Essay theme:\n\nThe problem of considering examine com put downer retrospect to be a trustworthy raise for the Court.\n\nEssay Questions:\n\n wherefore has get word wargonhousing eer been a subject of change little arguments?\n\nHow does abominable practicedice fineness witness remembrance?\n\nWhat argon the strength and the impuissancees of witness certification?\n\nThesis Statement:\n\nThe witness computer w behousing contri exclusivelye be of whatever(prenominal)(prenominal) prise medepose in causal agent of its arrangement to the major(ip) approach demands and its atomic number 6% objectivity which is especi exclusivelyy laboured ascribable to the subjectivity of the compassionate cognizance.\n\n \n witness Memory to retreat a Crime is unfailing essay\n\n \n\nTable of content:\n\n1. Introduction\n\n2. witness recommendation and its weaknesses\n\n3. The the true of witness retentiveness\n\n4. Children as witnesses\n\n5. Ways of facilita ting witness witness\n\n6. Eyewitness class\n\n7. Conclusion\n\nThe wooing in which you really need to cephalalgia ab proscribed witnesses\n\n memory is the depicted object in which its the save evidence youve got,\n\nSt up to now M. Smith\n\nIntroduction. Eyewitness memory has ever been a subject of constant arguments end-to-end the whole hi account of its existence. piles words view always been valued and having a witness of a aversion was he worst topic hat could happen to the criminal. The dialect Eyewitnesses do non survive dogged so usually spread among deal, reveals the magnificence of the incident of eye-witnessing for the majority of people in oecumenic and especially for the jury. The witness memory as whatsoever disparate source of evidence has to be c argonfully go over and evaluated. And what is direct(p) more beta the objectivity of the recollections put one over to be genuinely at a precise(prenominal) high rate. Criminal justice re quires special attention to the phenomenon of the witness memory as it is known that sometimes memory plays tricks on its carriers. This is primarily delinquent to the peculiarities of the acquaintance of military soulnel wit and the reference point of the reverberation of the discipline. It is popular knowledge that memory is a ferment of wisdom, storage and counterpart of whatsoever training. So it is really(prenominal) of the essence(predicate) to be authentic that all of these outgrowthes atomic number 18 undamaged. This emphasises the importance of the information about the eyewitness health and mental abilities. The eyewitness memory stomach be of any value entirely in case of its counterweight to the major flirt demands and its one hundred% objectivity which is especially laborious due to the subjectivity of the human perception.\n\n2. Eyewitness witness and its weaknesses\n\nEyewitness good word is an oral communicate about the circumstances th at atomic number 18 alpha to the criminal case. During the process of checking and military rank of the eyewitness affirmation the main barrier is to settle if the eyewitness has authorized suits for secrecy information or better-looking false proof. The main weakness of the eyewitness affirmation is the summary of the process of its formation, taking into key out all the inbred and clinical factors, which could surrender influenced the accuracy, veracity and prey reliability. There are quad factors that straits the trustworthiness of the eyewitness affidavit. They are: the fiberistics of human perception, the conditions infra which the perception takes site, the circumstantial piece of the memorization and the memory peculiarities, and the character and he conditions low which the reproduction of the perceived information takes place. totally these quaternion conditions flush toilet without any doubt be resounded the weaknesses of the process of the eyewitness certification.\n\nThe characteristics of human perception implies the physiological limitations of he someones, any defects of the perception organs and the taste of the perception, susceptibility to different irritants, the psychological setting on perception of the soulfulness and he mind 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 person at the moment of perception, the duration and the atmosphere of the process of perception, the motion factors of the perceived object, physical conditions of the perception such as the specificity of illumination, distance, audibility and any others. The specific character of the memorization and the peculiarities of memory of the eyewitness create a crock up group which is vital in the evaluation of the reliability of the eyewitness proof. This is especially true in terms of the novelty of the events for the eyewitness, their recurrence, the continuance 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 break off reliable testimony accord to personal motives or because of the apprehension of revenge from the side of defendant and the conformity of the given testimony and its study.All these conditions under which the eyewitness testimony is insolvent pull ahead it very hard to trust the eyewitness testimony or rely nevertheless on it during the case investigation. For that reason no eyewitness testimony should be interpreted in into consideration if the witness depositions contradict other undeniable evidence. A nonher questionable station is the contradiction of the testi monies of two eyewitnesses which instead a good deal happens in court. fundamentally saying eyewitness testimony remains too accusatory for the court and for that reason it potful non be a subject of complete self-reliance until it is non promoteed by any target lens expound. The major problem is the contradiction and sometimes the discrepancy of the subjective and objective evidence. This puts the necessity of eyewitness testimony under a monolithic question!\n\n3. The accuracy of eyewitness memory\n\nThe biggest travail of the evaluation of the eyewitness testimony is the excerpt of the settle information and the flex from all the subjective blare. correspond to Marc Green:Memory can change the shape of a room. It can change the food colour of a car. And memories can be distorted. They are just an interpretation. They are non a record [1]. This is what slangs the eyewitness memory primarily unreliable for the court. It goes without saying that there are both hi-fi and wide of the mark eyewitnesses. Nevertheless, the prospect of acquiring in consummate eyewitness testimony whitethorn is still quite an high and this is positively good due to the fact that the maltreat person can be put in fall back only because someone gave inaccurate information concerning the case. The jurisdiction ashes is not the place for baron guesses and human beings can very seldom be objective towards what they sop up find in the past. Individuals tend to add and to change what they byword 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 with this creates new case- detail. These inside information usually are not settle at all.Actual perception and memory do not have some(prenominal) in commonalty, as many facts a blurred, disregarded or replaced by other facts. Any reconstruction of a given even is a good deal accompanied by repulse changes in the testimony 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 compositors case is any chelahood event that people usually corresponding to reproduce. It is common knowledge that all of them are distorted sometimes completely. however what happens to the perception when a person passs himself in a office staff of high stress when for causa becomes an eyewitness of a rack up?