Eyewitness testimonies should be used in criminal trials, but should not be seen as always accurate. Good judgment should be used when listening to an eyewitness testimony. All of the points explained in this article should be constantly taken into account. As the article states, "Weapon focus usually results in poor quality testimony, as the witness is unable to describe much that is useful about other aspects of the incident." Because of this, simple facts like if a weapon was involved should dictate the reliance juries and judges place on eyewitness testimonies. Also, while an eyewitness is under questioning by a lawyer in court, their testimony should not be depended on either. The article supports this by reading, “…different questions caused the participants to recall the events differently.” Never should an eyewitness testimony be the sole proof and reason of conviction in a court case because of the inconsistency and the possible influences on said testimony.
I agree that eyewitness testimonies should be used in criminal trials and should not be seen as completely accurate. You mentioned that good judgement should used when listening to an eyewitness testimony, but what if nothing makes sense and the witness was completely correct? Most people will have a plan when they try to take something. Depending on the person, it could be simple as walking in and threatening people, or it could be a sequence of events that's flawless.
I agree with your comment about a person's plan. Yes, it would be difficult to know while nothing makes sense, but the only really sure item we have is our judgement, so I still suggest using good judgement and using as many facts as can be aquired through other methods. Thanks for the comment!
Baylee, I agree with your post. However, you state “…different questions caused the participants to recall the events differently.”, which is true, but it's not always true. As the article states: "the available research supports Loftus' view that witness testimony can be affected by leading questions, but only under certain circumstances"
I agree with you as many others do. Not only does the repetition of questions or the leading question affect the witness, but the state of mind they are may also affect what they feel. For example, if I were to witness a murder happening I am more than positive i would be in a highly tensed state that may make the questioning difficult to answer, skewing my answers.
Eyewitness testimonies should be used in criminal trials. It is difficult in our society to validate and prove elements of all of the crimes that are occuring. With that being said, they should only be given a certain level of validation. As the article pointed out,eyewitness testimonies may not always be accurate and can be slightly skewed. Becuase of this, the testimonies should still be heard but with that in mind. The testimonies should not be the sole reason a person is convicted or released but simply an element to incorporate into the situation. To conclude, eyewitnes testimonies should be used in criminal trials but should only be given a certain amount of "pull" so to speak.
I agree with your points, especially the point that states, "...they should only be given a certain level of validation." This is exactly right because eyewitness testimonies have some level of "pull", as you concluded, but they also have the chance to be inaccurate. Yes, in our society it is very difficult "...to validate and prove elements of all the crimes that are occuring." I'm very glad you pointed this out and shared your valid opinion!
Eyewitness testimony should be used in court as evidence, but it shouldn't become a heavy clue during investigation. Studies have showed that witnesses could be misled by the, so called, “lead questions” from the lawyers or policemen (Loftus et al, 1970s). In the beginning of the 20th century Frederick Bartlett proved, that people tend to generalize objects they see, due to the “schema”; they basically try to fit the information into schema. On the other hand, research in Canada had shown that people could recall the crime scene pretty accurate with a certain level of agreement(Yullle and Cutshell, 1986). However, to my mind, that scene could draw people attention due to the presence of the weapon in the crime scene, which could be easily recalled(Loftus et al, 1986). As we can see, witnesses could be really helpful in investigating the case, but, however, we can not fully rely on evidence they provide.
Yes! I absolutely agree that "...we cannot fully rely on {the} evidence they provide." Eyewitness testimonies are valuable, but not always reliable. As you pointed out, the studies in Canada provided a different side of the story, but that chance is not always going to recur. As long as there is a possiblity of inaccuracy, eyewitness testimonies should be taken as evidence but not solid fact in any kind of case. Thanks for your comments!
Eyewitness testimony should be used in court because it is the most reliable source if it is not caught on camera, but can't be taken as 100% accurate. If a gun or weapon was involved in a situation, I don't think most people could forget that moment. Of course they wouldn't know every single detail in that setting, but that situation has a high level of stress. I also agree that they will focus on the weapon that a person is carrying. Whether they focus more on the weapon or the actual person....that differentiates between each person. According to Deffenbacher, the higher the level of stress a situation has, the less a person will remember. I disagree with Deffenbacher's data. On the other hand, I do agree that people store information in a way that makes sense to them. People do it all the time.
I think you have a good point in that whether someone will focus more on the weapon or the person it will just depend. I agree with your standpoint and that eyewitness testimony should still be used though due to the fact that it is one of the more reliable sources if not captured on video.
