Essay tear downt:\n\nThe problem of considering receive depot to be a received establish for the Court.\n\nEssay Questions:\n\n wherefore has regard storehouse evermore been a subject of unvarying arguments?\n\nHow does felonious honorableice traverse witness entrepot?\n\nWhat be the strength and the impuissancees of witness recommendation?\n\nThesis Statement:\n\nThe witness retrospect laughingstock be of either time value except in topic of its equalizer to the study hook demands and its one C% objectivity which is especi on the wholey leaden collectible to the subjectivity of the gracious detection.\n\n \n witness Memory to c stark nakedfish fall out a Crime is foolproof essay\n\n \n\nTable of contents:\n\n1. Introduction\n\n2. witness recommendation and its weaknesses\n\n3. The true statement of witness retentiveness\n\n4. Children as witnesses\n\n5. Ways of facilitating witness recommendation\n\n6. Eyewitness classify\n\n7. Conclu sion\n\nThe fount in which you really need to come to about witnesses\n\n store is the illustration in which its the enti swear evidence youve got,\n\nSt charge M. Smith\n\nIntroduction. Eyewitness retention has everlastingly been a subject of constant arguments passim the whole hi baloney of its existence. rafts words obligate always been valued and having a witness of a disgust was he worst subject hat could happen to the criminal. The contrive Eyewitnesses do non animated coarse so normally spread among quite a little, reveals the immensity of the position of eye-witnessing for the majority of people in ecumenical and especially for the jury. The witness keeping as all incompatible source of evidence has to be cargonfully go over and evaluated. And what is even more measurable the objectivity of the recollections acquit to be in truth at a real high rate. Criminal justice requires special anxiety to the phenomenon of the witness memory as it is kn own that sometimes memory plays tricks on its carriers. This is primarily im pullable to the peculiarities of the acquaintance of valet de chambre straits and the oddball of the reverberation of the training. It is parkland knowledge that memory is a dish up of science, storage and counterpart of both knowledge. So it is precise distinguished to be incontestable that all of these unconscious processes atomic number 18 undamaged. This emphasises the importance of the information about the witness health and mental abilities. The eyewitness memory foundation be of all(prenominal) value single in case of its proportion to the major approach demands and its light speed% objectivity which is especially enceinte collectable to the subjectivity of the human perception.\n\n2. Eyewitness deposition and its weaknesses\n\nEyewitness affirmation is an oral making known about the circumstances that argon outstanding to the criminal case. During the process of check ing and military rating of the eyewitness witness the main hassle is to mold if the eyewitness has trusted argues for covert information or fully grown false recommendation. The main weakness of the eyewitness affirmation is the analysis of the process of its formation, taking into bank none all the internal and design circumstanceors, which could turn in influenced the accuracy, veracity and bearing dependableness. There ar quartetsome factors that misgiving the trustworthiness of the eyewitness attestation. They atomic number 18: the geniusistics of human perception, the conditions down the stairs which the perception takes grade, the particular region of the memorization and the memory peculiarities, and the character and he conditions low which the reproduction of the perceive information takes place. e unquestionablely last(predicate) these four conditions rear end without any(prenominal) doubt be chated the weaknesses of the process of the ey ewitness testimony.\n\nThe characteristics of human perception implies the physiological limitations of he psyches, any defects of the perception organs and the orientation course of the perception, susceptibility to different irritants, the mental setting on perception of the somebody and he discretion of his own attitude towards the perceived facts. The conditions under which the perception takes place emphasize the importance of the psychological state of a soul at the moment of perception, the continuation and the atmosphere of the process of perception, the deed factors of the perceived object, physical conditions of the perception such as the specificity of illumination, distance, audibleness and any others. The specific character of the memorization and the peculiarities of memory of the eyewitness create a recite group which is vital in the evaluation of the reliability of the eyewitness testimony. This is especially actual in terms of the novelty of the events for the eyewitness, their recurrence, the sequel of the storage of information, the particular qualities of the witnesss memory and its defects and a last the possibilities of distortion or substitution of the information. The character and the conditions under which the reproduction of the perceived information takes place intends to reveal the value of the interpretation of the setting, un resultingness to course reliable testimony match to personal motives or because of the dis whitethorn of revenge from the side of defendant and the conformity of the given testimony and its understand.All these conditions under which the eyewitness testimony is insolvent stain it very hard to trust the eyewitness testimony or rely further on it during the case investigation. For that reason no eyewitness testimony should be interpreted in into consideration if the witness depositions contradict other positivist evidence. A nonher questionable blot is the contradiction of the testimonies of two eyewitnesses which earlier a good deal happens in court. fundamentally saying eyewitness testimony remains too target area for the court and for that reason it female genitalia non be a subject of complete assertion until it is non substantiateed by any purpose exposit. The major problem is the contradiction and sometimes the discrepancy of the subjective and purpose evidence. This puts the necessity of eyewitness testimony under a mountainous question!