Shockingly eye witness cannot be considered as a solid evidence! Daily Drag
VPoints 647
Supporters 34
Vent 115

In every crime thriller movies we watch the chilling scene where the eyewitness points out the real perpetrator and that probably becomes the climax of the movies because we believe there is nothing more true than an eyewitness but the forensic psychology break downs this belief and says that eye witness testimonies cannot be trusted as we do. The assumption that eye witness testimonies are like video camera recordings is false assumption because human memory is very easily changed and influenced by many factors according to each case. We think that shocking events and occurrences makes the memory more detailed but the truth is that such terrifying situations actually inhibit memory formation and the memory also tends to evolve with the extra details that are collected from outside information. A factor that tampers with the testimony which really surprised me is that the race and class of the eyewitness and the perpetrator influences the perception that a certain person as guilty which once thought is very possible because if a slum boy was present in a crime spot the eyewitness will most likely will assume that the boy has some relation to the event. After the discovery of the DNA system it was proved that many people who were found guilty using eye witness testimonies were actually innocent people, which is really shocking. The main reason for this widely accepted myth that eye witness is the most trustable evidence is that in many forms of literature it said to be so, not only that, we humans overestimate our memories which in reality is influenced by many factors and can evolve already existing memory without we ourselves knowing and it usually happens unconsciously. This is something very shocking to me and will be to many of you out there but this a proven truth.

-30 Characters

What's your mood

Auto detect mood

Talk Freely

Mood Board