Despite the dwindling importance of details in our everyday existence, distressing incidents such as abduction, homicide, altercation, or sexual assault possess the potential to revolutionize everything. These encounters leave us mentally drained and elicit physiological reactions like heightened heart rate and enhanced blood circulation towards vital organs as we psychologically gear up for a fight-or-flight reaction. Jennifer Thompson’s account serves as a prime example of this phenomenon when she bravely faced her rapist with an unwavering determination to survive rather than become another casualty of murder. In her quest for evidence, Jennifer dedicated herself to memorizing every unique facial feature or distinguishing mark on her assailant.
The eye witness wanted to ensure she remembered all the details of what she witnessed and heard during the attack. However, various factors like unconscious transference, weapon focus, cross race bias, and the way she was questioned can influence how memories are recalled. These factors significantly affected Ronald Cotton’s trial, resulting in his wrongful conviction and an 11-year-long imprisonment.
Contrary to popular belief, our memories can be altered or changed. This is evident in the case of Jennifer Thompson, who initially believed Ronald Cotton was her assailant. She confidently identified him in a photo line up and described him to a Forensic Sketch artist. Furthermore, she once again identified him in a line up. Throughout these events, the officers involved continuously reassured Jennifer of her accuracy.
Jennifer’s confidence in her choice of partner increased, but it turned out to be a mistake. Previous research by Douglass et al. (2010) showed that witnesses who received confirmation after identification tended to believe they had paid closer attention, had a better view, were more skilled at identifying strangers, and felt more confident during the identification process (p. 287).
The detectives’ feedback distorted Jennifer’s second and third identification of Ronald Cotton as her rapist, despite the fact that the second victim involved in the case was unable to identify him. Unbeknownst to them, the detectives believed they had captured the perpetrator responsible for the town’s rapes and inadvertently contributed to the wrongful imprisonment of an innocent man. Previous studies also suggest that accurate witnesses can be influenced by confirming feedback effects when asked about their certainty and other reports after a one-week delay (Quinlivan et al., 2012, p. 212). Jennifer Thompson’s lineup occurred exactly 11 days after her assault, potentially leading to unconscious transference and the photo identification’s confirming feedback may have boosted her confidence in identifying the assailant during the lineup. Despite previous reassurances from a detective, Jennifer remained fearful that something would happen to her.
Jennifer expressed that she was aware that he knew her name, and she felt a strong urge not to mess things up if he were present (Thompson, p. 36). Both Jennifer and everyone involved in the case demonstrated determination. However, due to the influence of a sketch she had seen of her attacker, Jennifer’s memory became distorted. Although there were similarities between her recollection and that of Cotton, there were also noticeable differences. The sketch and the photo lineup caused unintentional transference, resulting in a new memory that replaced her original memory of the attacker. Consequently, Jennifer felt compelled to choose the man who resembled the image in her mind.
Previous studies have cautioned against using a memory affected by unconscious transference as evidence. These studies found that “subjects were almost three times as likely to misidentify the bystander compared to control subjects, with many of them believing the assailant and the bystander were the same person seen in different locations” (Ross et. al., 1994, p. 927). Furthermore, Jennifer Thompson’s decision on that day may have also been influenced by the cross-race effect.
Racism is a pervasive force in our lives, whether we acknowledge it or not. Throughout history, our nation has grappled with racism and its ongoing impact on daily life. Jennifer Thompson’s personal experience serves as a powerful example of this reality – as a white woman, she was sexually assaulted and threatened by an African American man carrying a knife. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to unfairly imprison individuals from different racial backgrounds compared to those who share our own race. This inclination to label and distinguish people based on their race is evident in how we perceive Chinese individuals with slanted eyes and African Americans with specific nose shapes and skin tones.
Within society, we often assign stereotypes to different racial groups. These stereotypes lead us to label African Americans as having higher crime rates and being associated with gangs, while Caucasians are described as kind, nonviolent individuals less likely to engage in criminal activity. Thus, when a white woman identified her attacker as an African-American man, there was an immediate pursuit of justice for Jennifer Thompson. The distinctive facial features shared by many African-Americans make them more memorable to others.
According to Costanzo & Krauss (2012, p. 146), individuals have a tendency to give more attention to the physical attributes of their own race and less attention to those of other races, including facial features, skin color, and hair texture. In a previous study conducted by Scheck, Neufeld, and Dwyer (2000), it was found that out of 77 cases where eyewitnesses made mistaken identifications, 35% involved white victim-witnesses incorrectly identifying black suspects. Comparatively, only 28% involved white victims misidentifying white suspects. This highlights the impact of racism within the legal system.
