Do you think that "eye witness" testimony should carry less weight in court?

Answer 1

Absolutely! The average person and even the average cop are woefully unaware of how memory "works" -- it is NOT like making a videotape of an event and replaying it to check the facts each time someone is questioned about the event. So many factors affect how a memory is encoded (gotten into memory), stored and recalled that simple things such as the verbs used to ask the questions can affect the answers. Jurors put an incredible amount of weight on eyewitness testimony, even if its accuracy and reliability are adequately challenged by an opposing attorney. We want to believe in what we "see;" unfortunately decades of research have indicated just how fallible memory can be.

Quick example of what I'm talking about. Elizabeth Loftus has done extensive research on eyewitness testimony. In one study she showed a video of a two cars running into each other. She then asked sujbects, "how fast were the cars going when they ____ each other?" She varied the verb inserted into the blank using bumped, collided, hit, slammed, etc. The estimates of speed increased with the intensity of the verb. Even more importantly, two weeks later she asked the same subjects if they recalled seeing any broken glass at the scene. Those who had heard the higher intensity verb and answered with higher speeds, were more likely to "remember" seeing broken glass (there was none) than others. This is an example how "memory" works to remain consistent with itself.

Answer 2

Less weight than what? Than it does currently, or than expert witnesses, or police statements etc.

I say no - it's the same argument that people raise for getting rid of juries because there are fallible.

So long as people taking statements are conscious of the factors affecting reliability, and the transient moment some eyewitnesses see not being overanalysed in front of them then it's vital to many cases. The witness should not be asked to provide reasoning or opinion on what they saw, just facts (at risk of swaying what they see in their own head if reasoning begins to suggest someone is guilty or not), then it is down to legal professionals to sift through the reports along with all other case evidence.

Answer 3

No. "Eye witness" testimony is extremely reliable, even if there are the occasional flaws in it. Seeing is believing. . .

Besides, the other side can offer reasons that the testimony isn't reliable, or argue why it is incorrect and offer proof to that effect. So the weight of the testimony is solely in the impression of how reliable it actually is.

Answer 4

Eye witness testimony is less valuable than physical evidence. People can be mistaken about what they remember.
If a man's DNA is found inside a rape victim it can only mean he was there.

Answer 5

Yes, it is unreliable. Too many people have been wrongly convicted on eyewitness testimony alone only to be exonerated later by DNA evidence. There should always be other evidence to back it up.

Answer 6

In my opinion, every person remembers an incident in a different way. Police and lawyers and judges all know this very well. As far as court doings, there isn't an answer to your question.

Answer 7

versus what? I think it would depend on the situation and the accountability and/or reliability of the eye witness

Answer 8

Hell no. That's why you have cross examination to see how accurate it is.