Human Memory and Criminal Justice: Examining Potential Errors - Essay Sample

Introduction

The eye witness science of human memory is the legal aspect of handling and deciding criminal cases in the criminal justice system based on evidence from what witnesses saw and can recall. It is imperative to note that there are also some potential errors and problems that may arise from memory evidence. Many people have been convicted before following the exclusion of expert testimony or false memories. The criminal justice system has been continually trying to solve such problems to make human evidence reliable and credible (Soraci et al., 2017). In that context, this paper seeks to highlight some of the key aspects of the human memory, the errors incurred during the process, and how it has impacted the legal justice system in determining criminal cases.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Eyewitness Biases and Errors

Eye witness science operates on the basis of combining the Law and social sciences. The law appreciates the potential psychologists and other brain experts play to help it execute cases based on legal merit. The concern of people being accused wrongfully and punished attracts significant relevance of the human science of eye witness and how it incriminates or exonerates victims. Memory science in the legal system covers areas such as accident scenes, crime scenes, and how the cross-examination or questioning processes affect human remembrance. For instance, eyewitnesses in motor vehicle accidents can be asked to recall the speed of the vehicles at the time the accident occurred. The science recognizes that post-event activity and questioning reveals that most witnesses cannot recall exactly what happens at the actual scene (Soraci et al., 2017). The aspect of failing to recall everything as it happened always lead to misinformation effect and supplementing of evidence.

After numerous experimental works that describe the behavior of witnesses from the laboratory, it is evident that studying human memory is critical in the determination of criminal cases. Research has revealed that eyewitnesses are more practically applicable in murder and rape cases more than any other scenario in the legal system. Establishing the correct principles in the eye witness science provides the accused people with a fairground to defend themselves.

In the courtroom, lawyers and memory experts always work together to implement the principle of the expert eye witness. Psychologists sometimes have a lot of difficulties testifying in a court of law to give a clear direction of what the law requires about eyewitnesses. During the trials of criminal cases, prosecution depends heavily on evidence emanating from questioning the eyewitnesses. If the court ascertains that there is a fault in the eye witness evidence, it might lead to an acquittal of the accused person. Witnesses must be in a position to memorize the person in question and give a clear recollection of exactly what happened at the scene of the alleged crime.

The Expert Testimony

There has been a new type of witness testimony in practice that the legal system has been reluctant to embrace. However, defense lawyers have pushed for the system to work. It is equally important to note that even the judges in the previous days were always excluding it. Judges used to argue that once the material was within the common knowledge of the bench, it was not necessary to introduce it as an expert testimony (Jenkins, 2018). There were also claims and worries that the eye witness expert would be an invasion to the jury province, therefore, it was up to them to determine whether or not a witness saw what happened. That mentality demeaned the witness process for quite a long period since either of the parties in a legal contest would not get a deserved justice. The court's argument has been that the eye witness expert would prejudice on the court's discretion. They also maintained that the eye witness expert was not a scientifically entrenched in the legal and scientific community.

Based on the concerns that were arising, the higher courts developed a trend of defeating defendants' appeal and uphold their conviction (Wang et al., 2018). Defendants would draw the court's attention over the exclusion of eye witness evidence by the trial courts, but all in vain. Higher courts would always concur with the trial courts, citing their discretion to exclude expert testimony. As such, the accused persons would always suffer from unfair convictions upon the exclusion of such crucial evidence. The agitations prompted serious debate on how the court's monopoly of exclusion could come to an end.

Recognition of Eyewitness Expert Testimony

In 1983, the Supreme Court sitting in Arizona, USA reached a decision that was regarded as ground-breaking. It was the criminal case where Dolan Chapple had been charged with drug trafficking and convicted. The trial court only relied on the accounts of two faulty eyewitnesses upon allegedly identifying him on a photograph that was one year old (Wells, 2018). The defendant's lawyers tried to introduce the expert evidence but the court rejected their prayers. Later, the Supreme Court observed that the expert testimony would have given more important scientific information to determine the case. According to the Supreme Court, there was glaring suspicion as to why the identification process was delayed for such a long time. On that note, the court reversed the conviction and reiterated that the expert testimony was of great importance.

Later after the reversal of Chapple's conviction, a court in California invalidated a murder conviction based on the exclusion of expert testimony by the trial court. The victim had proven alibi on the alleged day of the crime. That marked the beginning of the transformation of the old system to the new one that appreciates the inclusion of expert testimony. One notes that supreme courts together with other appellate courts did a remarkable job on to facilitate this change.