I really like the point about disagreeing with Deffenbacher. Especially since we recently learned about memory in psychology. Flashbulb memories are highly stressful yet they are some of the most vivid memories we can recall. However you must think from person to person there are those you may faint at the site of murder and there are those who will be smart about the situation and stay calm while thinking about the crime being committed.
In my opinion, eyewitness testimony should be used in criminal trials. However, I don't think they should be used as the most important reason why a person is convicted. As the article reads: "It is a feature of human memory that we do not store information exactly as it is presented to us(...), people store information in the way that makes the most sense to them(...)By forcing new situations to fit into our schemas, we may distort them in some way." I think human memory can be really accurate the most of the time; but, since it doesn't happen always, eyewitness testimony should be used to reinforce a hypothetical vision of a situation, not to create it.
I agree that eyewitness testimonies shouldn't be used as the most important reason why a person is convicted. However, I partly disagree that human memory can be really accurate the most of the time. Not everybody has a good memory. Some people have strong short-term memory, while others may have strong long-term memory. It will vary between each person.
I agree with you that an eyewitness testimony should not be the most important reason that a person is convicted. However I also agree with Taner that human memory is really accurate most of the time because as stated in the article people's recollections of events are usually shaped to our beliefs, stereotypes, and expectations.
I also agree with you that an eyewitness testimony should not be the most important reason that a person is convicted. But I also do agree with the point Taner made about how memory varies between different people. But the points you addressed are great as well.
Eyewitness testimonies should be used in criminal trails. They are accurate the majority of the time, but they should not be heavily relied on. The article addresses the four main factors that effect this: Weapon Focus and Violence Distraction, and Reconstruction Errors and Leading Questions. Depending on the crime an eyewitness testimony can be the only thing that can validate that a crime even happened. An example that an eyewitness saw a murder or a crime, they may be able to identify that person in a lineup. But then again, when there is a assortment of people you witnessed the same incident, each one of them may tell a different story based on what they saw.
I agree with your viewpoint and like how you mentioned both sides as well as gave an example of how it is applicable. Eyewitness testimonies definatley should still be used, but like you said they should not be heavily relied on.
I agree with you when you say eyewitnesses should not be heavily relied on because each person my tell a different story based on what they saw. I also agree with you on the fact that an eyewitness my be the only thing that can validate that a crime even happened.
I agree with your statement aswell. Even though it is not 100% accurate, the court should still put in what the eyewitness is saying into consideration.
Eye witness testimonies should not be used in criminal trials, unless it's used as a last resort or to back something that has already been proven. In my opinion testimonies are only useful if there is no other liable evidence and more than one person has a similar take in what they witnessed. Throughout the article it repeatedly states that our "memory does not store information exactly how it happened but rather how it makes sense to us". Therefore people are always going to have somewhat different stories of what they witnessed, so I don't think that a person should be subjected to go to jail simply because someones testimony said "they did it." Also, testimonies should not used in trials as trustworthy information because according to the article, "there is a great deal of research in cognitive psychology that tells us that, in general, people's memories are fairly fallible," which means that our minds aren't 100% accurate. With that said, testimonies don't provide enough evidence to prove that they can recall enough information to be used in jury trials and should not be trusted or relied on as much as it it.
You argument has a point, but there are some experiments that prove the efficiency of that kind of evidence. With a accurate approach and investigators' experience you can extract a lot of useful information out of eyewitness's mind.
After reading the article Eyewitness Testimony, I think that eyewitness testimonies should be used but definitely not the only reason someone is convicted of a crime, or not seen as 100% correct. I believe eyewitness testimonies should be used because sometimes they may be the only person to see a crime being committed and without them there wouldn't be a case. Also I believe that eyewitness testimonies are a good thing because if the victim has troubles remembering what happened because of the stress and being scared the eyewitness could fill in some missing pieces. However,I believe that eyewitness testimonies are not always correct because people don't have a perfect memory, and like stated in the article people's recollections are shaped by their stereotypes, beliefs, and expectations.
I agree with you when you say the testimonies shouldnt be seen as 100% correct. And yes they should be used because they are the only ones that really know what happened but if they cant remember they will have to live with that.
