The Authenticity of Evidence from Eye Witness in Court: Literature Review
Overview
This literature review examines the authenticity and reliability of eyewitness testimony in court proceedings, challenging the traditional perspective that such evidence is inherently reliable. The paper synthesizes contemporary research on how human memory distortions, emotions, stress, and cognitive biases contribute to eyewitness errors and wrongful convictions, while proposing a theoretical framework for improving future research methodology in this field.
What this literature review covers
- Introduction: Debates surrounding eyewitness testimony reliability and the gap between traditional perspectives and evidence of wrongful convictions
- Theoretical Framework: Glomb's four-dimensional framework for improving research on eyewitness authenticity including emotion measurement, inducement methods, memory testing, and individual differences
- Factors Influencing Eyewitness Memory: Analysis of internal and external factors such as stress, attention, bias, and cognitive state affecting witness reliability
Preview
The Authenticity of Evidence from Eye Witness in Court: Literature Review
Your Name
Department of ABC, University – Whitewater
ABC 101: Course Name
Professor (or Dr.) Firstname Lastname
Date
The Authenticity of Evidence from Eye Witness in Court: Literature Review
Section Introduction
The authenticity of evidence from an eyewitness in court is a topic that has been debated for decades. As technology advances, evidence collection and presentation from courts have also changed significantly. Exploring the traditional perspectives on eyewitness testimony and how different researchers have established this perspective is the core aim of the current literature review. The traditional perspective is that eyewitness testimony is the most reliable evidence. However, the role of eyewitness statements as the leading cause of wrongful convictions implies this perspective should be reviewed.
Theoretical Framework
Even as researchers dwell on the potential errors in witness statements due to the shortcomings of human memory, Glomb (2022) noted that studies often produce conflicting outcomes. While the studies highlight research limitations, they hardly propose how research in the area can be improved. Similarly, Otgaar, Howe, and Dodier (2022) noted that most contemporary studies on the authenticity of eyewitness information do not meet the three conditions of "replicability, generalizability, and practical relevance." These difficulties arise because of the difficulty in measuring the factors that influence memory. Emotions, for instance, are among the most investigated factors (Russ, Sauerland, & Lee, 2018).