Qualitative On Errors Of Eyewitness Identification - Research Paper Example

Qualitative Research On Errors Of Eyewitness Identification Introduction Cognitive psychologists have been conducting many experiments to examine what may contribute to the eminent errors in eyewitness identifications. The implication is that even the eyewitness identifications that may seem quite convincing to the courts are sometimes mistaken identification (Brewer & Wells, 2011). Some psychologists have reportedly claimed that memories recount when testifying elaborate what the witnesses have created over time and that the confessions may be a reflection of the individual's rationalization for what might have happened in the event and incorporates the suggestions from others. However, the need to identify the errors in eyewitness identification stems from the fact that most of the convictions, 70% to be precise, have been convicted due to eyewitness misidentification because DNA tests have always proved that these eyewitness identification are never accurate (Brewer & Wells, 2011). Nonetheless, qualitative researchers have revealed that most of the people interviewed on the accuracy of the testimonies have admitted that the images of crime scenes become vivid with time. There are cases where individuals revealed that the pictures of a thief became vivid as time passed by and that the facts of the scene diminished with time. The evidence shows that the eyewitnesses always make mistakes and that courts should acknowledge that the eyewitness identification is sometimes untrustworthy and may undermine the confidence citizens have in the integrity of the court system. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative research paper is to explore factors that contribute to the errors in eyewitness identification. Factors leading to errors in eyewitness identification The factors that are linked to the errors in eyewitness identification are embedded in the notion of common sense as well as what people undergo in everyday life. Some of the factors associated with the errors as psychologists have confirmed include emotional and physical condition because an individual with compromised physical like impaired sight or hearing condition may not be accurate in identifying the suspect(Brewer & Wells, 2011). However, psychologists have also brought the attention of academia on some of the less obvious factors that result in errors in eyewitness identification as this research paper explores into details. Stress is one of the main factors that cause errors in eyewitness identification contrary to the usual assumption that stress always sharpens an individual’s senses. However, there is substantive evidence confirming that stressed individuals when observing a scene or an event are less likely to pay keen attention; thus have higher chances of misidentifying suspects(Brewer & Wells, 2011). Conversely, stress refers to the environment of the scene because high-stress environment compromises an individual's ability to observe keenly and recall the events(Brewer & Wells, 2011). For instance, the sight of a gun or a sound of the gun puts stress on an individual where he or she first looks for the weapon and then taking cover thus paying less attention to the person confronting them. The implication is that a high-stress environment puts an individual in a survival mode thus the higher possibility that the person will not accurately recall the event later. In this regard, psychologists suggest that traumatic events like murder, robbery, or rape make it harder for the witnesses to identify the person confronting them because most attention is paid to the event and harm that may occur to the victim. On the other hand, cognitive psychologists posit that there is a direct link between lower stress levels and heightened awareness and that individuals experience severe cognitive anxiety when they are facing unexpected physical danger(Brewer & Wells, 2011). Therefore, the above evidence point to the fact that stress of an individual contributes to the errors in eyewitness identification and the nature of traumatic events also instill stress that compromise individual's ability to accurately recall the events. Nonetheless, the nature of human memory is a factor to consider when exploring the factors that contribute to errors in eyewitness identification. It is the nature of human memory not to remember everything and as such, it is almost next to impossible for the brain to interpret every event that people encounter down the streets(Brewer & Wells, 2011). In fact, the human brain is designed in such a manner that it takes information in bits and process the information in pieces implying that the brain processes only the important aspects and encounters. Therefore, details like age, weight, hair, and height are barely processed and interpreted in the human brain. If an individual is asked by the police to later give the account of the experiences, the human memory never functions like a video that can rewind and recount everything that took place. On the contrary, the brain functions in a manner that it fills the details that human beings cannot recount to create a full picture of the event(Brewer &Wells, 2011). Therefore, the human’s memory also accounts for the errors in eyewitness identification. The presence of a weapon also explains the errors in eyewitness identification because when confronted by any weapon, a victim will focus more on the weapon and not give attention to the person holding the weapon(Brewer & Wells, 2011). The implication is that the way witnesses testify show their much attention and focus on the weapon of the perpetrator. For instance, it is also common of the eyewitnesses to give the exact details of the weapon because a witness can describe the exact size, color, and shape of the gun. However, the same witness will have a problem recounting the exact perpetrator in his or her brain. To a greater extent, the errors in eyewitness identification occur because, in most cases, there is the pressure to choose a particular perpetrator(Brewer & Wells, 2011). The implication is that one of the most frequent contributors to errors in eyewitness identification is the manner in which investigators present the perpetrators to the victims. In most cases, the police use clues through pauses, gestures, and hesitations and these actions may compromise the ability of the individual to identify a familiar face. The pressure to choose also stems from the methods that the investigators use to present the perpetrators to the victims(Brewer & Wells, 2011). For instance, the show-up method is associated with greater errors in eyewitness identification because it entails showing the witness the apprehended suspect. In return, the witness will figure the suspect in handcuffs and this leads to the automatic assumption that there must be additional evidence that the officer might have about the suspect thus the conclusion that the person presented is the real perpetrator. From a psychological perspective, the human brain will be filled with the images of the person in the police car thus the conclusion that the individual is the person who committed the said crime(Brewer & Wells, 2011). Therefore, with time, the witness is inclined to believe that the individual is the real suspect even if the eyewitness identification is wrong. Moreover, the eyewitnesses are prone to errors when they have already rehashed the events with some of the observers who were at the scene(Brewer & Wells, 2011). In this case, the eyewitness identification error occurs because a witness will alter his or her memory to make the statement or choice in agreement with others. The other source of eyewitness identification is because when an individual sees the perpetrator in a different scenario from the crime scene, the eyewitness will not identify the perpetrator correctly. On the other hand, presenting a witness with multiple offenders also has the potential of decreasing the accuracy in the identification procedure(Brewer & Wells, 2011). Conclusion In summary, the research paper has identified some of the issues that contribute to errors in eyewitness identification. Therefore, the findings from the research may offer a clue to the judicial systems to reconsider how best witnesses can reduce errors when identifying the perpetrators. As such, the research finds out that one of the main sources of the errors in eyewitness identification is the functioning of the human memory because the brain only pays keen attention to important details but ignores less important facts(Brewer & Wells, 2011). On the other hand, stress contributes to the identification errors as it compromises the ability of the individual to pay full attention to the events. The qualitative research also identifies an important factor like the presence of a weapon that makes the eyewitness focus more on the weapon than the face of the perpetrator while other errors occur because the investigators may influence the individual into choosing the suspect through gestures. Moreover, the research identifies other factors like presenting multiple offenders, prior rehearsing of the events, and encounter with the perpetrator after the event as sources of errors in eyewitness identification. Reference Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2011). Eyewitness identification. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 24-27. Read More