I don’t believe that eyewitness testimony should be necessarily used and believed in court but it should also not be ignored. I believe that eye witness testimony should be used if the person remembers the events by themselves and without any help from doctors and therapists. The witness’s testimony should only be valid if there is no other source for conviction or the witness had no one “helping” them remember the incident. The article states “we make sense of information by trying to fit it into schemas”. Because of that is allows the person to make sense of that memory and if that were the case for the eyewitness’s testimony, then it should be allowed because it is more trustworthy. Even after given all the information in the article, I personally don’t believe that an eyewitness’s testimony should have as much effect and influence on the jury as it does most of the time.
I agree with you when you say that when a person is a witness in a court room that they should remember the events that occured by themselves and not with therapists or doctors assistance. Because a doctor or a therapist could put invalid information into their minds, and that could completely change the outcome whether or not the suspect is guilty or not.
Exactly! If a doctor or therapist were to help them. then they would put information that is not true or the witness didnt really remember into their mind. It should be the witness remembering anything and everything.
Eye witness testimonies should not have the power to skew a trial one way or another. The eye witness should be evaluted for what type of person they are and what their beliefs may be. Whether that would be a conflict of interest or not is up to the court in which the trial is being held. The testimonies may hold true but not every individual can handle, let alone perfectly recall, a highly stressful situation. On the other side, the victim or the victim's family may be fortunate to have an eye witness who can vividly recall the event and the actions leading to the event. That said, eye witnesses should be equally evaluated with the trial to further ensure the justified conviction
I agree with you when you say that the testimonies should not skew the trial. I also agree with you when you say that the person should be evaluated on who they are because if they are a lying person, their testimony could be a big lie.
I think that eyewitness testimonies should be used in trials but only as minor evidence and not to be the final say in something. Thinking about how one person saying that they saw an event happen one and having that say whether or not one is guilty is obsurd. In the article it states, "memory does not store information exactly how it happened but rather how it makes sense to us." I feel like this is a reasonable explanation for why testimonies could be useful for general information but should not be used for the determination of a trial.
I agree with you, Morgan. The article also states "We always try to recall things in a way that is consistent with out schemas and, hence, that memory is 'the imaginative reconstruction of experience'." That's another reason why I think Eyewitness Testimonies shouldn't be the final say in something, as you stated.
I think eye witness testimonies should be used in criminal trials but with certain limitations. For example, if an eyewitness is called for a testimony, he or she shouldn't have any ties with the case itself. For a broad generalization of the occurrences, I think testimonies are perfect.Because our memory is unreliable, I don't agree with their testimonies being the determining factor of an important decision. I think the judge should consider what one would say, and ultimately determine the importance of it.
Eye Witness should not be taken in criminal trials. memories change when over thought, or if the situation was not what was actually seen they begin to speculate what they would have seen. "Memory does not store information exactly how it happened but rather how it makes sense to us" People see something move and no one touches it, now we have ghosts. People alter their perseption on what they see and do not see. Eye witness acounts should only be used when many people claim to have seen the same thing but also should be cross examined in different rooms. Other wise no eye witness acounts should be used.
I believe that eyewitness testimony should be used in the court of law but understood that it is not 100% accurate. A person isn’t going to be able to recall the knit of the sweater of their attacker but they may be able to describe a color that they were wearing. People have to understand that a person getting attacked isn’t trying to memorize every detail about a situation but rather defending themselves. When someone is being questioned they may be able to depict a certain experience and not the picture piece by piece. Leading questions should not be allowed to use though. When a questioner uses a leading question it makes the person think that what they said really happened and it will change their story completely (Loftus, 1970). However, having an eyewitness describe what they saw may be extremely valuable information. When a person knows what they saw, its going to be the truth for the most part. Its very controversial but i think that eyewitness testimonies are very important if you understand that they are not always spot on accurate.
Should we use eyewitness testimonies in criminal trails? In my opinion, yes I do believe eyewitness testimonies should be used in court in criminal trails. Even though I do support this topic, I also think the court shouldn’t rely completely on eyewitnesses. Eyewitnesses can sometimes be misled and later on even get confused with what they saw. Some experiences for an eyewitness can be to tragic and overwhelming which can lead onto not even completely understanding with what they saw. Even though some situations do occur like that, if there was no recorded proof of a crime, the court should definitely go most off of what an eyewitness is stating.
