“Eyewitness accounts are always unreliable” (24)

• Intro

  • eyewitness testimony (EWT) plays crucial role in criminal justice , but its reliability has been heavily debated

  • while research highlights many limitations of EWT, other evidence suggests it can be accurate under the right conditions
• Para 1: unreliable - post-event info distorts memory

  • P: eyewitness accounts are often distorted by post-event information, reducing reliability.

  • E: loftus and palmer (1974) demonstrated that using different verbs (“smashed” vs ”hit”) affected participants’ speed estimates of a car crash. similarly, loftus and Zanni (1975) found participants were more likely to report a broken headlight when asked using the definite article “the,” showing subtle word change can alter memory

  • E: these studies reveal how fragile memory is to external influences, especially when questioning is suggestive. however, conducted in artificial settings Lacking emotional engagement, may not reflect real-life crimes

  • L: nevertheless, such findings highlight risk of memory contamination, suggesting eyewitness accounts can be unreliable when exposed to misleading information
• Para 2: reliable - emotive experience enhance memory

  • P: some argue emotional arousal during a crime can enhance memory accuracy rather than impair it

  • E: cahill and mcgaugh (1995) found adrenaline, released during emotional events, strengthens long-term memory storage. This supports the idea of “flashbulb memories”, where significant events remembered vividly and accurately

  • E: while intense trauma may cause repression or distortion, not universally true. Real life studies, like Yuille and Cutshall‘s research on shooting, found witnesses remained highly accurate months later, despite being exposed to misleading questions

  • L: challenges claim that emotional crimes inherently reduce recall accuracy and suggests eyewitness accounts can be highly reliable in real-world settings
• Para 3: reliable - children

  • P: while traditionally seen as unreliable, research suggests children can provide accurate eyewitness testimony

  • E: davies et al (1989) found children aged 6-11 generally give accurate and honest testimony, with minimal influence from suggestion. moreover, Anastasi and Rhodes (2006) found aged-matched recognition more accurate, suggesting prior research using adult targets may have underestimated children’s abilities

  • E: although pozzulo and lindsay (1998) showed children under 13 are more likely to give false positives in target-absent lineups, the issue may lie More with line-up procedures than with children’s memory per se

  • L: thus, while caution needed, child eyewitnesses not inherently unreliable and can be credible when appropriate safeguards are in place
• Para 4: reliable - memory reconstructive but not always inaccurate

  • P: although memory is reconstructive and schema-driven, does not automatically mean it’s inaccurate

  • E: yarmey (1993) demonstrated how schemas influence perception of criminals, but in many crimes, the perpetrator is known to the witness, removing need for schema-based assumptions. RapeCrisis reports 90% of rapists known to their victims, suggesting their identification is based on genuine recognition.

  • E: moreover, in real life incidents, eyewitness accuracy shown to persist over time + resist suggestion, as seen in Yuille and Cutshall’s study. These findings contrast with lab-based results, which often exaggerate EWT flaws due to artificiality

  • L: therefore, while memory can be influenced by schemas, eyewitness accounts in naturalistic settings remain accurate + valuable often
• Conclusion

  • eyewitnesses not incapable of recalling accurate information

  • while memory can be distorted by post-event info, emotional trauma, and misleading questioning, research consistently shows under certain conditions - especially when crime is real, emotionally significant, or involves known individuals - eyewitnesses can be highly reliable

  • therefore, testimony should not be dismissed entirely and used cautiously alongside other evidence, ensuring procedures minimise potential errors