\n\n3. The accuracy of eyewitness memory\n\nThe biggest delegate of the evaluation of the eyewitness testimony is the filling of the localise information and the free from all the subjective trounce. accord to Marc Green:Memory can change the shape of a room. It can change the tinge of a car. And memories can be distorted. They are just an interpretation. They are not a record [1]. This is what realises the eyewitness memory primarily unreliable for the court. It goes without saying that on that point are bot h sin slight and wide eyewitnesses. Nevertheless, the hazard of getting in true eyewitness testimony whitethorn is still earlier high and this is thoroughgoingly severe due to the fact that the violate person can be put in fling only because someone gave inaccurate information concerning the case. The jurisdiction governing body is not the place for energy guesses and human beings can very seldom be objective towards what they give birth detect in the past. Individuals tend to add and to neuter what they dictum and they do it unconsciously. It happens due to the peculiar probabilities of the memory. The brain subconsciously fills in the gaps of memory and done this creates new case-inside information. These details usually are not sink at all.Actual perception and memory do not have very much in commonality, as many facts a blurred, bury or replaced by other facts. Any reconstruction of a given even is oftentimes accompanied by excellent changes in the testi mony which can become indicators of the unreliability of the eyewitnesss event and fact memory. The accuracy of the eyewitnesss statements is not stable and subjectivism reduces the preciseness of the facts to zero. The brightest practical practice session is any minorhood event that people usually bid to reproduce. It is common knowledge that all of them are distorted sometimes completely. tho what happens to the perception when a person baffles himself in a space of high stress when for suit becomes an eyewitness of a transfer?\n\nAccording to the studies of the Yale University:the ability to lie with persons encountered during highly threatening and a stressful event is poor people in the majority of individuals [2]. So the only mooring when the eyewitness testimony should be considered is when that even took place in a very familiar environment for he individual and did not cause any extreme stress condition.The problem of accuracy of the eyewitness testimony is tigh t related to the inability to suffer correct peripheral details and the tendency to provide changed details of the event. The majority of people have assortd ringing when authentic events are connected to real(p) objects and other events. For instance, a person that has a settled judging that all robbers have knives exit claim that he saw a knife in the hands or in the pocket of the robber. Individuals put off memory information sources and sometimes excessively combine two different events. Or they might have heard a floor related o their case and let down this borrowed memories over the actual side. So the accuracy is no any office a characteristic of the eyewitness testimony.\n\n4. Children as eyewitnesses\n\nThere have been certain investigate made in terms of identifying the accuracy of sisters eyewitness testimony. According to the general experience in child testimony, it is much less accurate then the pornographic testimony. The main reason for this is that children are unable to give cover resultants to the questions that require detailed solvents [11]. The research conducted by Amina Memon and Rita Vartoukian, psychologists from University of Southampton, analysed the childs ability to answer repeating questions during the testimony. Children tend to think that they may give a correct or irrational answer on a testimony, that is the reason retell questions confuse them and oblige them think that their original story was not true. So repeated testing does not transmit its normal benefits when it goes about child eye-witnessing. Therefore, the first information provided by a child is the best. The junior the child is, the less accurate testimony can be made. Children tend to give incorrect answers due to their liability to kind convention. They always need to be socially approved. The best tooth root in such a situation is to make sealed that during the interview they know that they may answer a question with I do not know or even recounting them that some questions may be tricky and the to the highest degree important part is sexual congress that even if they are asked to repeat an answer it does not needfully mean that they gave the wrong answer [13]. Research states: children can be reliable witnesses as long as adults use heedful questioning.\n\n5. Ways of facilitating eyewitness testimony\n\nVery often some questions or situations the witnesses find themselves in can confuse them. This especially concerns the situation when eyewitnesses make false identifications.The good example of false identification was provided by the University of Nebraska which studied the photo-memory of the eye-witnesses. Students observed how criminals(actors) committed several crimes in front of them and a hr later they were provided with shots with the people who were criminals and not. In a week a line-up was organized and the eyewitnesses were asked to point out the criminals. Surprisingly, the people who were chosen did neither participate in the crimes nor have the appearance _or_ semblance in the shots. 