A comparative study of judges' attitudes towards the impact of cognitive psychology aspects on witness testimony

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

Abstract

Referring to the testimony of witnesses as one of the proofs is not a new phenomenon in legal systems, so that the testimony of eyewitnesses is often considered the only evidence or one of the main evidences in criminal cases to be a reason that is more or less associated with errors or mistakes. It should be kept in mind that false testimonies can have a negative impact on investigations and judicial proceedings. A topic that numerous psychological researches have confirmed the possibility of its realization. The proof of this issue is the issuing of wrongful convictions that were later canceled. Therefore, judges should be aware of the factors that can challenge such an argument. Nevertheless, to what extent is the knowledge of judges in this field? In this survey, the awareness of Iranian judges regarding the indicators related to the cognitive psychological aspect of witness testimony was examined and then a comparison was made with the views of their counterparts in the United States and Norway. The present research method is descriptive-analytical. The research community included 72 judges of Mashhad prosecutor's office and courts in 1400. The data collection method was using a researcher-made questionnaire with 33 questions that evaluated four indicators of memory, nervous stress, unconscious transference, and expectations. Data analysis was done using SPSS 24 version. Finally, the results obtained from this research have been compared with the results of the survey conducted in the countries of America and Norway. The average scores obtained from this research showed that Iranian judges' awareness of the impact of the expectations component (3.78) in witness testimony was higher among the respondents than other components. After that, the components of unconscious transfer (3.66), memory (3.13) and stress (3.02) are placed. In general, the views of Iranian judges were at a lower level than Norwegian and American judges.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Albright, T. (2017). Why eyewitnesses fail. PNAS, 114(30), 7758–7764.
Areh , I., & Umek , P. (2004). Personal Characteristics and Validity of Eyewitness Testimony. Policing in central and eastern Europe, 1-5.
Bjorndal, L. D., McGill, L., Magnussen, S., Richardson, S., Saraiva, R., Stadel, M., & Brennen, T. (2021). Norwegian judges’ knowledge of factors affecting eyewitness testimony: a 12-year follow-up. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 28(5), 665–682.
Carey Marr، Henry Otgaar، Melanie Sauerland، Conny Quaedflieg,  Lorraine Hope. (2021). The effects of stress on eyewitness memory: A survey of memory experts and laypeople. Memory & Cognition، 49، 401-421.
clecky, h. (1976). the mask of sanity. new york: mosby.
Durrant, R. (2018). An Introduction to Criminal Psychology (Second edition ed.). london: Routledge.
Earles, J., Kersten, A., Curtay, E., & Perle, J. (2008). That’s the Man Who Did It, or Was It a Woman? Actor Similarity and Binding Errors in Event Memory. Psychon Bull Rev, 15(6), 1185–1189.
Fessinger, M., Bornstein, b., neuschatz, j., deloach, d., hillgartner, m., wetmore, s., & bradfield douglass, a. (2020). Informants v. Innocents: Informant Testimony and its Contribution to Wrongful Convictions. Cap. U. L. ReV, 48(149), 149188.
Głomb, K. (2021). How to improve eyewitness testimony research: theoretical and methodological concerns about experiments on the impact of emotions on memory performance. Psychological Research, 1-12.
Lavis , T., & Brewer , N. (2017). Effects of a Proven Error on Evaluations of Witness Testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 41(3), 314-323.
Loftus, E. (1994). Eyewitness Testimony. usa: H arvard U niversity Press.
Metcalfe, J., Brezler, J., McNamara, J., Malett, G., & Vuorre, M. (2018). Memory, stress, and the hippocampal hypothesis: Firefighters' recollections of the fireground. wily, 1-9.
Magnussen, S., Wise, R., Raja, A., Safer, M., Pawlenko, N., & Stridbeck, U. (2008). What judges know about eyewitness testimony: A comparison of Norwegian and US judges. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14(3), 177-188.
Ross, D. F., Read, D., & Toglia, M. (1994). Adult eyewitness testimony : current trends and developments. Cambridge University Press : United States of America.
Sauerland, M., Raymaekers, L., Otgaar, H., Memon, A., Waltjen, T., Nivo, M., et al. (2016). Stress, stress-induced cortisol responses, and eyewitness identification performance. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 34, 580–594.
Stanny, C., & Johnson, T. (2000). Effects of Stress Induced by a Simulated Shooting on Recall by Police and Citizen Witnesses. The American Journal of Psychology, 113(3), 359-386.
Wells, G. (1984). The Psychology of Lineup Identifications. applied social psychology, 14(2), 89-103.
Wise , R., & Safer , M. (2012). A Method for Analyzing the Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony in A Method for Analyzing the Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony in Criminal Cases. Court Review, 48, 22-34.
Journal of Comparative Law
Volume 6, Issue 2 - Serial Number 10
October 2022
Pages 209-226

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 21 April 2022
  • Revise Date: 10 July 2022
  • Accept Date: 14 August 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics