or highly unattractive are easier to identify than an average face (Fleishman et al, 1976) would go on to indicate that the general population is not as easy to identify.

If as though that the time an eyewitness is allowed to view a suspect’s face should increase the reliability of the witness testimony, this is not always the case as other factors come into play. Leippe et al. (1978) conducted a staged theft, while some were led to believe that the package was worthless, others were led to believe it was valuable, and others only learnt of the value after the event. The witnesses who knew that the item was of some value gave a more detailed description, indicating events around the event influenced a more accurate identification. This form of misinformation takes form in the witness statement of being over confident about what was perceived and can lead to mistaken identities, or misleading information provided. Therefore, indicating the value of the item realistic should not be disclosed to the witness.