Eyewitness testimonies should be used in criminal trials, but should not be seen as always accurate. Good judgment should be used when listening to an eyewitness testimony. All of the points explained in this article should be constantly taken into account. As the article states, "Weapon focus usually results in poor quality testimony, as the witness is unable to describe much that is useful about other aspects of the incident." Because of this, simple facts like if a weapon was involved should dictate the reliance juries and judges place on eyewitness testimonies. Also, while an eyewitness is under questioning by a lawyer in court, their testimony should not be depended on either. The article supports this by reading, “…different questions caused the participants to recall the events differently.” Never should an eyewitness testimony be the sole proof and reason of conviction in a court case because of the inconsistency and the possible influences on said testimony.
ReplyDeleteI agree that eyewitness testimonies should be used in criminal trials and should not be seen as completely accurate. You mentioned that good judgement should used when listening to an eyewitness testimony, but what if nothing makes sense and the witness was completely correct? Most people will have a plan when they try to take something. Depending on the person, it could be simple as walking in and threatening people, or it could be a sequence of events that's flawless.
DeleteI agree with your comment about a person's plan. Yes, it would be difficult to know while nothing makes sense, but the only really sure item we have is our judgement, so I still suggest using good judgement and using as many facts as can be aquired through other methods. Thanks for the comment!
DeleteBaylee, I agree with your post. However, you state “…different questions caused the participants to recall the events differently.”, which is true, but it's not always true. As the article states: "the available research supports Loftus' view that witness
Deletetestimony can be affected by leading questions, but only under certain circumstances"
I agree with you as many others do. Not only does the repetition of questions or the leading question affect the witness, but the state of mind they are may also affect what they feel. For example, if I were to witness a murder happening I am more than positive i would be in a highly tensed state that may make the questioning difficult to answer, skewing my answers.
DeleteI agree with you and I answered the same way. But Claudia makes a really good point as well.
DeleteEyewitness testimonies should be used in criminal trials. It is difficult in our society to validate and prove elements of all of the crimes that are occuring. With that being said, they should only be given a certain level of validation. As the article pointed out,eyewitness testimonies may not always be accurate and can be slightly skewed. Becuase of this, the testimonies should still be heard but with that in mind. The testimonies should not be the sole reason a person is convicted or released but simply an element to incorporate into the situation. To conclude, eyewitnes testimonies should be used in criminal trials but should only be given a certain amount of "pull" so to speak.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your points, especially the point that states, "...they should only be given a certain level of validation." This is exactly right because eyewitness testimonies have some level of "pull", as you concluded, but they also have the chance to be inaccurate. Yes, in our society it is very difficult "...to validate and prove elements of all the crimes that are occuring." I'm very glad you pointed this out and shared your valid opinion!
DeleteEyewitness testimony should be used in court as evidence, but it shouldn't become a heavy clue during investigation. Studies have showed that witnesses could be misled by the, so called, “lead questions” from the lawyers or policemen (Loftus et al, 1970s). In the beginning of the 20th century Frederick Bartlett proved, that people tend to generalize objects they see, due to the “schema”; they basically try to fit the information into schema. On the other hand, research in Canada had shown that people could recall the crime scene pretty accurate with a certain level of agreement(Yullle and Cutshell, 1986). However, to my mind, that scene could draw people attention due to the presence of the weapon in the crime scene, which could be easily recalled(Loftus et al, 1986). As we can see, witnesses could be really helpful in investigating the case, but, however, we can not fully rely on evidence they provide.
ReplyDeleteYes! I absolutely agree that "...we cannot fully rely on {the} evidence they provide." Eyewitness testimonies are valuable, but not always reliable. As you pointed out, the studies in Canada provided a different side of the story, but that chance is not always going to recur. As long as there is a possiblity of inaccuracy, eyewitness testimonies should be taken as evidence but not solid fact in any kind of case. Thanks for your comments!
DeleteThanks for a positive feedback and correcting my mistakes!
DeleteEyewitness testimony should be used in court because it is the most reliable source if it is not caught on camera, but can't be taken as 100% accurate. If a gun or weapon was involved in a situation, I don't think most people could forget that moment. Of course they wouldn't know every single detail in that setting, but that situation has a high level of stress. I also agree that they will focus on the weapon that a person is carrying. Whether they focus more on the weapon or the actual person....that differentiates between each person. According to Deffenbacher, the higher the level of stress a situation has, the less a person will remember. I disagree with Deffenbacher's data. On the other hand, I do agree that people store information in a way that makes sense to them. People do it all the time.
ReplyDeleteI think you have a good point in that whether someone will focus more on the weapon or the person it will just depend. I agree with your standpoint and that eyewitness testimony should still be used though due to the fact that it is one of the more reliable sources if not captured on video.
