Eyewitness memory in the court of law can be a very controversial topic. Although viewed as an essential in court we see that in research memory can be something that in a situation of high stakes can fail us. This is viewed in numerous cases with false convictions. So a question arises should we have eyewitnesses be a part of cases in court or should we get rid of eyewitnesses because of what we know about memory.
I personally believe that we should let eyewitness testimonies count because that is a very strong factor in a case. For example when one is hit in the head from behind such as the case we saw in class involving Ryan. Eyewitnesses is truly all we have, without them we don’t really have anything except of course dna or anything
I personally believe that we should let eyewitness testimonies count because that is a very strong factor in a case. For example when one is hit in the head from behind such as the case we saw in class involving Ryan. Eyewitnesses is truly all we have, without them we don’t really have anything except of course dna or anything