Introduction
In criminal law, the evidence that is received from a person who is a witness declared to have seen the actual occurrence of a crime and is ready to give evidence in such a case is referred to as an eyewitness (Merriamwebster.com, 2011). Usually, in the US and the United Kingdom, the evidence which is given by an eyewitness is subject to verification by police officers in what is referred to as an identification parade (Findlaw.com, 2011).
According to the United States vs. Wade code 1967, the court acknowledged that the eyewitness confirmation data is not the best because it is “notoriously unreliable” (Findlaw.com, 2011). It is generally known as espoused in the ruling of this case that eyewitness is not the best source of evidence or the main one that should be used in the conviction of a suspect. Therefore, I find eyewitness evidence not good enough to be used as persuasive evidence for the following reasons.
Discussion
Foremost, human memory is unreliable (Cline, 2011); this assertion is based on a series of studies that have been carried out on human memory which has proved that human memory is very undependable because it is prone to remember erroneous events. According to a study report released by prosecutors, the eyewitness is not reliable even in cases where the eyewitness evidence is given out with integrity, honesty, and in a sincere way since it is likely that the person who gives the eyewitness may not remember what happened (Cline, 2011).
For these reasons, eyewitnesses are not necessarily the best-placed persons who are competent to give the kind of evidence that can fully be relied on due to human error.
Secondly, an eyewitness may be manipulated due to his impaired perception leading to inaccurate and dishonest information (Cline, 2011). This may happen when a particular case has more than one eyewitness; the interaction between the eyewitnesses in relating the case may cause may result in biased recollection of facts unknowingly. This happens when one witness may not have seen the happenings of a crime because of his impaired perception, but which he believes to be accurate all the same. So, due to interactions with another witness, this eyewitness is influenced to believe that one for instance saw something like a person wearing a blue shirt or a tall person which may not necessarily be the case. Therefore, an eyewitness in such a case is not credible because his evidence is influenced by another person’s opinion, or imagination for that case to feel the gap.
Thirdly, human beings are biased and prejudiced based on past experiences and socialization (Cline, 2011). Suppose a man and woman are fighting, then it happens that a lady comes to calm the situation. If this case is taken to court and the lady becomes the chief eyewitness, it is more likely that she will give her testimony in the favor of the woman due to issues of gender sensitivity. Additionally, based on socialization, she will support the woman because of the assumption that men are more predisposed to physically abuse women than vice versa even though the wife could have been the one attacking the man.
Conclusion
Based on the above facts and based on actual case situations it is evident that because of the law’s nature of over-relying on the eyewitness verifications, people have wrongly been convicted for crimes that they have not committed which amounts to an unjust punishment. In my opinion, therefore, the eyewitness is not a credible source of evidence since this source of evidence has been criticized based on the incompetence of the eyewitness for numerous factors such as; biasness, prejudice, poor memory, weakened or impaired perception, dishonesties, and inaccuracy of the evidence (Cline, 2011). Thus, eyewitnesses should no longer be used in criminal law.
Reference
Merriamwebster.com. Eyewitness and legal terms. (2001).
Cline, Austine. Eyewitness Testimony and Memory. (2001).
Findlaw.com. U.S. Supreme Court. (2011).