For the Literature Review I wanted to focus on the majority of the research I had found up until that point, which consequently focused mainly on the weakness of eyewitness testimony. The truth of the matter is eyewitness testimony is absolutely faulty, it's not the same as hard evidence found at the scene of the crime (i.e. DNA evidence). As a result, misidentifications are more likely to occur.
In the process of writing the Literature Review, I realized that research on the topic focused mainly on the difficulties in exploring the phenomenon, and the incidents that have been studied focus mainly on the weaknesses rather than the strengths.
In looking at the feedback I received on the review, Professor Carroll-Adler made a very interesting point; under what circumstances is eyewitness testimony likely to be more reliable? If experts are able to make the process more reliable, and testimony is viewed as more credible, then it would undoubtedly be easier to determine when testimony becomes unreliable. Yet at the same time, given the high incidence of misidentifications it seems pretty cut and dry that such testimony is more often than not misleading and inaccurate.This is a critical question and one I plan to further research in order to develop a more well-rounded paper.
Another comment Professor Carroll-Adler made was if there is any reason why police and the courts might be reluctant to make sue of psychological findings on this? To be honest, based on the research I've gathered it's evident that police want to solve the crime, they want to match a suspect to the crime. It's not so much that they're reluctant to utilize psychological findings as much as they may not be exposed to these findings. In cases in which these findings are made known to them, they're often disregarded because they move away from the ultimate objective in arresting someone for a crime.
No comments:
Post a Comment