Reliability of Eyewitness Identifications

Running head: RELIABILITY OF EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATIONS
RELIABILITY OF EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATIONS
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author’s Note:

RELIABILITY OF EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATIONS1
As opined by Feldman (2015), an important debate which had been raging since the
traditional times within the field of forensics can be attributed to the question of the reliable of
the testimonials or for that matter the identifications made by the eyewitnesses of the different
crimes. Wixted, Mickes and Fisher (2018) are of the viewpoint that over the years the mixed
success attained in the different criminal cases related to the identification or the testimonials
given by the eyewitnesses have raised questions regarding the reliability of the identifications
made by all the eyewitnesses. Interestingly, it had been seen that in more than 74.9% of the cases
the testimonials or for that matter the identifications made by the eyewitnesses have helped in the
nabbing of the culprits (Apa.org, 2019). Despite this, the ineffectiveness of the testimonials in
around 25.1% in which the innocent individuals have been wrongly punished had given rise to
the question whether the identifications made by the eyewitnesses or for that matter their
testimonials can actually be completely trusted (Apa.org, 2019). In the face of this, it had been
seen that the criminal courts are resorting to the usage of various supplementary measures like lie
detection, DNA sampling and others for testing the reliability or the validity of the testimonials
or the identifications made by the eyewitnesses. This paper intends to undertake an analysis of
the reliability of the identification or the testimonials given by the eyewitnesses.
Steblay and Dysart (2016) are of the viewpoint that the major psychological area of
research which deals with the identifications or for that matter the testimonials made by the
eyewitnesses is memory or memory recreation. As discussed by Wixted (2018), the
identifications made by the eyewitnesses or for that matter the testimonials given by them greatly
depends on the precision with which they are being able to effectively recollect the crime
incident. However, Sauer, Palmer and Brewer (2019) have noted that there are various factors
which affect this recollection of the memory of the crime incidents by the eyewitnesses. Some of

RELIABILITY OF EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATIONS2
the most important factors in this relation are the distance from which the incident is being
witnessed by the witnesses, the trauma involved in the process, communication barrier, memory
recreation and others (Semmler et al., 2018). In this relation, it needs to be said that the different
psychological researches have clearly revealed the fact that the individuals subconsciously keep
on recreating a particular memory and thus it is often seen that the narrative offered by them
regarding an incident is far from the actual one (Smalarz & Wells, 2015). In addition to these, it
is seen that the trauma which is involved in the process of witnessing the different crime
incidents also influences the process of memory recreation in the particular context of the
testimonials offered by the eyewitnesses (Wixted, Read & Lindsay, 2016). An analysis of the
John Hartman and Franklin Dayton case in Alaska in 1997 on the basis of the reliability of the
testimony given by the eyewitness Geoffrey Loftus would yield insightful information regarding
the topic under discussion here.
John Hartman, a citizen of Alaska, was sexually assaulted and murdered whereas
Franklin Dayton was seriously injured by four young hooligans following the "Clockwork
Orange"-style attacks in the concerned area in 1997 (Best, 2018). This incident was witnessed by
Geoffrey Loftus, a PhD degree holder, from a distance of 450 feet away (Apa.org, 2019). Thus, it
was on the basis of the testimony given by him that the four young individuals were arrested and
thereby brought to trial. However, during the trial it was found that the individuals identified and
arrested on the basis of the testimony given by Geoffrey Loftus were not the right culprits and
thereby they were released (Best, 2018). Furthermore, it was found that “No physical evidence
actually ties any of the defendants to the crimes” and thus the court had no other option but to
release the individuals whom they had arrested on the basis of the testimony of Loftus (Apa.org,
2019). This incident among many others have given rise to the question under discussion here