The statement of an eyewitness holds a significant amount of weight in a courtroom, and is viewed by many lawyers as essential to getting a conviction. This assumption is based on our idea of memory, which we believe works like a video camera, recording exactly what happens around us. However, this article refutes this idea and establishes that memory is less of an absolute record of the past than a “rough sketch” that is frequently modified. Based on a series of studies, scientists advise that the court system should be amended so that witness testimony should be viewed as less concrete, and more as “trace evidence,” vulnerable to contamination in the same ways that other more scientific evidence can be. With this splotchy outline of a recollection, we often embellish or entirely create fictitious accounts. However, on the witness stand, when a witness is under oath, they believe these fictitious events are real. Dr. Tversky of Stanford University has conducted some of the most influential studies in the field of memory. In one of the most well known, she asked a group of people to watch a recording of men in either black or white jerseys passing a basketball. They were instructed to count how many passes the players in white made. During the film, a woman in a gorilla suit walked through the middle of the court. Half of the observers did not notice the woman, illustrating how distraction can cause the mind to miss things. Dr. Tversky repeated this test with an audio version, were participants in the test were instructed to listen to a woman’s voice in a recording of a conversation that lasted 69 seconds. For 19 of these seconds, a third voice repeated, “I’m a gorilla” over and over again, but almost none of the participants heard it. Scientists believe that memory’s function is not to record the past but to come up with a “script” for something that might occur. This idea is supported by the fact that thinking about something that might occur or a recall of an actually fictitious event all occurs in the memory section of the brain. 75% of DNA exonerations have occurred in cases where witnesses got it wrong.
This study is important to humanity because it affects the future of our legal system. Currently, eyewitness accounts are playing a key role in many court cases. However, scientific studies about memory and countless stories of witnesses getting it wrong make it necessary for us to re-evaluate our legal system. We need to educate jurors about the flexibility of memory to ensure that the justice system is as fair as possible. Additionally, we need to amend the system to reduce the power of a witness statement.
I thought this article was extremely well written and was both informative and interesting. It provided ample detail about case studies, which allowed the reader to understand how the scientists have arrived at such a conclusion. However, to improve upon this article, I would have paid more attention to the effects of these discoveries on court cases. For example, I would have liked to have heard of a specific case where a victim got it wrong, and where DNA exonerations have righted the wrong.
Beil, Laura. "The Certainty of Memory Has Its Day in Court." New York Times. 28 Nov.
2011. Web. 11 Dec. 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/health/the-certainty-of-memory-has-its-day-in-court.html.
Rosalie did an excellent job reviewing the article entitled, “The Certainty of Memory has its Day in Court.” Having already read the article, I think she did a great job of explaining the author’s ideas. The article itself was very interesting and explained how the mind often alters memories, without the person knowing the memory has been changed. Though this concept is difficult to understand, Rosalie did a great job of making a clear explanation. She made a good point about how the article may change the way the legal system works forever. Lastly, Rosalie’s explanation of how to improve the article was fascinating, and raised a point I had not thought of prior to reading her suggestion. She explained how it would have been interesting to be provided with an example of a court case in which the witness had gotten testimony wrong, and there was evidence to prove that the witness had been wrong.
ReplyDeleteThere is not much that Rosalie needed to improve upon. She explained the article in detail, as well as gave interesting feedback about the article, such as her suggestion on how it needed to be improved.
From the article review I learned that it has been proved that the brain has the ability to concentrate so hard that if a major distraction occurs, there is a big chance that the brain may not recognize it. Such as the example Rosalie provided of the woman in a gorilla suit.