Pros and Cons of Eyewitness Testimony

As the systems of law evolved, the power of witness testimony concerning the definition of truth and justice increased. For many members of a jury, witness testimony is one of the most influential ways of presenting evidence. However, despite this continuous influence, the growing body of research that has accumulated indicates that human memory is certainly not perfect and is often open to flaws and inaccuracies that can be easily altered. Thus, this growing trend has led legal circles to turn more towards research related to witness testimony, particularly through studies in psychology that have gained prominence due to the inaccuracies that may be involved. The judicial system relies on eyewitness testimony because it helps fill gaps and adds minor but significant details, although witnesses can distort facts and be inaccurate.

One of the most significant advantages of eyewitness testimony is that it has the power of narration. Since the witness is narrating, the testimony brings the crime itself, as well as the actions of the culprit and the events that took place, to life, giving jurors a clear understanding of all these events (Totić, 2024). Additionally, a valid eyewitness testimony can be of great value when there is little physical evidence available. If more than one witness is valid and reports on events, then collectively, these can lead to a strong case for prosecution as well. In this way, eyewitnesses help to reconstruct abstract facts into functional images that can be easily presented to the human mind.

Another benefit is the psychological and procedural deterrent effect of witnesses. Being mindful of the fact that one can witness a crime and then testify about it afterward is one way to prevent a potential criminal from committing a crime. Additionally, human beings can register details of context, such as behavior, tone, and expressions, through observations that may not be possible with a camera, sensor, or other forensic elements that may be left behind as a result of a crime having been committed (Liu, 2021). Thus, eyewitness testimony is one of the essential human intelligence tasks of investigation, filling a gap between emotional perception and reconstructing facts that may have been perceived or occurred.

However, despite these benefits, the weaknesses of eyewitness testimony have become not only pertinent but also a growing list of empirical facts. Human memory is an inefficient means of replaying information because it is reconstructive and prone to distortion through time. For instance, the paper delivered at a conference in 2021 states that the intervening variables of eyewitness memory are the emotional state of the witness, the framing effect, and the environment, such that witness testimony is anything but fully trustworthy (Liu, 2021).

To elaborate on this point, recent experimental studies have demonstrated the significant impact that accuracy can be achieved through lineup procedures. Specifically, the accuracy of participants who took part in the rule-out lineup experimental task, in which participants are asked whether each face is or is not that of the target, showed an increase of 81-87%, and this was particularly evident for confidence no responses, especially in the absence of a suspect (Ayala et al., 2022). Equally importantly, there is an emerging trend in research focused on examining lineup size and its role in identification tasks, based on studies of detection and guessing. Menne et al. (2023) state that having a smaller lineup would lead to a larger rate of detection and fewer estimates of guessing than a larger lineup. This research demonstrates that even some issues related to experimental design can impact the reliability of identification based on means that are not human-related but experimental, indicating that further development of research is required concerning an investigation technique that complements more psychological approaches.

Apart from procedural issues, there is a serious concern about witness confidence and accuracy. Most jurors will assume that a very confident witness is necessarily an inaccurate one. However, research has repeatedly shown that one can become increasingly confident as they are questioned or reinforced, and can remain accurate or become less accurate (Helm, 2021). There is no correlation between appearance and actual accuracy; as such, the role of law practitioners becomes one of avoiding the mistake of confusing confidence with accuracy and focusing on facts that support or refute what a witness says or has asserted.

Given these significant issues, what can be said about the effects of the legal system on eyewitness testimony and identification procedures, as verified through these legal procedures? First, eyewitness testimony is helpful, and it is only right that it is rarely used as primary testimony for a crime. Its utility lies in the corroboration through physical or forensic evidence available through these legal systems. Second, law enforcement bodies need to incorporate more valid methods of lineup tests verified through research, such as improved lineup procedures, such as rule-out methods, interactive digital, and smaller effective sizes. Third, trial jurors and legal attorneys need education about human memory and its restructuring and limiting factors, which reduce the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.

In conclusion, although eyewitness testimony is an effective tool in the courtroom, its reliability is significantly affected by the imperfections of human memory and perception. According to research findings by psychologists, stress, suggestion, and improper identification processes are among the factors that may lead to severe distortion of recollections. Witnesses may assist a case, but they must not act as the sole reason to convict someone. Lastly, continuous education, improved lineup practice, and sensitivity to the boundaries of human discernment are significant to maintaining and rendering complete justice.