Witness Testimony the Controversy Surrounding

Witness Testimony

The controversy surrounding repressed memories has to do with the fact that under hypnosis, an individual might falsely recollect an event or experience. This is because the hypnotherapist could prompt the person. In other words, the individual might feel that they had a memory because they were coached to believe so. Also, the life experiences that occurred since the initial memory was formed could create inaccurate recollection. For example, a person might fuse what they saw in a movie with what they actually experienced because they identified strongly with the film. There are a host of reasons why repressed memories are unreliable, even if they contain a grain of truth within them.

Yet such problems should not cloud the fact that repressed memories actually do exist. Trauma victims are especially prone to repressing painful memories. What forensic experts need to find out is how valid some of the memories are once they are recalled years later. I believe there are problems using repressed memories as forensic evidence. This does not mean I think repressed memories are always false. In many cases, repressed memories do represent genuine life experiences. I believe that repressed memories may contain a core of truth but the details are likely to be false or at least blurry. Hypnosis does have the ability to help repressed memories bubble to the surface. These memories should not be admitted as testimony in a court of law.

Eyewitness testimony is generally regarded as top quality forensic evidence in court. However, in the same way that repressed memories can be false or blurry, so too can the recollection of a witnessed criminal act. Memory will often be reconstructed, and it is possible to introduce items, persons, or events that never actually occurred. Research has shown that it is possible to insert new facts into an actual memory, thereby creating new and false memories. The memory might feel and seem real, but it is like recalling a television show or a dream.

Bias, prejudice, and stereotyping can also impact the reliability of eyewitness testimony. For example, a person who believes that non-whites commit crimes more often than whites might mistakenly identify a perpetrator based on racial prejudice. A person might not be willing to admit what they saw. Assuming the eyewitness is not actually committing perjury, there is still the chance that unconscious or subconscious bias influences the recollection of events.

Only a camera, voice recorder, or other pieces of equipment can provide totally reliable snapshots of what happened during a crime. Eyewitness testimony might work well in court, but it is not necessarily the most reliable form of evidence. In order to make eyewitness testimony more reliable, law enforcement officers need to first cast aside their own biases. When law enforcement officers become convinced that a certain suspect is the perpetrator, they tend to discard information to the contrary. Some law enforcement officers might aggressively coax eyewitness data that turns out to be false, such as a statement given under pressure. Therefore, law enforcement officers must take care to set aside biases when compiling evidence for a case.