Eyewitness Testimony – Research Paper Example

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

In an effort to increase the amount of justice that is seen within the United States, eyewitness testimony has been manipulated in terms of the Confrontation Clause of the Constitution on many levels. As an example, in Craig v. Maryland (110 S. Ct. 3157) a decision of 5-4 made it clear that the defendants may not necessarily have the right of confrontation when the well-being of the witness, in this case a child, outweighed the interests of the defendants rights. In his dissenting arguments, Justice Scalia suggested that eliminating the issue of competency in terms of being able to testify in court was part of a larger problem in which the tide of public opinion was overruling the Constitution. Justice Scalia has long been writing opinions about the confrontation clause.

As an example, he wrote in his opinion for Giles v. California that it was not the role of the courts to determine the values behind the sixth amendment, but to respect the fact that it seeks fairness in very specific terms (Jonakait, 2011). Therefore, eyewitness testimony and the ability of the defendants to face accusers are intrinsically linked.

The dependence upon eyewitness testimony means that the psychology of this phenomenon could affect the way in which justice is viewed. Epstein (2013) writes that the reliability of eyewitness testimony as established in Neil v. Biggers was based on the concept of an ultimate measure in which there was “not a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentifications”. The problem is that the factors that were set down in this court case were not based on scientific research. Epstein (2013) suggests that reliability is not necessarily the same as accuracy and correctness and that under the structures of reliability the court is depending on the belief in truth rather than actual truths. Psychology of Eyewitness Memory The psychology of eyewitness testimony has become an increasingly important perspective on which public policy is being shaped.

Reform for the procedures that are used in order to create eyewitness identification evidence has led to empirical studies that recommend procedures to law enforcement. False identification is a problem and psychological studies provide some insight. However, Clark (2012) suggests that one of the problems discovered in an empirical search of literature found that although certain changes in procedures were beginning to prevent the risk of false identification of the innocent, it was also leading to a reduction in the number of correct identifications of the guilty.

References

Anderson, S. M., Carlson, C. A., Carlson, M. A., & Gronlund, S. D. (2014). Individual differences predict eyewitness identification performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 60, 36-40.

Berry, C. J., Shanks, D. R., Speekenbrink, M., & Henson, R. N. (2012). Models of recognition, repetition priming, and fluency: exploring a new framework. Psychological review, 119(1), 40.

Brewer, N., Weber, N., & Semmler, C. (2013). A role for theory in eyewitness identification research. The Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology: Volume II: Memory for People, 2, 201.

Carlson, C. A., & Gronlund, S. D. (2011). Searching for the sequential line-up advantage: A distinctiveness explanation. Memory, 19(8), 916-929.

Clark, S. E. (2012). Costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform psychological science and public policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(3), 238-259.

Clark, S. E. (2012). Eyewitness Identification Reform Data, Theory, and Due Process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(3), 279-283.

Dunlevy, J. R., & Cherryman, J. (2013). Target-absent eyewitness identification line-ups: Why do children like to choose. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20(2), 284-293.

Dysart, J. E., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2014). The effects of delay on eyewitness identification accuracy: Should we be concerned?. Handbook Of Eyewitness Psychology 2 Volume Set, 361.

Epstein, J. (2013). Irreparable misidentifications and reliability: Reassessing the threshold for admissibility of eyewitness identification. Villanova Law Review 58, 69.

Gronlund, S. D., Wixted, J. T., & Mickes, L. (2014). Evaluating eyewitness identification procedures using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 3-10.

Jonakait, R. N. (2011). Confrontation clause curiosities: When logic and proportion have Fallen sloppy dead. JL & Poly, 20, 485.

Leippe, M. R., & Eisenstadt, D. (2014). Eyewitness confidence and the confidence-accuracy relationship in memory for people. The handbook of eyewitness psychology, Memory for people, 2, 377-425.

Megreya, A. M., Memon, A., & Havard, C. (2012). The headscarf effect: Direct evidence from the eyewitness identification paradigm. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(2), 308-315.

Penrod, S. (February 2014). The child witness, the courts, and psychological. In Memory and affect in development: The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 26, p. 159). Psychology Press.

Ratcliff, R., & Starns, J. J. (2013). Modeling confidence judgments, response times, and multiple choices in decision making: Recognition memory and motion discrimination. Psychological review, 120(3), 697.

Smalarz, L., & Wells, G. L. (2014). Post-identification feedback to eyewitnesses impairs evaluators’ abilities to discriminate between accurate and mistaken testimony. Law and human behavior, 38(2), 194.

Steblay, N. K., Dysart, J. E., & Wells, G. L. (2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(1), 99.

Valentine, T., & Maras, K. (2011). The effect of cross‐examination on the accuracy of adult eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 554-561.

Wells, G. L. (2014). Eyewitness Identification Probative Value, Criterion Shifts, and Policy Regarding the Sequential Lineup. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 11-16.

Wixted, J. T., Gronlund, S. D., & Mickes, L. (2014). Policy regarding the subsequent lineup is not informed by probative value that is informed by receiver operating characteristic analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 17-18.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us