Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence: Improving its Probative Value .Psychological Science in the Public Interest
In this research, researchers explain empirical evidence supporting the proposal that some of the problems with eyewitness evidence can be discussed by improving how the evidence is collected and conserved. The authors explain how psychologists challenged the value of eyewitness testimony for decades before the introduction of forensic DNA testing. In the early part of the 20th century, Hugo Münsterberg’s writings made a clear argument for psychological science’s role in helping the justice system recognize the vagaries of eyewitness evidence. However, it was not until the mid to late 1970s that psychologists started to hide. In the research it provided a case with data about Kirk Bloodworth, who was sentenced to death in 1984 for sexual assault and slaying a 9-year-old girl. Bloodsworth maintained a claim of innocence from the outset, but the DNA testing proved he was not the source of semen found in the little girl’s underwear. Some people, including one of the original prosecutors, continued to believe that Bloodsworth may have been the murderer. In September 2003, DNA testing got a hit on the actual murderer, Kimberly Shay Ruffner. This research demonstrates the changes from the 1960 eyewitness to the modern era’s presents. DNA testing has developed by identifying the people they needed because, in the older times, they used to sentence innocent people they have mistaken. Since people would use their memory.
when it comes to the research methodology in this data, the eyewitness research was already dominated by the experimental method, and most of the studies are research lab. According to the data improvements and disadvantages of Lab-based laboratory approaches for researching eyewitness issues. In the mythology part of the experiment, they pointed out the outcome that the serious quality of trial methods is that they are experienced in creating relationships of cause and effect. In the research using machine variables which is very important in the research. The main point of the method is questioning the eyewitnesses to help them back track to the correct memories. This is something they use in the psychological theory of memory according in Fisher & Geiselman journal (1992). Studies also get information or their research from the the ECI and elements of the CI. The researchers Hasel and Wells stated the probability of pick the original target from sets of four alternative faces could be only 35% for individual composites and 48% for four-composite morphs (chance = 25%). In another experiment conducted by Wixted and wells they conducted a table plot by seeing if the research calculates the precision of a suspect’s identification on a scale of 100 as a function of trust. High trust means very high precision and much lower precision is indicated by low trust. Similar conclusions from the Houston Police Department field study were recorded by Wixted, Mickes, Dunn, Clark, and Wells (2016). Data gathered to date shows that factors such as the presence of a firearm do not substantially impact the precision of high conviction of initial identifications made. Wixted and Wells (2017) analyzed the related experiments, even though these variables had the predicted negative impact. They did not diminish the accuracy of the total memory precision. Around dubious IDs. Usually, lab experiments make participants see a simulated crime after which various questioning techniques are compared.
In conclusion eyewitness are very important because they provide information that can be said in the criminal trials. Its evidence for the justice system needs in order to do justice. In conclusion we can say that an eyewitness has help in many ways including in the article it stated eyewitness can be involve by training police investigations. Participant witnesses in experiments typically take the perspective of a bystander rather than a victim. However, some experiments have examined possible differences between bystander eyewitnesses and victim eyewitnesses and have found no significant differences. In my opinion after reading the research I can say that the eyewitness testimony may not always be accurate. The Eyewitness testimony can be by people’s memory, the eyewitness testimony can also be false in some parts by the witness due to the person being nervousness or may be afraid when testifying. They can even convict the wrong person by thinking it him or her. the research in the research by Boyce, Beaudry and Lindsay, R. C. L. (2007) it appears , thus it I can say whether individuals may make this difference, but only when they are correct can eyewitnesses gain trust. When I mean by that the accused will also experience the psychological and financial problems connected with detention and prosecution. Yet as a consequence of mistaken identity, they will never be prosecuted. Evidence indicates that people prefer to focus their views on certain variables that do not represent the probability of a right one. Evaluating all 5 articles I can say that I learn things from eyewitness pros and cons of it. from all of the journals I have read I can conclude that the evidence show that the memory is unreliable But we can help try to decrease the incidence of memory distortions.. Particularly in cases where it is difficult to prevent the risk of memory distortions, it is possible to help train judges and jurors about the limits of memory.
References
Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence: Improving its Probative Value Psychological Science in the Public Interest,7(2), pp45-75. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00027.x
Wixted, J. T., Mickes, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2018). Rethinking the reliability of eyewitness . Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(3), 324335.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691617734878
Eyewitness testimony: probative value in criminal justice system
bureau. Of justice statics
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
Proposal on improving eyewitness evidence value |
Proposal on improving eyewitness evidence value