Assignment task:
Eyewitness testimonies are not always reliable, even though we use them frequently in our judicial system. Eyewitness testimonies are used to convict people in the court of law. Even though they seem convincing, some things make them not so trustworthy. People's memories can be wrong and change over time. We often recount stories and firsthand accounts of what we experience throughout the day, but the validity isn't always trusted.
The problem with eyewitness accounts is that they fail due to perception or memory. Our mind doesn't record like a video, so there is room for error. Things that should be taken into account are stress and trauma. When someone is trying to give an account of a situation that occurred, anxiety and trauma change the perception of the event; contamination from media and post-event can also taint the memory of the event. These should all be considered when questioning the validity of eyewitness accounts. Psychology has found that the eyewitness memory is better than once thought, but it is still unreliable.
Research conducted in the 1970s by Elizabeth Loftus found that memory is malleable. Misidentifications are one of the number one reasons for exonerations in the United States. This happens when people are put in a lineup and asked to pick the person they saw commit the crime, or when an eyewitness on scene recounts the crime committed. Regardless of the reliability of eyewitness accounts, we still use them as a form of evidence. In my opinion, this poses a problem. Not only is it detrimental to our justice system, but it raises the question of whether they should be admissible in court. This is why it is so important to have more than one witness. The more witnesses there are, the better chance you have of receiving the truth. Need Assignment Help?
Reference:
Wixted JT, Mickes L, Fisher RP. Rethinking the Reliability of Eyewitness Memory. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018 May;13(3):324-335. doi: 10.1177/1745691617734878. PMID: 29716454.