Based on the fact that judges used to dismiss expert testimony as being common knowledge, psychologists started questioning what "common knowledge" meant. Many research works looked into the bias by jurors concerning the expert witness. One thing that came out clearly was that there was a varied application of identification based on races. It has been proven that people seem to have more problems identifying people of different color or race in comparison with their own race. The cross-race and same race identification errors became a subject of discussion. It is imperative to note that what happens in the scientific world can have an influence on what happens in the legal world. In that context, the expert eye witness was regarded important on that basis. Judges have equally been compelled to drop their misconceptions about expert testimony.

Wrongful convictions resulting from faulty memory quickly became a subject of debate. The research highlighted various aspects including the establishment of DNA testing of semen that proved that some convicts were actually innocent. More research was conducted on more DNA samples of convicts and proved that they were suffering from wrongful punishments. The victims in all the cases were largely rape, murder, and other capital offenses. Psychological scientists also developed an interest to ascertain what causes eyewitnesses to make such memory blunders. All the scientists around the world did numerous studies and came up with a comprehensive finding on why this was so.

Eyewitness Today

In society today, the paradigm shift on memory science happened in the year 2013. Arnold Foundation requested research regarding eye witness testimonies. The feedback came out that human visual perception can change and make the ability to identify other people impaired. The report equally observed that there were challenges with the legal policies and the effectiveness in identifying witnesses. Such inconsistencies were seen as serious barriers in serving a fair justice (Wang et al., 2018). The comprehensive findings also directed judges to admit expert testimonies to act as an education process and to bring credibility and fairness in the justice system.

The legal system today appreciates the eye witness testimonies. However, it still remains an expensive affair as far as cost is concerned. It is equally time-consuming since the jurors, advocates, and their staff members are expected to listen to the long hours of the testimonies. Before professionals present the new findings of the jury one needs to present some background. The new regulations have been able to help judges differentiate good testimonies from the bad, and reduce the bad cases (McCay, 2016). Scholars have been continuously working to ensure that they find new methods to improve the instructions for the jury for them to improve sensitivity in their work. They observed that by merely inducing skepticism would not help much to exercise maximum fairness.

It is entirely significant to appreciate the tremendous changes that scholars have brought into the eye witness science. Great progress has manifested itself when the legal system appreciated efforts done by the scientific community to bring sanity. That is to say, the literature for the eye witness has given many recommendations on how to conduct the eyewitness identification process. Various jurisdictions around the world have adopted different eyewitness techniques to administer justice. It has been through the hard work of the eyewitness scientists that they explained and helped to interpret the findings into more practical terms.

Repressed Witness Memory

Today, it has become a normalized practice to call eyewitness experts to testify in many criminal trials. Making a step back through the decades, we can also pinpoint the tremendous changes we have made concerning the law and memory. During the 1990s, expert testimony was mainly about explaining how human memory works and how it contributes to errors and mistakes. Most studies demonstrated how post-event misinformation can have a negative influence on the memory of a witness. The lapses of misinformation always led to false reporting and ultimate judicial errors in making decisions.

Experts also noted that the first conviction of murder based on repressed memory occurred in 1990. It happened when a father committed murder with her daughter watching and repressed her from giving out the information. Later when the girl testified about the repression, the court convicted him. The legal community found massive sense in the repression aspect and helped to change the perspective of such cases (Jones et al., 2017). Different research works also emerged to plant false memories into witnesses. We realize that such false memories have undergone thorough studies around the world. Various studies revealed that false memories cause consequences by influencing people's thoughts, behaviors, and even their intentions. It requires fully independent support to identify the difference between a real memory and one resulting from other instigated processes.

In the current time, wars regarding memories have transpired in courtrooms with experts fighting in the arena. Different groups of mental professionals expressed their skepticism on the subject of witness repression. The question of whether traumatic memories can be repressed became an issue of serious debate. Irrespective of the glaring controversies in the field, many cases have continued to arise to date. Memory professionals have always testified in many of those cases but failed to confront the main struggle to clear memory repression to date.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the legal fraternity and the criminal justice system have gone through tides to make expert witness testimony recognized in the system. Judges' discretion and alleged prejudice made this process to suffer for a long time. Cross-ra...