In Front of Our Eyes...

“What happens in front of our eyes is transformed inside the head, and is refined, revisited, restored, and embellished…”

This is the claim Barry Scheck makes when criticizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Scheck insists that eyewitnesses are the main source of false convictions in the American justice system. His article, “Seeing Things,” reports that shaky eyewitness accounts have proven to be more of a hindrance in convicting criminals than an aid. Because eyewitness accounts are more often than not emotionally powerful, they usually stick out in the juror’s mind. Scheck argues that this type of emotional trigger within the juror is not always a good thing, considering that what one remembers about a certain event may be very limited. Stuart Taylor takes the same position in his article “Innocents in Prison.” Taylor’s article reports that 205 DNA exonerations have been recorded since 1989, clearly showing that false convictions are a reality in courts across the country. Taylor argues that in terms of eyewitness identification, police are often pointing out the potential suspect to the eyewitness. Because of our limited capacity to remember physical attributes and details, in addition to what Taylor calls improper police procedure, there is no doubt that false convictions are taking place.

I agree with Taylor that in some cases, police involvement in eyewitness testimony has led to false convictions. I also agree with Scheck that while eyewitnesses may be the most memorable, they are often not the most reliable. Taylor suggests in his article that certain procedures should be taken in order to ensure that eyewitness testimony is honest and fair. I would suggest the same thing. When witnesses are identifying potential suspects, they should not have someone pointing someone out to them. They should be given time to make the decision on their own with no outside influence. I agree with Taylor that some of these simple procedures are being overlooked and that the criminal justice system may at times manipulate evidence. I also feel that if new DNA evidence is available after conviction, the defendant should be able to appeal. If these types of actions were taken, the amount of innocents in jail would be significantly reduced. Although I agree with Taylor that things could be improved, I feel 2-3% is an acceptable error rate. No system can be perfect and even with correct procedures it is still possible for the innocent to be convicted. I would be more interested to know just how many guilty parties walk free. Nevertheless, the system, just as us, cannot always be 100% accurate when pointing out the guilty.