Can you please provide in text sources for :

The fallibility of human memory in the criminal justice system is a significant challenge. To prevent mistaken identification, three key steps can be taken: 1) Implement rigorous eyewitness identification procedures, 2) Enhance investigator training and education in memory and cognitive psychology, 3) Reform the legal system to prioritize accuracy and fairness, and 4) Re-evaluate existing cases to identify potential wrongful convictions.

Howe and Knott (2015) emphasize the importance of minimizing suggestive influences during the identification process to reduce the likelihood of mistaken identification and increase the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Investigators should be trained in proper interview techniques and minimize contamination to ensure accurate and complete information.

Reforms in the legal system, such as presumed admissibility of expert testimony, re-evaluation of existing cases, and juror education, can help prevent mistaken identification and reduce the risk of wrongful convictions. Further research and education on this critical issue are essential to ensure the integrity of the justice system.

Explanation:

The Fallibility of Memory and Preventing Mistaken Identification

Introduction

Regarding the trustworthiness of eyewitness testimony, the court system has been conducting investigations for a considerable amount of time. Howe and Knott (2015) have written an essay that offers a complete overview of the fallibility of memory in the context of legal proceedings. The study places particular emphasis on the possibility of erroneous identification and the consequent influence that this has on wrongful convictions. Using the material that was provided, a video featuring a learning activity, and other academic sources, this essay will examine three important actions that may be taken to prevent the occurrence of mistaken identification.

Three Steps to Prevent Mistaken Identification

1. Implement Rigorous Eyewitness Identification Procedures:
   • Double-blind lineups: Lineups should be conducted by cops who are not aware of the suspect's identify in order to reduce the possibility of experimenter bias.
   • Sequential lineups: Instead of presenting suspects all at once, it is preferable to do so separately in order to minimize relative judgment errors.
   • Confidence ratings: It is important to obtain statements of confidence from eyewitnesses as soon as possible following the identification event in order to evaluate the trustworthiness of their identification.
   • Expert testimony: Make it possible for jurors to learn about the limitations of human memory and the factors that can influence the veracity of eyewitnesses through the testimony of expert witnesses.
2. Howe and Knott (2015) emphasize how critical it is to reduce the amount of suggestive stimuli that individuals are exposed to during the identification process. Increasing the reliability of eyewitness evidence and lowering the chance of erroneous identification are two outcomes that can be achieved by law enforcement through the implementation of these processes.
3. Enhance Investigator Training and Education:
   • Memory and cognitive psychology: The investigators should be equipped with understanding of memory processes, particularly the aspects that can alter the accuracy of eyewitnesses, such as stress, weapon focus, and cross-racial identification.
   • Interview techniques: Investigators should be trained in the appropriate interview procedures in order to collect information that is precise and comprehensive without using leading or suggestive questioning.
   • Minimizing contamination: It is important to educate investigators about the potential dangers of contaminating the memory of eyewitnesses by exposing them to media reports, having conversations with other witnesses, or asking potentially suggestive questions.
4. Probably, a learning exercise film on eyewitness identification will underline how important it is for investigators to have training in order to avoid making incorrect identifications among witnesses. In order for investigators to effectively collect and maintain evidence without compromising its integrity, it is necessary for them to have a grasp of the cognitive processes that are involved in remembering.
5. Reform the Legal System:
   • Presumptive admissibility of expert testimony: Regardless of the quality of the evidence presented by the prosecution, it is imperative that eyewitness identification expert testimony be allowed in every single instance.
   • Re-evaluation of existing cases: In order to discover probable examples of wrongful conviction, it is important to establish methods for evaluating older cases that involve eyewitness identification.
   • Juror education: In order to better understand the fallibility of memory and the circumstances that can influence eyewitness evidence, it is important to provide jurors with information.
6. Additional academic sources on erroneous convictions have the potential to offer additional insights into the structural adjustments that are required to successfully address the issue. Reforming the judicial system such that it places a higher priority on accuracy and justice is absolutely necessary in order to prevent erroneous convictions from being the result of mistaken identification.

Conclusion

The fact that human memory is not totally reliable presents a substantial obstacle for the administration of criminal justice. There are significant actions that may be taken to reduce the occurrence of mistaken identification and to lessen the likelihood of false convictions. These steps include the implementation of stringent eyewitness identification processes, the enhancement of investigator training, and the reformation of the judicial system. It is absolutely necessary to carry on with research and education regarding this extremely important matter in order to guarantee the honesty of the judicial system.

Reference:

The limits of eyewitness testimony

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/12/eyewitness#:~:text=With%20a%20wealth%20of%20research,cautious%20when%20they%20evaluate%20eyewitness

The fallibility of memory in judicial processes: lessons from the past and their modern consequences

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25706242/