DeleteI really like the point about disagreeing with Deffenbacher. Especially since we recently learned about memory in psychology. Flashbulb memories are highly stressful yet they are some of the most vivid memories we can recall. However you must think from person to person there are those you may faint at the site of murder and there are those who will be smart about the situation and stay calm while thinking about the crime being committed.
DeleteIn my opinion, eyewitness testimony should be used in criminal trials. However, I don't think they should be used as the most important reason why a person is convicted. As the article reads: "It is a feature of human memory that we do not store
ReplyDeleteinformation exactly as it is presented to us(...), people store information in the way that makes the most sense to them(...)By forcing
new situations to fit into our schemas, we may distort them in some way." I think human memory can be really accurate the most of the time; but, since it doesn't happen always, eyewitness testimony should be used to reinforce a hypothetical vision of a situation, not to create it.
I agree that eyewitness testimonies shouldn't be used as the most important reason why a person is convicted. However, I partly disagree that human memory can be really accurate the most of the time. Not everybody has a good memory. Some people have strong short-term memory, while others may have strong long-term memory. It will vary between each person.
DeleteI agree with you that an eyewitness testimony should not be the most important reason that a person is convicted. However I also agree with Taner that human memory is really accurate most of the time because as stated in the article people's recollections of events are usually shaped to our beliefs, stereotypes, and expectations.
DeleteI also agree with you that an eyewitness testimony should not be the most important reason that a person is convicted. But I also do agree with the point Taner made about how memory varies between different people. But the points you addressed are great as well.
DeleteI agree with you and I really like the points you have made. Keep up the good work.
DeleteEyewitness testimonies should be used in criminal trails. They are accurate the majority of the time, but they should not be heavily relied on. The article addresses the four main factors that effect this: Weapon Focus and Violence Distraction, and Reconstruction Errors and Leading Questions. Depending on the crime an eyewitness testimony can be the only thing that can validate that a crime even happened. An example that an eyewitness saw a murder or a crime, they may be able to identify that person in a lineup. But then again, when there is a assortment of people you witnessed the same incident, each one of them may tell a different story based on what they saw.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your viewpoint and like how you mentioned both sides as well as gave an example of how it is applicable. Eyewitness testimonies definatley should still be used, but like you said they should not be heavily relied on.
DeleteI agree with you when you say eyewitnesses should not be heavily relied on because each person my tell a different story based on what they saw. I also agree with you on the fact that an eyewitness my be the only thing that can validate that a crime even happened.
DeleteI agree with your statement aswell. Even though it is not 100% accurate, the court should still put in what the eyewitness is saying into consideration.
DeleteEye witness testimonies should not be used in criminal trials, unless it's used as a last resort or to back something that has already been proven. In my opinion testimonies are only useful if there is no other liable evidence and more than one person has a similar take in what they witnessed. Throughout the article it repeatedly states that our "memory does not store information exactly how it happened but rather how it makes sense to us". Therefore people are always going to have somewhat different stories of what they witnessed, so I don't think that a person should be subjected to go to jail simply because someones testimony said "they did it." Also, testimonies should not used in trials as trustworthy information because according to the article, "there is a great deal of research in cognitive psychology that tells us that, in general, people's memories are fairly fallible," which means that our minds aren't 100% accurate. With that said, testimonies don't provide enough evidence to prove that they can recall enough information to be used in jury trials and should not be trusted or relied on as much as it it.
ReplyDeleteYou argument has a point, but there are some experiments that prove the efficiency of that kind of evidence. With a accurate approach and investigators' experience you can extract a lot of useful information out of eyewitness's mind.
DeleteAfter reading the article Eyewitness Testimony, I think that eyewitness testimonies should be used but definitely not the only reason someone is convicted of a crime, or not seen as 100% correct. I believe eyewitness testimonies should be used because sometimes they may be the only person to see a crime being committed and without them there wouldn't be a case. Also I believe that eyewitness testimonies are a good thing because if the victim has troubles remembering what happened because of the stress and being scared the eyewitness could fill in some missing pieces. However,I believe that eyewitness testimonies are not always correct because people don't have a perfect memory, and like stated in the article people's recollections are shaped by their stereotypes, beliefs, and expectations.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say the testimonies shouldnt be seen as 100% correct. And yes they should be used because they are the only ones that really know what happened but if they cant remember they will have to live with that.
