Assignment 2: Eyewitness Testimony ✓ Solved

Assignment 2eyewitness Testimonyeyewitness Testimony Can Be Used As Ev

Write a reflection paper on the story of Jennifer Thompson and Ronald Cotton. In your essay, use your knowledge of the scientific study of memory (especially on eyewitness testimony) and discuss what specific errors authorities made in their handling of this case and why Jennifer was so confident in the identification of her assailant. End your essay by discussing your opinion on the value of eyewitness testimony in courts of law.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Eyewitness testimony has long been considered a crucial component of the criminal justice system, often swaying jury decisions and impacting the outcomes of trials. However, the scientific understanding of memory suggests that such testimony can be unreliable due to various cognitive biases and external influences. The case of Jennifer Thompson and Ronald Cotton serves as a stark reminder of the fallibility of eyewitness identification and highlights the importance of critically evaluating its role in legal proceedings.

The Case of Jennifer Thompson and Ronald Cotton

Jennifer Thompson was a young woman who was assaulted and raped in her apartment. During the police investigation, she was asked to identify her attacker from a lineup, and her confidence in her choice led to Ronald Cotton being wrongfully convicted of the crime. Cotton spent over ten years in prison before DNA evidence exonerated him and identified the true perpetrator. The case exemplifies how eyewitness misidentification can lead to tragic miscarriages of justice.

Errors in Police Handling and Identification Process

Several critical errors occurred during the investigation, contributing to Cotton's wrongful conviction. One significant mistake was the use of a lineup that was not properly conducted, exposing suggestive cues that increased Thompson's confidence in her choice. The police failed to use double-blind procedures, which may have inadvertently influenced her decision. Additionally, her high level of stress and fear at the moment of the assault likely impaired her memory, yet her confidence was unshaken, illustrating how confidence does not necessarily correlate with accuracy.

Furthermore, eyewitness identification can be susceptible to biases introduced by the lineup administrators, especially if they unconsciously cue the witness toward a specific suspect. The lack of proper instructions and the absence of confidence assessments further compounded the errors, illustrating the need for reform in how lineups are conducted to mitigate wrongful identifications.

Psychological Factors Influencing Eyewitness Confidence

Jennifer Thompson's unwavering confidence in her identification can be attributed to several psychological factors. The intense emotional trauma she experienced heightened her desire to find justice, which could have strengthened her belief in her identification. Memory encoding under stress is often impaired, leading to distortions and reconstructive errors. Yet, her confidence remained high because the reconstructed memory felt vivid and real, illustrating the common misconception that confidence equals accuracy. This disconnect underscores the importance of understanding memory’s reconstructive nature, especially in high-stress situations.

Scientific Insights into Memory and Eyewitness Testimony

Research by Elizabeth Loftus and Gary Wells emphasizes that human memory is not a perfect recording of events but is subject to influence and alteration over time. Loftus's studies on misinformation effects demonstrate that witnesses’ memories can be distorted by suggestive questions or misleading post-event information. Moreover, Wells's work highlights that identification procedures need to be carefully designed to prevent suggestibility and emphasis on the necessity of double-blind procedures.

These scientific findings challenge the reliability of eyewitness testimony and suggest that it should not be solely relied upon in criminal cases without corroborating evidence. Memory's malleable nature means that even confident witnesses may be mistaken, leading to wrongful convictions that can devastate lives.

The Value of Eyewitness Testimony in Courts of Law

While eyewitness testimony can be compelling and emotionally impactful, scientific evidence underscores its inherent limitations. It can be influenced by various biases, procedural flaws, and psychological factors. Therefore, its value in court should be carefully weighed and supplemented by scientific evidence such as DNA analysis, forensic evidence, and other objective data.

Judicial systems should promote procedures that minimize suggestibility, such as proper lineup techniques, and educate juries about the fallibility of memory. Implementing reforms based on psychological research can reduce wrongful convictions driven by eyewitness misidentification.

In conclusion, eyewitness testimony, although emotionally compelling, must be treated with caution. The case of Jennifer Thompson and Ronald Cotton highlights the dangers of over-reliance on subjective memories and underscores the need for a more scientific approach to evaluating eyewitness evidence in the justice system.

References

• Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 585–589.
• Wells, G. L. (1993). Forgetting witnesses: The myth of eyewitness memory. New York: Springer-Verlag.
• Fraser, J. (2013). The reliability of eyewitness testimony: Scientific perspectives. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(3), 370–377.
• Cutler, B. L., & Loftus, E. F. (1988). Post-identification feedback effect: Source monitoring and reactivation of memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(4), 585–593.
• Green, C. E., & Brady, P. (2007). Can eyewitness confidence be improved? Psychology, Crime & Law, 13(2), 193–206.
• Yuille, J. C., & Cutshall, J. (1986). A case study of eyewitness memory of a crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 291–300.
• Perkins, L., & Deffenbacher, K. A. (2008). Eyewitness confidence and accuracy. Legal & Criminal Psychology, 13(2), 267–279.
• Hosch, H. M., & Bowers, L. B. (1980). Eyewitness testimony: An overview of processes and issues. American Psychologist, 35(11), 1129–1138.
• Deffenbacher, K. A., & Loftus, E. F. (1989). Remembering details of a staged event: The role of confidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3(1), 1–20.
• Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277–295.