Cognitive psychology and false memory: college-level analysis
It is humbly submitted that oral evidence all over the world forms the primary form of evidence. What a person sees, hears and probably experiences are part of the testimony which can be rebutted by a cross examination. In the adversarial form of criminal law, evidence of this type must be subject to a cross examination by the defence. In the case of a person submitting evidence based on the recall of past events that spans years previously, mostly a result of intervention by a third agent – a doctor or other operator who using a drug, powerful suggestions or hypnotic trance induce the witness to give evidence based on what they submit is from the ‘subconscious'. The problem with this evidence is that it cannot be put to the test of cross examination, nor does the witness himself or herself fully understand what he or she has stated.
There is a legal mist of uncertainty in acting upon this type of evidence, and by that alone. At best it could be tertiary supporting evidence provided other evidence – either direct or secondary point to the events as stated by these types of witness. Such witnesses who have imagined the event, or confessed to things they never did, have actually hampered the proper administration of justice – and have either caused harm to themselves and to other innocent persons. It is pertinent to submit here that most of these types of evidence comes out against the witnesses own parents,, or close associates and the events sought to be prosecuted occurred decades ago. The problem therefore in this matter is not merely appreciation of evidence, but also the quality and the question if this is evidence at all. To examine this it is proposed to illustrate the cases in detail, thus highlighting the problem.
Cognitive Development, Impulse Control, and Teen Decision-Making
Decision-making in humans mostly depends on the development. Highly developed individuals tend to make better decisions than those with minimal development. This also explains why people behave differently to different situations. Teenagers usually make riskier decisions, and this is because their development is at a lower level. Researchers use cognitive development studies to explain this.