Memory Issues
Watch this video and follow the instructions given:
A NY Times Article on the same subject: The Certainty of Memory Has Its Day in Court
I also read this article this am about memory and recall:
Read article here: Shockingly Simple: Faulty memory falsely imprisons innocent man for 30 years
These memory studies also show that memory recall can somewhat diminish it's accuracy to detail in as little as 10 minutes after seeing or hearing something. This memory issue becomes relevant to not only eye witnesses, but perhaps more importantly to those investigating crimes. All too many times, investigators interview witnesses, victims and suspects and take written notes that highlight key words to remember when writing an narrative report. The problem lies with accurate recall when writing that narrative some half hour or even longer after the interview and the filling in of the "gray area of memory" can significantly change the context of the event or having a key word like "did or didn't" make the difference of an investigator's sworn recollection. And this happens much too often. By using audio or video recordings for interviews, the dependency on memory is greatly reduced and the exact tone and context of the interview is preserved as very reliable evidence. How simple is this task especially since most investigators are issued recorders and even more so since almost every person carries a smart phone capable of both audio and video recording. There virtually is no excuse and doing so protects all parties involved in the process. However here in lies the problem. Some agencies have an unwritten "do not record" policy. Who does this policy protect? Obviously those who investigate and prosecute. Shaky memory and recall can create enough gray area and room for assumption especially when there is a lack of substantial evidence making a clear cut case. Think I'm making this stuff up? Ask all this poor men that have spent an average of 13-17 years in prison if their interview was recorded, if it was coerced without a record of the interview, if they confessed under duress or signed a written statement they didn't make. There is so much record of misconduct in these cases and in the news. We have the technology to avoid many of these issues, we should demand its use and put memory to the task of what they were supposed to remember when they promised to uphold justice and do the right things!
A NY Times Article on the same subject: The Certainty of Memory Has Its Day in Court
I also read this article this am about memory and recall:
Read article here: Shockingly Simple: Faulty memory falsely imprisons innocent man for 30 years
These memory studies also show that memory recall can somewhat diminish it's accuracy to detail in as little as 10 minutes after seeing or hearing something. This memory issue becomes relevant to not only eye witnesses, but perhaps more importantly to those investigating crimes. All too many times, investigators interview witnesses, victims and suspects and take written notes that highlight key words to remember when writing an narrative report. The problem lies with accurate recall when writing that narrative some half hour or even longer after the interview and the filling in of the "gray area of memory" can significantly change the context of the event or having a key word like "did or didn't" make the difference of an investigator's sworn recollection. And this happens much too often. By using audio or video recordings for interviews, the dependency on memory is greatly reduced and the exact tone and context of the interview is preserved as very reliable evidence. How simple is this task especially since most investigators are issued recorders and even more so since almost every person carries a smart phone capable of both audio and video recording. There virtually is no excuse and doing so protects all parties involved in the process. However here in lies the problem. Some agencies have an unwritten "do not record" policy. Who does this policy protect? Obviously those who investigate and prosecute. Shaky memory and recall can create enough gray area and room for assumption especially when there is a lack of substantial evidence making a clear cut case. Think I'm making this stuff up? Ask all this poor men that have spent an average of 13-17 years in prison if their interview was recorded, if it was coerced without a record of the interview, if they confessed under duress or signed a written statement they didn't make. There is so much record of misconduct in these cases and in the news. We have the technology to avoid many of these issues, we should demand its use and put memory to the task of what they were supposed to remember when they promised to uphold justice and do the right things!
Comments
Post a Comment