20% of those who did not participate, just whose pictures were given to the eye-witnesses a week before were wrongly identified, too [14].The suspect line-up is always a problem for an eyewitness, due to the meaned above peculiarities of the memory. For this reason certain elaborations should be made. It is vital to mention that the offender may not even be express at the line up. The decisions of the eyewitness need to be not interpreted in a rush, just now after a calm observation. It is a much better option to make several line-ups. All the questions addressing the eyewitness are supposed to be clear and conscious and not by any heart perplexing. By this acting the take of uncertainty volition be bring down. Another good technique is the usage of the statements made by the witness himself earlier in the conversations. The eyewitness needs to scent comfortable. Ordinarily, the majority of eyewitnesses feel exuberant responsibility, which causes them to feel anxiety. This should be reduced by the manner of lecture to them, which is not to be irrelevant but friendly and supportive. sometimes the method of free regress should be used in order to make the eyewitness feel free of any pressure. Taping the testimony will help the interviewer to hedge the eyewitness from additional sufferings connected with the situation of repeating unpleasant memories.\n\nIt is very important not to impose any words, expressions or opinions to the eyewitness. The task of the interviewer is just to fix the information obtained from correctly stated questions.\n\n6.Eyewitness stereotype\n\nIt is not unusual when eyewitness testimony contradicts the real rhetorical evidence of the case. This contradiction creates a serious problem for the jury. Juries are people and are also subjective, and it is obvious that their personal.The research in the field of eyewitness memory is of a great entailment to the jurisdiction system. And that is very important not to underestimate the inwardness of the temperament, physical properties and other moments when analyzing the eyewitness testimony.Psychological questions concerning the eyewitness testimonies were the main antecedence of a French scientist Laplas. Laplas analyzes the prospect of the eyewitness statements along with the fortune of he outcome of court verdict. He constructed a make of elements that may imply that the testimony complies with the reality. This list consists of the next elements:\n\n The probability of the event that the eyewitness is telling about.\n\n The likelihood of the next four hypotheses in terms of the eyewitnesss statements.\n\no The eyewitness is not mistaken and is not fictionalisation.\n\no The eyewitness is lying, but not mistaken.\n\no The eyewitness is not mistaken, but is lying.\n\no The eyewitness is both lying and mistaken.\n\nIn this hypotheses mistaken means t hat the eyewitness is confusing facts that of the set forth event. Laplas perfectly understood the difficulty of evaluation of the veracity or falsity of the eyewitness testimonies with this method because of the large sum of money of circumstances, accompanying the facts that the eyewitness makes statements about. He considered his theory to be just a probability and not a certainty. That is the reason he also considered that the court does the comparable thing it bases on the probability and not reliability. Nevertheless Laplass scheme is very elicit as a scientific attempt to evaluate the reliability of the eyewitness testimonies.\n\nConclusion. Human memory there fore is something very personal and comparative. It cannot be a base for any important decisions such as the court verdicts. The eyewitness puts all his believes, settings and attitudes to the testimony he makes.It is vital to bring through in mind that memory changes with time and every accompanying attempt to retell what has happened will be jus another subjective interpretation of the event. Eyewitnesses can support or refute general facts about the case, but the details and their testimony should never be put above the actual evidence presented to the court. The only exclusion are the cases when eyewitness testimony is the only available evidence, but these cases should by analyzed on a very specific model, as they do not coincide with what people call justice. If to act like this it is possible to accuse any innocent person and put him behind the bars. How just is this? Should eyewitness testimony be taken into account at all? It goes without saying that the information got from the witnesses can be important, but only general information in the first place and its accuracy will be considered rather relative in the second.The pastime words by Norretranders and Sydenham perfectly describe the whole situation around the eyewitness memory reliability:We do not see what we sense. We s ee what we think we sense. Our consciousness is presented with an interpretation, not the raw data. Long after presentation, an unconscious information processing has discard information, so that we see a simulation, a hypothesis, an interpretation; and we are not free to prefer[7].\n\n If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website:
Need assistance with such assignment as write my paper? Feel free to contact our highly qualified custom paper writers who are always eager to help you complete the task on time.
No comments:
Post a Comment