Key Issue: Is EWT unreliable?
Witness testimony is the statement given to the police after witnessing an event. The testimony given by eyewitnesses is often relied upon in court and the jury often place significance on the details given by witnesses. Many innocent people have been put in prison on the basis of eyewitness testimony. Michael Shields is one example of wrongful conviction where he was imprisoned over a crime he did not commit. When witnessing an event it can be highly emotional and due to wanting to help individuals can be easily mistaken e.g. wrongly identifying people picking the closest match rather than rejecting the line up or giving inaccurate descriptions. This leads us to question whether the accounts of others are reliable and if we can depend upon eyewitness testimony in court.
Practical
Note: This is only an example. You may get asked different questions in your exam
Aim: To conduct an article analysis of 2 newspaper articles, one from the Guardian and one from the BBC to compare whether eyewitness testimony is reported as unreliable ignificance on the details given by witnesses. ny given by eyewitnesses is often r
Gathering my Data: I went onto Google and searched for articles on eyewitness testimony by typing in ‘eyewitness’ and ‘unreliable’. I found one article on the Guardian which I selected as I believe it is viewed as a trustworthy source and I wanted to see whether it discussed reliability of eyewitnesses or not. My other article came from the BBC as again it is viewed by many people and I wanted to see how this site would discuss witness testimony. Both are UK sources which I thought would be more interesting and relevant to me studying Psychology in the UK.
Data analysis: I read through each article and highlighted key words and phrases related to EWT such as weapon, identity and witnesses. I then wrote a paragraph on each article using the words I had highlighted. As this was still too long I then condensed it again so that it was less than 50 words.
Findings: The Guardian described how William Mills was released after 1 year in custody over a crime he did not commit. 4 witnesses including 2 police officers to blame. DNA evidence later found proved his innocence, showing that identity parades and CCTV images are unreliable. The BBC covered how Mr Menezes was shot due to ‘suspicious’ behaviour. Actually he was wearing light clothes, not a bulky jacket, was running for a train, not from police and did not jump any barriers. Eyewitness portrayal was inaccurate. Both articles therefore show EWT is unreliable, however both articles begin to explain reasons why.
In the case of Mills, Yarmey’s study provides support because 49% of pp’s were accurate in identifying a target person when included in a photographic line up and 62% correctly reject line up. This suggests that identification is not 100% accurate.
In the case of Menezes, this could be explained using reconstructive memory. We use schemas to fill in the gaps when we do not have all the information. As witnesses had the belief that there was a criminal in the area, they described how they imagined them to be.
The police presence also could suggest there is the possibility of leading questions, these affect memory by distorting the information. Loftus and Palmer found using the verb smashed lead to a higher estimate of car speed than the verb contacted.
As there was gun involvement, unreliability can be explained using weapon focus. This is when the witness focuses on the weapon, and may not recall the event information itself.
Witness testimony is the statement given to the police after witnessing an event. The testimony given by eyewitnesses is often relied upon in court and the jury often place significance on the details given by witnesses. Many innocent people have been put in prison on the basis of eyewitness testimony. Michael Shields is one example of wrongful conviction where he was imprisoned over a crime he did not commit. When witnessing an event it can be highly emotional and due to wanting to help individuals can be easily mistaken e.g. wrongly identifying people picking the closest match rather than rejecting the line up or giving inaccurate descriptions. This leads us to question whether the accounts of others are reliable and if we can depend upon eyewitness testimony in court.
Practical
Note: This is only an example. You may get asked different questions in your exam
Aim: To conduct an article analysis of 2 newspaper articles, one from the Guardian and one from the BBC to compare whether eyewitness testimony is reported as unreliable ignificance on the details given by witnesses. ny given by eyewitnesses is often r
Gathering my Data: I went onto Google and searched for articles on eyewitness testimony by typing in ‘eyewitness’ and ‘unreliable’. I found one article on the Guardian which I selected as I believe it is viewed as a trustworthy source and I wanted to see whether it discussed reliability of eyewitnesses or not. My other article came from the BBC as again it is viewed by many people and I wanted to see how this site would discuss witness testimony. Both are UK sources which I thought would be more interesting and relevant to me studying Psychology in the UK.
Data analysis: I read through each article and highlighted key words and phrases related to EWT such as weapon, identity and witnesses. I then wrote a paragraph on each article using the words I had highlighted. As this was still too long I then condensed it again so that it was less than 50 words.
Findings: The Guardian described how William Mills was released after 1 year in custody over a crime he did not commit. 4 witnesses including 2 police officers to blame. DNA evidence later found proved his innocence, showing that identity parades and CCTV images are unreliable. The BBC covered how Mr Menezes was shot due to ‘suspicious’ behaviour. Actually he was wearing light clothes, not a bulky jacket, was running for a train, not from police and did not jump any barriers. Eyewitness portrayal was inaccurate. Both articles therefore show EWT is unreliable, however both articles begin to explain reasons why.
In the case of Mills, Yarmey’s study provides support because 49% of pp’s were accurate in identifying a target person when included in a photographic line up and 62% correctly reject line up. This suggests that identification is not 100% accurate.
In the case of Menezes, this could be explained using reconstructive memory. We use schemas to fill in the gaps when we do not have all the information. As witnesses had the belief that there was a criminal in the area, they described how they imagined them to be.
The police presence also could suggest there is the possibility of leading questions, these affect memory by distorting the information. Loftus and Palmer found using the verb smashed lead to a higher estimate of car speed than the verb contacted.
As there was gun involvement, unreliability can be explained using weapon focus. This is when the witness focuses on the weapon, and may not recall the event information itself.