Welcome back! Last week, we talked about 2023 Medical Breakthroughs. If you missed that blog and would like to catch up, click HERE.
This week, we are going to talk about eyewitness accounts. A couple of summers ago, my husband and I were driving down a highway, and we passed a deceased animal on the side of the road. I said, “Poor Golden Retriever!” and he said, “No, that was a deer”. We were both absolutely certain we were right, so as is our way, we turned around to have another go at it. It was a German Shepherd.
This rattled me to my core because of course the first thing I realized was that our justice system relies fairly heavily on witnesses. We pick people out of lineups based on our memory of that person’s features. We testify under oath that the light turned yellow, not red, only to be shown from a camera’s view that it was indeed red.
So what causes this? Is it a “wishful thinking” scenario? I highly doubted that, because I didn’t wish for any animal to be dead, much less a golden retriever (the best dog ever in my world). This made me want to do some research…you may be surprised at what I found. Let’s get at it.
The Innocence Project
The Innocence Project, an organization affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University 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.
These are shocking statistics and beg us to ask the question, “How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong?”
More shocking statistics…think about it…
In New Orleans, the Innocence Project reported the following statistics:
“Mistaken identifications are the leading factor in wrongful convictions. A full 56% of the 551 DNA exonerations in the United States involved mistaken eyewitness identifications. 20 out of 22 Louisiana DNA exonerations involved mistaken eyewitness identifications. Two of these men were sentenced to death (!). In 19 non-DNA Louisiana exonerations, innocent men were sentenced to life in prison due to mistaken eyewitness identifications”.
Can you imagine? What if this were you?
The Scientific American weighs in
The Scientific American asks the question: Is there a misconception about how memory works?
Apparently, yes.
“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”.
Are some witnesses more reliable than others?
While 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.
What can cause errors in memory?
A number of factors can reduce the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Here are some of them:
- Extreme witness stress at the crime scene or during the identification process.
- Presence of weapons at the crime (because they can intensify stress and distract witnesses).
- Use of a disguise by the perpetrator such as a mask or wig.
- A racial disparity between the witness and the suspect.
- Brief viewing times at the lineup or during other identification procedures.
- A lack of distinctive characteristics of the suspect such as tattoos or extreme height.
(Bornstein, Deffenbacher, Penrod, & McGorty, 2012; Brigham, Bennett, Meissner, & Mitchell, 2007; Burton, Wilson, Cowan, & Bruce, 1999; Deffenbacher, Bornstein, Penrod, & McGorty, 2004).
Does bias play a role?
NOBA has this to say about that, “Memory is also susceptible to a wide variety of other biases and errors. People can forget events that happened to them and people they once knew. They can mix up details across time and place. They can even remember whole complex events that never happened at all. Importantly, these errors, once made, can be very hard to reverse. A memory is no less ‘memorable’ just because it is wrong”.
It turns out that our expectations and beliefs about how the world works can have huge influences on our memories. Because many aspects of our everyday lives are full of redundancies, our memory systems take advantage of the recurring patterns by forming and using schemata, or memory templates (Alba & Hasher, 1983; Brewer & Treyens, 1981).
Thus, we know to expect that a library will have shelves and tables and librarians, so we don’t have to spend energy noticing these at the time. The result of this lack of attention, however, is that one is likely to remember schema-consistent information (such as tables) and to remember them in a rather generic way, whether or not they were actually present.
The Misinformation Effect
Eureka Foong’s – The Misinformation Effect. This is a student-made video illustrating this phenomenon of altered memory. It was one of the winning entries in the 2014 Noba Student Video Award.
How can we improve the odds?
The Innocence Project has proposed legislation to improve the accuracy of eyewitness IDs. These proposals include videotaping the identification procedure so that juries can determine if it was conducted properly, putting individuals in the lineup who resemble the witness’s description of the perpetrator, informing the viewer of the lineup that the perpetrator may or may not be in it, and ensuring that the person administering the lineup or other identification procedure does not know who the suspect is. Although only a few cities and states have adopted laws to improve the accuracy of eyewitness identifications, there seems to be a growing interest in doing so.
In addition, allowing experts on eyewitness identification to testify in court could educate juries and perhaps lead to a more measured evaluation of the testimony. Most U.S. jurisdictions disallow such experts in courtrooms on the grounds that laboratory-based eyewitness research does not apply to the courtroom and that, in any case, its conclusions are mostly common sense and therefore not very enlightening. Yet psychologist Gary Wells of Iowa State University and his colleague Lisa Hasel have amassed considerable evidence showing that the experimental findings do apply to courtroom testimony and that they are often counterintuitive.
Science can and should inform judicial processes to improve the accuracy and assessment of eyewitness accounts. We are seeing some small steps in this direction, but our courts still have a long way to go to better ensure that innocent people are not punished because of flaws in this very influential type of evidence.
+++++++++++++
As always, this blog is not a replacement for sound medical advice. I am not a doctor. Please make an appointment to see your healthcare provider and put a good plan in place that works for you and the needs of your body.
That’s all I have for you this week, dear reader. I’ll see you back here next Wednesday to share another cup of coffee. Until then, be good to yourself and each other.
Mind, Body, Spirit…Osteopathic Doctors treat the whole person, not just the ailment. Is your PCP a DO? Would you like to learn more about Osteopathic Physicians? Click HERE!