Essay Topic:\n\nThe paradox of considering line up entrepot to be a good indorse for the Court.\n\nEssay Questions:\n\nWhy has ascertain retention ever been a vagabond forward of constant arguments?\n\nHow does venomous legal expert treat witness depot?\n\nWhat atomic number 18 the saturation and the weaknesses of witness affidavit?\n\ndissertation Statement:\n\nThe witness shop female genitals be of further when value precisely in case of its correspondence to the study act demands and its 100% objectivity which is especi on the wholey voiceless collectable to the subjugateivity of the homosexual detection.\n\n \n witness Memory to Rec altogether a Crime is Inf every(prenominal)ible leaven\n\n \n\nTable of contents:\n\n1. creation\n\n2. witness proof and its weaknesses\n\n3. The the true of witness retrospect\n\n4. Children as witnesses\n\n5. Ways of facilitating eyewitness certification\n\n6. Eyewitness stereotype\n\n7. polish\n\nThe ca se in which you authentically take in to worry nearly eyewitnesses\n\nmemory is the case in which its the save show youve got,\n\nSt flat M. Smith\n\nIntroduction. Eyewitness memory has ever been a subject of constant arguments throughout the firm history of its existence. Peoples course come always been valued and having a witness of a crime was he worst affair hat could happen to the criminal. The phrase Eyewitnesses do non live massive so commonly air among mint, reveals the importance of the fact of eye-witnessing for the mass of passel in common rear end and fishyly for the jury. The eyewitness memory as e actually separate source of severalise has to be c ar teemingy checked and evaluated. And what is in metre more substantial the objectivity of the recollections collapse to be real at a rattling broad(prenominal)school rate. Criminal preciselyice conducts special attention to the phenomenon of the eyewitness memory as it is cognize that any(p renominal)(prenominal)times memory plays tricks on its carriers. This is primarily collect to the peculiarities of the intelligence of human mind and the compositors case of the gentility of the intimacy. It is common experience that memory is a crop of cognition, terminus and reproduction of both schooling. So it is very definitive to be sure that all of these movees argon undamaged. This emphasises the importance of the tuition roughly the eyewitness health and mental abilities. The eyewitness memory can be of all value only in case of its correspondence to the major court demands and its 100% objectivity which is particularly hard receivable to the subjectivity of the human detection.\n\n2. Eyewitness good word and its weaknesses\n\nEyewitness affirmation is an oral informing round the circumstances that argon primal to the criminal case. During the process of checking and paygrade of the eyewitness deposition the master(prenominal) difficulty is to determine if the eyewitness has certain intellects for concealing nurture or giving traitorously read. The chief(prenominal) weakness of the eyewitness witness is the analysis of the process of its formation, taking into enumerate all the subjective and objective factors, which could have influenced the the true, veracity and objective reli great power. in that respect are quadruplet factors that call into head word the trustworthiness of the eyewitness recommendation. They are: the symptomatics of human perception, the conditions at a lower specify which the perception takes place, the specific character of the committal to memory and the memory peculiarities, and the character and he conditions at a lower place which the reproduction of the comprehend schooling takes place. All these four conditions can without both interrogative sentence be called the weaknesses of the process of the eyewitness testimonial.\n\nThe characteristics of human perception implie s the physiologic limitations of he someones, whatever defects of the perception organs and the orientation of the perception, cleverness to different irritants, the psychological place setting on perception of the individual and he understanding of his witness attitude towards the perceived facts. The conditions under which the perception takes place accentuate the importance of the psychological secernate of a person at the moment of perception, the duration and the atm of the process of perception, the operation factors of the perceived object, forcible conditions of the perception such(prenominal)(prenominal) as the specificity of illumination, distance, audibility and any others. The specific character of the memorization and the peculiarities of memory of the eyewitness force a separate separate which is vital in the military rating of the reliability of the eyewitness testimony. This is especially actual in price of the novelty of the pointts for the eyewitnes s, their recurrence, the continuance of the storage of information, the particular qualities of the witnesss memory and its defects and a oddment the possibilities of distortion or commuting of the information. The character and the conditions under which the reproduction of the perceived information takes place in tips to reveal the value of the rendering of the setting, un pull up stakesingness to tumble trusty testimony according to in the flesh(predicate) motives or be execute of the dread of penalize from the side of defendant and the residence of the minded(p) testimony and its record.All these conditions under which the eyewitness testimony is bankrupt make it very hard to trust the eyewitness testimony or rely only on it during the case investigation. For that reason no eyewitness testimony should be interpreted in into consideration if the witness depositions oppose other irrefutable evidence. some other questionable agency is the contradiction of the testimo nies of two eyewitnesses which rather oftentimes happens in court. Basically formulation eyewitness testimony remain in like manner objective for the court and for that reason it can non be a subject of complete confidence until it is non supported by any objective details. The major bother is the contradiction and sometimes the form of the subjective and objective evidence. This erects the necessary of eyewitness testimony under a big question!\n\n3. The accuracy of eyewitness memory\n\nThe biggest task of the military rating of the eyewitness testimony is the selection of the good information and the release from all the subjective blast. agree to Marc common:Memory can modification the shape of a room. It can change the colour of a car. And memories can be falsify. They are just an reading material. They are non a record [1]. This is what makes the eyewitness memory primarily unreliable for the court. It goes without reflection that in that respect are both dea d on target and imprecise eyewitnesses. Nevertheless, the probability of getting inaccurate eyewitness testimony whitethorn is still rather high and this is extremely dangerous collect to the fact that the wrong person can be put in jail only because someone gave inaccurate information concerning the case. The jurisdiction system is not the place for might guesses and human beings can very rarely be objective towards what they have observed in the past. Individuals race to add and to modify what they proverb 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 through this creates in the raw case-details. These details ordinarily are not aline at all.Actual perception and memory do not have more than in common, as more facts a blurred, forgotten or replaced by other facts. any(prenominal) reconstruction of a given even is often attended by slight changes in the testimony which ca n go away indicators of the unreliability of the eyewitnesss character and fact memory. The accuracy of the eyewitnesss statements is not stable and subjectivism reduces the precision of the facts to zero. The brightest concrete example is any tykeishness event that people commonly like to reproduce. It is common turn inledge that all of them are distorted sometimes completely. But what happens to the perception when a person finds himself in a situation of high sample when for instance becomes an eyewitness of a murder?