In 1984 Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber—an outcome that rested largely on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. After Bloodsworth served nine years in prison, DNA testing proved him to be innocent. Such devastating mistakes by eyewitnesses are not rare, according to a report by the Innocence Project, an organization affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University that uses DNA testing to exonerate those wrongfully convicted of crimes. Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony. One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong?
Eyewitness identification typically involves selecting the alleged perpetrator from a police lineup, but it can also be based on police sketches and other methods. Soon after selecting a suspect, eyewitnesses are asked to make a formal statement confirming the ID and to try to recall any other details about events surrounding the crime. At the trial, which may be years later, eyewitnesses usually testify in court. Because individuals with certain psychological disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder and substance dependence, are at high risk for criminal involvement, they are also at heightened risk for false identifications by eyewitnesses.
Surveys show that most jurors place heavy weight on eyewitness testimony when deciding whether a suspect is guilty. But although eyewitness reports are sometimes accurate, jurors should not accept them uncritically because of the many factors that can bias such reports. For example, jurors tend to give more weight to the testimony of eyewitnesses who report that they are very sure about their identifications even though most studies indicate that highly confident eyewitnesses are generally only slightly more accurate—and sometimes no more so—than those who are less confident. In addition to educating jurors about the uncertainties surrounding eyewitness testimony, adhering to specific rules for the process of identifying suspects can make that testimony more accurate.
Reconstructing Memories
The uncritical acceptance of eyewitness accounts may stem from a popular misconception of how memory works. Many people believe that human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them. On the contrary, psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than played back each time we recall them. The act of remembering, says eminent memory researcher and psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California, Irvine, is “more akin to putting puzzle pieces together than retrieving a video recording.” Even questioning by a lawyer can alter the witness’s testimony because fragments of the memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the questioner, leading to inaccurate recall.
Many researchers have created false memories in normal individuals; what is more, many of these subjects are certain that the memories are real. In one well-known study, Loftus and her colleague Jacqueline Pickrell gave subjects written accounts of four events, three of which they had actually experienced. The fourth story was fiction; it centered on the subject being lost in a mall or another public place when he or she was between four and six years old. A relative provided realistic details for the false story, such as a description of the mall at which the subject’s parents shopped. After reading each story, subjects were asked to write down what else they remembered about the incident or to indicate that they did not remember it at all. Remarkably about one third of the subjects reported partially or fully remembering the false event. In two follow-up interviews, 25 percent still claimed that they remembered the untrue story, a figure consistent with the findings of similar studies.
See what we're tweeting about
24 Comments
Add CommentThe worst part of incorrect eye witness convictions is that the REAL perpetrator goes scott free, while the innocent victim is in jail or put to death.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many innocent people has Texas killed?
This isn't news. Anyone who has taken a basic psychology course in college knows this. Thanks Sci Am for wasting the time of people who actually went to college and are bettering ourselves rather than presenting real news.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Susurro
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you were so sure of the content of the article, why would you 'waste' your precious, superior college-educated time 'actually' reading it? Maybe your time would have been better spent in an anger management course.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat an ignorant comment!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat an ignorant comment
This article does not even touch on the 'peer pressure', 'sense of responsibility', 'survivor's guilt', and many other subconcious bias that skews the 'credible' eyewitness accounts of events. As we all know, and it should be told, that good looking people get more promotions and less likely to be fingered as a suspect than the not so good looking folks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuch is human nature and it's obvious failings. Science should help the justice system more (then again, the OJ jury pool). Oh well.,
Seems like reasonable suggestions to improve eyewitness identifications. I would also suggest improving juries by instituting a minimum IQ threshhold. When you review some of these wrongful conviction cases, it's clear that the jury did not do its job. There will always be problems with the evidence - and that's why juries need the wherewithall to sort through it. Line up a bunch of dolts like the OJ trial, and things can go wrong - either way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe gorilla video experiment is the perfect demonstration of how fallible eye witnesses are. I'm surprised it didn't get a mention here. Someone more savy than me should link it
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSend this message to all the judges and juries. They need it badly lest injustice prevail otherwise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSend this message to all the judges and juries. They need it badly lest injustice prevail otherwise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisone found guilty does not have to submit to lynch mob mentality. time will "prove" one way or another
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat needs to be done then?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStop using eyewitnesses in trials?
The real question is what percentage of eyewitnesses are incorrect and to what degree. If the real world percentages are small enough and there is no way to figure out which ones are faulty then there is not much can be done for improvement anyway.
Woopee-do! Mr or Ms Susurro actually has proved that "attending" a college does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with an open mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou should also take into account that most sex crimes are heavy laden with evidence and eyewitnesses are not necessary and should never be used because the witness could experience a repercussion from a past event in their own life and prejudice their account of the event. Because of this, sex crimes have more false convictions than any other crime. Without evidence, there should be no conviction, and remember...hearsay and circumstance is not evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems we have forgot the old creed of the court, "It is better to let a hundred criminals go free than it is to convict one innocent person." We need to find postive ways to convice.