The initial investigation and subsequent court proceedings are influenced by stereotypes, impacting the jurors who make final decisions. This cross-race effect not only affects the victim but also all individuals involved in the case. According to previous research conducted by Abshire & Bornstein (2003), white eyewitnesses are more likely to be considered credible compared to black eyewitnesses. The cross-race effect also played a role in swaying jurors’ decisions, with “51. % of the White mock jurors rendering a guilty verdict, versus 27. 7% of the Black mock jurors” (Abshire & Bornstein, 2003). Ronald Cotton faced a seemingly hopeless situation as he had a key witness who was adamant about identifying him as the perpetrator. Despite no scientific evidence such as DNA linking him to the crime, Ronald Cotton’s fate relied solely on his alleged victim’s testimony which led to his conviction and prison sentence. This marked the beginning of his ongoing pursuit of an appeal case and DNA testing.
During the trial, there was a dearth of scientific evidence discovered on Jennifer Thompson or at the crime scene, including fingerprints, pubic hair, or skin. This raises the question of how a conviction can be secured without such evidence. In these instances, jurors often depend on eyewitness testimony to convict the accused attacker even when tangible proof is absent. It is widely believed that our recollection cannot be distorted or altered and that unforgettable events like these are not easily forgotten. Nevertheless, there are indeed methods by which our memory can be influenced.
Previous research has shown that our memories and minds are not as dependable as we usually think. This has important implications, especially in the legal system where jurors often have excessive faith in media representations of forensic science, like shows such as CSI: Miami. However, depending solely on eyewitness testimonies is insufficient given the potential ramifications involved since it would be unfair to convict an innocent person for a crime they didn’t commit. It’s worth noting that around 75% of convictions have been overturned due to advancements in DNA science, exemplified by Ronald Cotton’s case.
The DNA from the case was well-preserved and it was compared to the DNA of Ronald Cotton and the real assailant, Poole. A positive match was found between Poole and the DNA found at the crime scene. If there had been advancements in research on eyewitness testimony and DNA testing, Ronald Cotton would not have lost 11 years of his life. While rape victims experience post-traumatic stress which motivates them to identify their assailant, investigators should bear the responsibility of ensuring they possess enough evidence to convict the accused rapist rather than solely relying on the victim’s recollection.
The text argues that DNA is a crucial and reliable evidence for jurors and investigators to base their judgments on due to its scientific foundation. It acknowledges that mistakes can happen, but DNA acts as a safety net. The case mentioned illustrates the importance of not relying solely on appearances, as significant flaws resulted in an innocent man losing 11 years of his life while the eyewitness experienced relentless remorse. Factors like the absence of DNA evidence, racial disparity between the victim and assailant (a black male), and the victim herself being a key piece of evidence all contributed to varying degrees in his conviction.
Scientific advancements in multiple fields, such as the use of Manson Criteria to address issues like eye witness wrongful identification, unconscious transference, and cross racial bias, along with implementing blind lineup administrators, are vital in preventing the wrongful imprisonment of innocent individuals. These ongoing developments will additionally improve the effectiveness of the legal system. Thanks to our generation’s scientific knowledge, we now have a deeper comprehension of the legal system and its components that can assist in identifying the guilty while exonerating the innocent.
References
Abshire, J. & Bornstein, B. H. (2003). Juror sensitivity to the cross-race effect. Law and Human Behavior, 27(5), 471-480.
Costanzo, M. & Krauss, D. (2012). Forensic and legal psychology. Psychological Science Applied to Law.
Douglass, A. B., Neuschatz, J. S., Imrich, J., & Wilkinson, M. (2009). Does post identification feedback affect evaluations of eyewitness testimony and identification procedures? Law and Human Behavior, 34, 282-294.
Jackiw, L.B., Arbuthnott,K.D., Pfeifer,J.E., Marcon,J.L.& Meissner,C.A.(2008). Examining the cross-race effect in lineup identification using Caucasians and first nations samples.
The text cites the following publications along with their authors and issue numbers:
– Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 40(1), 52-57. Authors: Kramer, T. H., Buckhout, R., & Eugenio, P. (1990).
– Law and Human Behavior, 14(2), 167-184. Authors: Palmer, M. A., Brewer, N., & Weber, N. (2010).
– Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 16(4), 387-398.
– Law and Human Behavior, 36, 206-214. Authors: Quinlivan, D. S., Neuschatz, J. S., Douglass, A. B., Wells G.L., & Wetmore S.A.(2011).
Ross, D. F., Ceci, S. J., Dunning, D., & Togila, M. P. (1994). Unconscious transference and mistaken identity: When a witness misidentifies a familiar but innocent person. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 918-930.
Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence. New York: Random House.
Thompson-Cannino. J., Cotton, R. & Toreno. E. (2009). Picking Cotton: Our memoir of injustice and redemption.New York: St.Martin’s Press, 2009.
Wells,G.L.& Olson,E.A.(2001 ). The other race effect in eyewitness identification.Psychology , Public Policy and Law ,7(1 ),230 -246 .