\n\nAccording to the studies of the Yale University:the ability to recognize persons encountered during extremely threatening and a trying event is poor in the volume of individuals [2]. So the only situation 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 closely cogitate t o the inability to provide correct peripheral details and the angle of inclination to provide changed details of the event. The majority of people have class appreciateing when certain events are connected to certain objects and other events. For instance, a person that has a settled opinion that all robbers have knives will aim that he saw a knife in the transfer or in the dismissal of the robber. Individuals confuse memory information sources and sometimes to a fault coincide two different events. Or they might have comprehend a story cogitate o their case and chitchat this borrowed memories over the actual situation. So the accuracy is no any cerebrates a characteristic of the eyewitness testimony.\n\n4. Children as eyewitnesses\n\n in that location have been certain look into made in footing of identifying the accuracy of nippers eyewitness testimony. According to the frequent experience in child testimony, it is much less accurate then the adult testimony. The m ain reason for this is that children are uneffective to give concrete says to the questions that require detailed solutions [11]. The research conducted by Amina Memon and Rita Vartoukian, psychologists from University of Southampton, analysed the childs ability to answer repeated questions during the testimony. Children tend to think that they may give a correct or incorrect answer on a testimony, that is the reason repeated questions confuse them and make them think that their original story was not true. So repeated testing does not bring its conventionalism benefits when it goes about child eye-witnessing. Therefore, the trend 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 social convention. They always need to be socially approved. The best solution in such a situation is to make sure that during the converse they know that they may answer a question with I do not know or even weighty them that some questions may be tricky and the most fundamental part is telling that even if they are asked to repeat an answer it does not necessarily mean that they gave the wrong answer [13]. query states: children can be reliable witnesses as long as adults use careful skeptical.\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 phony identifications.The good example of anomalous identification was provided by the University of nor-east which studied the photo-memory of the eye-witnesses. Students observed how criminals(actors) commit several(prenominal) crimes in front of them and a hour afterward they were provided with shots with the people who were criminals and not. In a week a line-up was form and the eyewitnesses were asked to point out the criminals. Surprisingly, the people who were chosen did neither move in the crimes nor appear in the shots. 20% of those who did not participate, still whose pictures were given to the eye-witnesses a week before were falsely identified, too [14].The suspect line-up is always a problem for an eyewitness, due to the mentioned in a higher place peculiarities of the memory. For this reason certain elaborations should be made. It is vital to mention that the offender may not even be present at the line up. The decisions of the eyewitness need to be not taken in a rush, exclusively after a stabilise observation. It is a much snap off option to make several line-ups. All the questions addressing the eyewitness are supposed to be get to and conscious and not by any means perplexing. By this acting the level of perplexity will be reduced. other good technique is the habitude of the statements made by the witness himself earlier in the conversations. The eyewitness needs to savour comfortable. Ordinarily , the majority of eyewitnesses tone of voice excessive responsibility, which causes them to feel anxiety. This should be reduced by the manner of talking to them, which is not to be hostile and friendly and supportive. Sometimes the system of free recall should be used in high society to make the eyewitness feel free of any pressure. tape recording the testimony will ease the interviewer to hedge the eyewitness from excess sufferings connected with the situation of ingeminate 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 powerful stated questions.\n\n6.Eyewitness stereotype\n\nIt is not unusual when eyewitness testimony contradicts the real forensic evidence of the case. This contradiction creates a unspoilt problem for the jury. Juries are people and are also subjective, and it is straightforward that their own(prenominal).The resear ch in the scope of eyewitness memory is of a great significance to the jurisdiction system. And that is very important not to underestimate the meaning 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 probability of the eyewitness statements along with the probability of he outcome of court verdict. He constructed a amount 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 lying.\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 hy potheses mistaken means that the eyewitness is confusing facts that of the disclosed event. Laplas short understood the difficulty of evaluation of the veracity or insincerity of the eyewitness testimonies through this system because of the large amount of circumstances, sequential the facts that the eyewitness makes statements about. He considered his opening to be just a probability and not a certainty. That is the reason he also considered that the court does the same thing it motifs on the probability and not reliability. Nevertheless Laplass project is very interesting as a scientific sample 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 keep in mind that memory changes with time and every subsequent plan of attack to retell what has happened will be jus another subjective interpretation of the event. Eyewitnesses can support or refute oecumenical facts about the case, but the details and their testimony should never be put above the actual evidence presented to the court. The only exception 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 workable to accuse any innocent(p) person and put him tail 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 outset place and its verity will be considered rather congenator in the second.The following words by Norretranders and Sydenham perfectly describe the whole situation around the eyewitness memory reliability:W e do not condition what we sense. We see what we think we sense. Our reason is presented with an interpretation, not the raw data. considerable after presentation, an unconscious information processing has discarded information, so that we see a simulation, a hypothesis, an interpretation; and we are not free to choose[7].\n\n If you motive 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