In this article of the NY Times, it talks about eyewitness id’s, and how most of the time they are wrong. These is actually interesting because this interferes with statistics. Of course we have the statistics of what percent are wrong, but it makes you think why would you call something in if you are lying. I think this is what they are trying to do in the supreme court now. Can those who lie of eyewitness be convicted for lying and providing wrong information? Then it brings up the issue of maybe it was just an honest mistake. How will the court know what an honest mistake is, or whether maybe you are trying to cover up someone or something. The supreme court will visit this issue after 34 years where it has not been brought up. I think this also links to women and their statement. Even though the article does not mention anything about women and their statements, but after all of our readings, we know that we can sound convincing, and if we convince the jury of something that we did not see, then someone innocent might get to go to jail. Eyewitness “research shows that juries tend to ‘over believe’ eyewitness testimony.” In the long run a lot of innocent people might be wrongfully convicted because of this.
-Armenis P.
