It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: raymundoko
Do you actually think ASU is mostly rich white kids?
The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony
a talk by
Barbara Tversky, Professor of Psychology
George Fisher, Professor of Law
Stanford Law School, April 5, 1999. In a presentation sponsored by the Stanford Journal of Legal Studies, George Fisher placed Barbara Tversky’s research on memory fallibility into the context of police investigations and jury verdicts, discussing the relevance of such research to our system of justice.
The bedrock of the American judicial process is the honesty of witnesses in trial. Eyewitness testimony can make a deep impression on a jury, which is often exclusively assigned the role of sorting out credibility issues and making judgments about the truth of witness statements.1 Perjury is a crime, because lying under oath can subvert the integrity of a trial and the legitimacy of the judicial system. However, perjury is defined as knowingly making a false statement—merely misremembering is not a crime.2 Moreover, the jury makes its determinations of witness credibility and veracity in secret, without revealing the reason for its final judgement.3 Recognizing the fallibility of witness memories, then, is especially important to participants in the judicial process, since many trials revolve around factual determinations of whom to believe. Rarely will a factual question result in a successful appeal—effectively giving many parties only one chance at justice. Arriving at a just result and a correct determination of truth is difficult enough without the added possibility that witnesses themselves may not be aware of inaccuracies in their testimony.
Eyewitness testimony is a legal term. It refers to an account given by people of an event they have witnessed.
For example they may be required to give a description at a trial of a robbery or a road accident someone has seen. This includes identification of perpetrators, details of the crime scene etc.
Eyewitness testimony is an important area of research in cognitive psychology and human memory.
Juries tend to pay close attention to eyewitness testimony and generally find it a reliable source of information. However, research into this area has found that eyewitness testimony can be affected by many psychological factors:
Anxiety / Stress
Leading Questions (Loftus and Palmer, 1974)
Yeah it takes guidance. Usually by adults with values that teach responsibility instead of entitlement, hate and blame.
Good values beat a bad community almost every time.
originally posted by: auroraaus
a reply to: howmuch4another
But do you at least agree that there is more that communities can do to foster resilience and 'good' values?
All I am hearing here is an "us" vs "them"
originally posted by: ripcontrol
a reply to: Donkey_Dean
In the end eye witness testimony is not very reliable
As far as a system that disparages smart kids. That's not what I see. I see all kinds of praise,awards and recognition for strong academics. Whether ridicule by their peers has any impact goes back to the character and self confidence instilled in the home. Their are also choices to bad suburban schools even for the poor if parents don't like the product.
originally posted by: ripcontrol
Their is a distinct difference between smart kids and and academics
Smart kids are smart
Academics are well, horsework for the plebes they have done
The academics are rewarded
Being smart sets you as different
originally posted by: spacedog1973
originally posted by: truckdriver42
a reply to: theNLBS
If there is institutionalized racism then it is more self imposed than anything the rest of society is doing.
You've basically shown your lack of understanding of the concept of institutionalised racism in the first sentence.