As a Known Memory
by Matt B. on February 6, 2010
This Scientific American piece describes new research that reveals the dangers of relying uncritically on eyewitness testimony in court. The piece opens with a summary of the case of Kirk Bloodsworth, who was sentenced to death for the 1984 rape and murder of a young girl largely on the basis of five eyewitness’ testimony. DNA evidence exonerated him eight years later. Unfortunately, the pitfalls that plagued the Bloodsworth trial aren’t unique to his circumstances – they’re systemic.
The article also highlights the Innocence Project’s efforts to introduce science-based guidelines for eyewitness testimony into our judicial system – a set of best practices that acknowledges the fickleness of memory and the all-too-common opportunities for cognitive error and bias to corrupt the process.
The article’s most unnerving passage: “Many researchers have created false memories in normal individuals; what is more, many of the subjects are certain that the memories are real. In one well-known study, [Elizabeth] Loftus and her colleague Jacqueline Pickrell gave subjects written accounts of four events, three of which they had actually experienced. The fourth story was fiction; it centered on the subject being lost in a mall or another public place when he or she was between four and six years old. A relative provided realistic details for the false story, such as a description of the mall at which the subject’s parents shopped. After reading each story, subjects were asked to write down what else they remembered about the incident or to indicate that they did not remember it at all. Remarkably about one third of the subjects reported partially or fully remembering the false event. In two follow-up interviews, 25 percent still claimed that they remembered the untrue story, a figure consistent with the findings of similar studies.”
As a Known Memory
by Matt B. on February 6, 2010
This Scientific American piece describes new research that reveals the dangers of relying uncritically on eyewitness testimony in court. The piece opens with a summary of the case of Kirk Bloodsworth, who was sentenced to death for the 1984 rape and murder of a young girl largely on the basis of five eyewitness’ testimony. DNA evidence exonerated him eight years later. Unfortunately, the pitfalls that plagued the Bloodsworth trial aren’t unique to his circumstances – they’re systemic.
The article also highlights the Innocence Project’s efforts to introduce science-based guidelines for eyewitness testimony into our judicial system – a set of best practices that acknowledges the fickleness of memory and the all-too-common opportunities for cognitive error and bias to corrupt the process.
The article’s most unnerving passage: “Many researchers have created false memories in normal individuals; what is more, many of the subjects are certain that the memories are real. In one well-known study, [Elizabeth] Loftus and her colleague Jacqueline Pickrell gave subjects written accounts of four events, three of which they had actually experienced. The fourth story was fiction; it centered on the subject being lost in a mall or another public place when he or she was between four and six years old. A relative provided realistic details for the false story, such as a description of the mall at which the subject’s parents shopped. After reading each story, subjects were asked to write down what else they remembered about the incident or to indicate that they did not remember it at all. Remarkably about one third of the subjects reported partially or fully remembering the false event. In two follow-up interviews, 25 percent still claimed that they remembered the untrue story, a figure consistent with the findings of similar studies.”