DeleteI don’t believe that eyewitness testimony should be necessarily used and believed in court but it should also not be ignored. I believe that eye witness testimony should be used if the person remembers the events by themselves and without any help from doctors and therapists. The witness’s testimony should only be valid if there is no other source for conviction or the witness had no one “helping” them remember the incident. The article states “we make sense of information by trying to fit it into schemas”. Because of that is allows the person to make sense of that memory and if that were the case for the eyewitness’s testimony, then it should be allowed because it is more trustworthy. Even after given all the information in the article, I personally don’t believe that an eyewitness’s testimony should have as much effect and influence on the jury as it does most of the time.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say that when a person is a witness in a court room that they should remember the events that occured by themselves and not with therapists or doctors assistance. Because a doctor or a therapist could put invalid information into their minds, and that could completely change the outcome whether or not the suspect is guilty or not.
DeleteExactly! If a doctor or therapist were to help them. then they would put information that is not true or the witness didnt really remember into their mind. It should be the witness remembering anything and everything.
DeleteEye witness testimonies should not have the power to skew a trial one way or another. The eye witness should be evaluted for what type of person they are and what their beliefs may be. Whether that would be a conflict of interest or not is up to the court in which the trial is being held. The testimonies may hold true but not every individual can handle, let alone perfectly recall, a highly stressful situation. On the other side, the victim or the victim's family may be fortunate to have an eye witness who can vividly recall the event and the actions leading to the event. That said, eye witnesses should be equally evaluated with the trial to further ensure the justified conviction
ReplyDeleteI agree with what your saying. A person should not be totaly incharge of what a trial sentence could be with just what they may have or didnt see.
DeleteI agree with you when you say that the testimonies should not skew the trial. I also agree with you when you say that the person should be evaluated on who they are because if they are a lying person, their testimony could be a big lie.
DeleteI think that eyewitness testimonies should be used in trials but only as minor evidence and not to be the final say in something. Thinking about how one person saying that they saw an event happen one and having that say whether or not one is guilty is obsurd. In the article it states, "memory does not store information exactly how it happened but rather how it makes sense to us." I feel like this is a reasonable explanation for why testimonies could be useful for general information but should not be used for the determination of a trial.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Morgan.
DeleteThe article also states "We always try to recall things in a way that is consistent with out schemas and, hence,
that memory is 'the imaginative reconstruction of experience'."
That's another reason why I think Eyewitness Testimonies shouldn't be the final say in something, as you stated.
I think eye witness testimonies should be used in criminal trials but with certain limitations. For example, if an eyewitness is called for a testimony, he or she shouldn't have any ties with the case itself. For a broad generalization of the occurrences, I think testimonies are perfect.Because our memory is unreliable, I don't agree with their testimonies being the determining factor of an important decision. I think the judge should consider what one would say, and ultimately determine the importance of it.
ReplyDeleteEye Witness should not be taken in criminal trials. memories change when over thought, or if the situation was not what was actually seen they begin to speculate what they would have seen. "Memory does not store information exactly how it happened but rather how it makes sense to us" People see something move and no one touches it, now we have ghosts. People alter their perseption on what they see and do not see. Eye witness acounts should only be used when many people claim to have seen the same thing but also should be cross examined in different rooms. Other wise no eye witness acounts should be used.
ReplyDeleteI believe that eyewitness testimony should be used in the court of law but understood that it is not 100% accurate. A person isn’t going to be able to recall the knit of the sweater of their attacker but they may be able to describe a color that they were wearing. People have to understand that a person getting attacked isn’t trying to memorize every detail about a situation but rather defending themselves. When someone is being questioned they may be able to depict a certain experience and not the picture piece by piece. Leading questions should not be allowed to use though. When a questioner uses a leading question it makes the person think that what they said really happened and it will change their story completely (Loftus, 1970). However, having an eyewitness describe what they saw may be extremely valuable information. When a person knows what they saw, its going to be the truth for the most part. Its very controversial but i think that eyewitness testimonies are very important if you understand that they are not always spot on accurate.
ReplyDeleteShould we use eyewitness testimonies in criminal trails? In my opinion, yes I do believe eyewitness testimonies should be used in court in criminal trails. Even though I do support this topic, I also think the court shouldn’t rely completely on eyewitnesses. Eyewitnesses can sometimes be misled and later on even get confused with what they saw. Some experiences for an eyewitness can be to tragic and overwhelming which can lead onto not even completely understanding with what they saw. Even though some situations do occur like that, if there was no recorded proof of a crime, the court should definitely go most off of what an eyewitness is stating.
ReplyDelete