Fabricated Evidence and False Eyewitness Testimony
False representation and trickery are common things in today’s world and affect a number of things related to society, human being as well as behavior. One common question that arises in mind of people including psychologists is that whether fabricated evidence induces fake eyewitness evidence. This paper intends to discuss the issue of fabricated evidence and its effect on eyewitnesses. The paper further examines the views of some eminent scholars on the issue, published in reputed magazines.
The article that we are going to discuss in this paper is ‘Can fabricated evidence induce false eyewitness testimony?’ The article is written by Kimberley A. Wade, Sarah L. Green and Robert A. Nash. Authors say that digital trickery is a very common thing in today’s world and has made several things complicated. Authors further suggest that a doctored video footage can create problems for the law enforcement agencies and it has been difficult to reach a conclusion in several civil as well criminal cases even after taking the assistance of forensic experts (Wade et al., 2009).
The article informs about a study that was done be a team, led by Dr. Kimberley Wade, associate psychology professor in university of Warwick. Dr. Kimberley prepared a research report that was published in the applied cognitive psychology. This report suggested that approximately fifty percent people believed fake video footage that they were shown rather than believing on what they saw actually. The team refers to a number of previously conducted researches by other experts who believed in the similar idea about misinformation. A number of relevant facts and figures are provided in the report including an alleged real incident that took place in Rome where a demonstration was organized. The report states that when a doctored video of this demonstration was shown to people, they were easily convinced that the said demonstration was violent in nature.
The research report argues that fabricated evidence or a doctored tape is capable in inducing false eyewitness testimony. The report further suggests that fabricated evidence affects the memory of a person and is powerful enough to alter the memory and beliefs of a person. Fabricated evidence can cultivate a new memory which is based on false and manipulated memories. False memory is so powerful that it can suggest people to give evidence of an incident that they have never faced. The team further gives an example of a research study that was done by the team in order to prove their contention.
The team adopted an approach which has been termed as false video procedure. A group of sixty university students was selected to conduct this research and majority of them were female aged 18 to 43. In this research, some questions were asked from the participants and a doctored tape was also shown to them. At the end of their study, team concluded that fabricated evidence is capable in inducing witnesses and therefore should not be allowed in the court room as it can affect the legal process and hamper the justice. Team suggests that fabricated evidences can make people to testify about something which have not been experienced by them ever in their lifetime.
The question in this paper is that whether fabricated evidence can induce eyewitness testimony. This is an interesting question because it affects the behavior of human being and this way it is capable of affecting every aspect of a human being and society. The approach taken by Dr. Kimberley is scientific and her lengthy research on the subject is commendable but seeing things this way is a bit negative approach and it is a bit difficult to be in agreement with Dr. Kimberley’s research report.
It is difficult to induce a person of sound mind by showing him a doctored tape of an event which he has watched through his eyes. There are chances that showing a doctored tape can alter his account of the incidents in a small amount but the effect cannot be that grave that one forgets what he has witnessed and changes or forget the whole real story. Dr. Kimberley has perhaps overlooked the fact that eyewitnesses are thoroughly examined in the courtroom when they are presented as witness in any case and usually truth comes out. She sounds unnecessarily worried about the effect on legal or judicial process. Telling a Lie deliberately is a different aspect of the story but it is not that easy to fool the opposition lawyer, court and judge.
We are going to discuss one more article on the similar subject which was published in the journal of applied psychology. The article, ‘Eyewitness testimony: False alarms on biased instructions? is prepared by Gunter Kohnken from Kiel university, Germany and Anne Maass from Arizona state university. Authors in this report suggest that identification by eyewitnesses should not be considered as a reliable source of evidence (Kohnken & Maass, 1988). Authors suggest that there are a number of variables that affect the reliability of an eyewitness including race of concerned parties, arousal level of witness etc.
A research was done by the duo scholars to probe the reality of their findings. The result corroborated their version and both the scholars suggested that utmost care should be taken while relying on the accounts of an eyewitness. This article is very similar to the previous one that we have discussed earlier in this paper. Both of the articles suggest that eyewitness can be easily affected by fabricating or manipulating things around them. Both the articles suggest that accounts of eyewitness should not be relied with closed eyes. Authors say that fabricated evidence is harmful and may defy the purpose of justice.
After having observed the abovementioned analysis of two articles, it is good to say that both articles are well written after a research study. Both articles discuss that fabricated evidences are powerful enough to induce the accounts given by eyewitnesses. Both the articles are helpful for the students who are studying or researching on the related issues. The views expressed in the articles by authors are based on scientific findings and. Both the research reports are prepared by well known academicians and are corroborated by a number of other research reports on the similar subject. One may agree or disagree by the findings of both the articles and views of authors but the hard work that they have done in doing the research is commendable. In today’s practical life, frauds and misinformation are very common and avoiding the practical aspect of the issue is not possible.
References
G. Kohnken & A. Maass. (1988). Eyewitness testimony: False alarms on biased instructions? Journal of Applied Psychology , 363-370.
K. A. Wade, S. L. Green & R. A. Nash. (2009). Can Fabricated Evidence Induce False Eyewitness Testimony? Applied Cognitive Psychology .