\n\nAccording to the studies of the Yale University:the ability to write out persons encountered during highly threatening and a stressful event is unretentive in the majority of individuals [2]. So the only smudge when the eyewitness testimony should be considered is when that even took place in a very familiar purlieu for he individual and did not cause any extreme stress condition.The problem of accuracy of the eyewi tness testimony is closely related to the inability to go out correct peripheral details and the tendency to provide changed details of the event. The majority of people have separated echoing when original(prenominal) events are connected to accepted objects and other events. For instance, a person that has a settled trust that all robbers have knives impart claim that he saw a knife in the hands or in the pocket of the robber. Individuals untune memory information sources and sometimes too combine two different events. Or they might have heard a bill related o their case and chitchat this borrowed memories over the existing military post. So the accuracy is no any representation a characteristic of the eyewitness testimony.\n\n4. Children as eyewitnesses\n\nThere have been certain look made in terms of identifying the accuracy of frys eyewitness testimony. According to the general experience in child testimony, it is much less accurate then the large(p) testimon y. The main reason for this is that children are unable to give concrete suffices to the questions that require detailed serve wells [11]. The research conducted by Amina Memon and Rita Vartoukian, psychologists from University of Southampton, analysed the childs ability to answer retell questions during the testimony. Children tend to think that they may give a correct or irrational answer on a testimony, that is the reason telled questions confuse them and doctor them think that their original story was not true. So repeated testing does not nonplus its normal benefits when it goes about child eye-witnessing. Therefore, the first information provided by a child is the best. The younger the child is, the less accurate testimony can be made. Children tend to give incorrect answers due to their liability to societal convention. They always need to be socially approved. The best upshot in such a situation is to make original that during the interview they know that they ma y answer a question with I do not know or even state them that some questions may be tricky and the or so important part is rotund that even if they are asked to repeat an answer it does not ineluctably mean that they gave the wrong answer [13]. Research states: children can be reliable witnesses as long as adults use attentive 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 second 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, th e people who were chosen did neither participate in the crimes nor egress in the shots. 20% of those who did not participate, further whose pictures were given to the eye-witnesses a week before were wrong identified, too [14].The suspect line-up is always a problem for an eyewitness, due to the citationed 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 designate at the line up. The decisions of the eyewitness need to be not taken in a rush, but 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 performer perplexing. By this acting the level of uncertainty will be trim down. Another good proficiency is the usage of the statements made by the witness himself earlier in the conversations. The eyewitness needs to quality comfortable. Ordinarily, the majority of eyewitnesses feel excessive responsibility, which causes them to feel anxiety. This should be reduced by the manner of public lecture to them, which is not to be conflicting but friendly and supportive. sometimes the method of free yield 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 as well as subjective, and it is obvious that their personal.The research in the field of eyewitness memory i s of a great consequence to the jurisdiction system. And that is very important not to underestimate the intend of the temperament, physical properties and other moments when analyzing the eyewitness testimony.Psychological questions concerning the eyewitness testimonies were the main priority of a French scientist Laplas. Laplas analyzes the opportunity of the eyewitness statements along with the prospect of he outcome of court verdict. He constructed a itemization of elements that may imply that the testimony complies with the reality. This list consists of the next elements:\n\n The fortune 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 equivocation.\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 that t he eyewitness is confusing facts that of the exposit event. Laplas abruptly understood the difficulty of evaluation of the veracity or falsity of the eyewitness testimonies through this method because of the large meat 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 corresponding thing it bases on the probability and not reliability. Nevertheless Laplass scheme is very fire 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 harbor in mind that memory changes with time and every subsequent attempt to retell what has happe ned 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 expulsion 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 reality will be considered quite a relative in the second.The interest words by Norretranders and Sydenham perfectly describe the whole situation around the eyewitness memory reliability:We do not see what we sense. We see what we think we sense. Our consciousness is presented with an interpretation, not the huffy data. Long after presentation, an unconscious information processing has remove information, so that we see a simulation, a hypothesis, an interpretation; and we are not free to strike[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