Reference no: EM131603963

Elizabeth Loftus (2003), a memory researcher from the University of California, Irvine, is interested in repressed and false memories, especially those related to eyewitness testimonies. She says:

The malleability of memory is becoming increasingly clear. Many influences can cause memories to change or even be created anew, including our imaginations and the leading questions or different recollections of others. The knowledge that we cannot rely on our memories, however compelling they might be, leads to questions about the validity of criminal convictions that are based largely on the testimony of victims or witnesses. Our scientific understanding of memory should be used to help the legal system to navigate this minefield (p. 231).

According to Huff (2002), every year 7500 Americans are convicted of crimes they did not commit.

Loftus (2003) offers two anecdotes to make the point:

Ronald Cotton, a North Carolina prisoner who was convicted in 1986 of raping a 22-year-old college student, Jennifer Thompson, puts a human face on these cases. Thompson took the stand, put her hand on the Bible, and swore to tell the truth. On the basis of her testimony, Cotton was sentenced to prison for life. Eventually, DNA testing-which began 11 years after Thompson had first identified Cotton-proved his innocence.

Another man, Bobby Poole, pleaded guilty to the crime. Faulty memory is not just about picking the wrong person. Memory problems were also evident during the sniper attacks that killed ten people in the Washington, DC area in 2002. Witnesses reported seeing a white truck or van fleeing several of the crime scenes. It seems that a white vehicle might have been near one of the first shootings and media repetition of this information contaminated the memories of witnesses to later attacks, making them more likely to remember white trucks. When caught, the sniper suspects were driving a blue car. Were we observing unwitting memory contamination on a nationwide scale? (p. 231).

Discuss whether or not a person should be sent to prison based on eyewitness testimony alone. What are the pros and cons of eyewitness testimony?

What are your thoughts on influences on memory including suggestibility and repressed memories?