Sections on constructive/reconstructive processing and the eyewitness testimony have empowered me with various concepts. From the ideas spelt by the reconstructive memory theory, I have developed a clear understanding of the reliability of the eyewitness testimony in arriving at decisions. I have learnt that recall is essentially dependent on personal interpretation that is defined by our learnt or cultural aspects and values and the way we interpret situation. Particularly, the theory argues that people archive information on the way that appear logical to them and in the future, they make deductions by making reference to the stored information (Nicholas 23). Accordingly, it is rational to assume that such information is likely to influence my judgment regarding the witness if I were a juror in a criminal trial. This can happen because I am likely to evaluate the relevance of the witness’s arguments from my perspective. Particularly, my attitude towards certain ideas, beliefs and values will affect my decision considerably. However, this is detrimental because analyzing the situation from my viewpoint may be misguided especially when I believe in irrational values.
The presented scenario highlights the likelihood of bias when evaluating the witness testimony. It becomes indisputable that the proof of guilt or innocence needs to rely more on physical evidence instead of witness testimony. Relying more on physical evidence such as DNA would minimize bias that emanates with personal values and attitude. The significance of opting for physical evidence in preference of witness testimony is supported by the fact that bias may result to injustice to the victim. In essence, juror’s personal interpretations may prompt him or her into adopting a wrong position, which discredits the reliability of basing evaluations on witness testimony.
Work Cited
Nicholas, Lionel J. Introduction to Psychology. Cape Town: UCT Press, 2008. Print.