There's no such thing as a credible eye witness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile reding this article, it ha come to y mind that so many people are in jail in Brazil, where eyewitnessing plays a key role in a guilty sentencing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTaken the excessively decisive importance that the eyewitnessing of a crime plays in Brazil, I cannot help but voicing the sadness that certainly lots of innocent people are annually jailed, while the wrongdoers are rampant in town, repeating their bad deeds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we try hard enough we can find a reasonable doubt for almost everything including DNA evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has recently been proven that it is pretty easy for any college biology student to mess with DNA evidence....
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/08/19/think-dna-evidence-cant-be-faked-think-again/
DNA wherever possible, eye witnessing whenever credible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRather than ruling out eye witnessing, it is necessary to rank eye witnesses using clear-cut criteria.
The witness is classified according to the density of details provided in the testimony; how much details are verifiable by other investigations. Thus, the weight of the witness is determined.
Using such criteria, it is clear the first level witnessing will be almost dependable.
This applies, only to the Intellectuals form of life, which has been refined through the revolution of time and space travel, since life itself was able to set foot on this Planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis applies, to humans, and all forms of life, visible and invisible, it applies to all that is intelligent in Nature, regardless of what you and I may have considered naming them.
Mother Nature, or Natural God, is and has continuously, made beautiful creations, for the eyes, that could comprehend and then develop itself, by its exemplum, (remember the phrase “show me how, don’t tell me how”). Nature has in fact considered, all the good and bad, of all the inhabitants of its territories and has fashioned directions and examples for all the living habitants.
We, would like to be considered as intelligent, (after all the refinements over years of existing on this Planet) but we cannot (and we are half a way through the ages).
Nature has and is creating food continuously (but we continue to indulge in eating as in the pass ages, smoking, hard drinking, and totally destroying the physical body, which was given to us to preserve and appreciate). The Natural Law will not allow this type of behavior example, and it will consider some kind of reciprocation.
I am not trying to tell you what you should do! I am just telling you what I learned along the years of my life, (whether Mother Nature intended, to have me say so, I am not sure).
Here is something from the Bible, “Revelation 22, 11.”
He that is unjust let him be unjust still: and he, which is filthy,
Let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be
Righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
This is for the people that are religious, and visit a church weekly but never read the Bible, (probably because they are afraid of God, instead of loving God).
This is not criticism against anyone, but a supplementary relativity and I will admit it may interfere with some people’s point of view, or with some people’s benefits.
Nevertheless I am glad I live in this century; few centuries ago they would have burned you at the stake. However in the future if we ever get there, it will be a perfect world, the wrongdoer shall be able to pay for their sin on the spot, or pay for their intentions as they contemplate. (This could be here, as we speak of it, and depends how the wrongdoer interprets it)
Mother Nature, has and is adding corrections with the years passing, and for every case, will have a perfect solution.
“The secrets of everything. Is Hidden in the Genes”
Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAuthor also need to use a Bayes formula to conclude the rate of successful judgement through eyewitness.
Few contemporary data support the assertion that eyewitnesses are important in police investigations. In the present study, 159 UK police officers were surveyed regarding their perceptions of eyewitnesses and eyewitness performance. The respondents indicated that eyewitnesses usually provide the central leads in criminal investigations; however, the police officers also believed that eyewitnesses rarely provide sufficient information, especially descriptive details as opposed to action details. Nevertheless, the officers believed that eyewitnesses are rarely incorrect. A sizable minority reported that witnesses rarely come forward to the police and that those who do are often reluctant to testify in court. Many officers indicated that they do not have enough time to conduct good eyewitness interviews.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href=http://www.trainwithmeonline.com/programs.asp>workout routines</a>
Few contemporary data support the assertion that eyewitnesses are important in police investigations. In the present study, 159 UK police officers were surveyed regarding their perceptions of eyewitnesses and eyewitness performance. The respondents indicated that eyewitnesses usually provide the central leads in criminal investigations; however, the police officers also believed that eyewitnesses rarely provide sufficient information, especially descriptive details as opposed to action details. Nevertheless, the officers believed that eyewitnesses are rarely incorrect. A sizable minority reported that witnesses rarely come forward to the police and that those who do are often reluctant to testify in court. Many officers indicated that they do not have enough time to conduct good eyewitness interviews.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href=http://www.trainwithmeonline.com/programs.asp>workout routines</a>
Few contemporary data support the assertion that eyewitnesses are important in police investigations. In the present study, 159 UK police officers were surveyed regarding their perceptions of eyewitnesses and eyewitness performance. The respondents indicated that eyewitnesses usually provide the central leads in criminal investigations; however, the police officers also believed that eyewitnesses rarely provide sufficient information, especially descriptive details as opposed to action details. Nevertheless, the officers believed that eyewitnesses are rarely incorrect. A sizable minority reported that witnesses rarely come forward to the police and that those who do are often reluctant to testify in court. Many officers indicated that they do not have enough time to conduct good eyewitness interviews.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://www.trainwithmeonline.com/programs.asp" rel="dofollow">workout routines</a>