Role of Memory Evidence in Judicial Decisions
The present debate relates to the inclusion of advanced cognitive findings, including evidence from neuroimaging studies in the judicial system. In fact, from previous cases, it is apparent that the justice system has already incorporated memory studies in courtrooms. Some attorneys are on record to have used memory evidence to mitigate the accountability of offenders that commit crimes, arguing to the idea that a lousy brain propelled a defendant to commit a crime. An excellent example is a Florida murder case where brain images of the offender were used in the court as evidence. The jurors supported a life sentence short of parole as opposed to a death penalty. Consequently, neuroscience evidence associated with a memory coupled with findings from cognitive psychology could be indispensable in educating jurors along with other players in the justice system about the nature of memory.
The consistent lack of physical evidence in most cases means that forensic investigators depend on children’s memory, police reports, and interviews as evidence in some cases. In cases of sexual abuse, for instance, researchers uphold that the idea that most cases in the legal system incorporate accurate claims of offenses has led to significant concerns on the reliability of children’s testimony. At that time, the prosecutors argued that children could not lie about sexual abuse. On the flip side, the defense contended that the reports and claims made about such crimes were due to successive and repeated interviewing by the children’s parents, social workers, and the police. Today, there is evidence suggesting that children could be provocative, and reliance on their memory evidence depends on the questioning approach and type of questions asked. In line with these challenges, memory development researchers established a particular interest in interviewing tactics applied to elicit children’s memory. Experimental results from these studies indicate that suggestibility of children and techniques of forensic interview affects children’s memory evidence.
A robust body of cognitive research consistently reveals a lot of great troubling facts relating to memory and human perception that makes eyewitness memory doubtful. In most cases, courts seek expert testimony in HSA cases that are important in interpreting the triers of fact memory evidence that has been heard. In the case of Gestmin v. Credit Suisse, for instance, the juror dealt directly with the aspect of human memory, explicitly referring to the recollection of the evidence. The juror established that an apparent difficulty affects claims and oral evidence founded on the recollection of activities that occurred several years is the unreliability of human memory. He went ahead to indicate that human memory is fallible. Still, the legal system has not observed lessons from psychological research onto the unreliability of eyewitness due to the nature of memory. As such, the juror cited that in everyday life, it is impossible to tell the degree of the unreliability of the memory. The above case represents one of the essential incidences of application of memory research to courtroom evidence. All said such decisions show that cognitive research in memory has made significant inroads into some of the courtroom hearings. Nonetheless, there is substantial work left to do in a bid to ensure that memory experts appear in judicial trials where such evidence is essential for the triers of fact to determine the appropriate weight to give evidence of memory when determining innocence or guilt.
Conclusion
The paper has reviewed a variety of areas in the research findings of neuroscience and cognitive evidence pertinent to memory and necessary application in the judicial system. However, this review is not exhaustive because there are many incidences when jurors continue to rely on eyewitness memories to draw out whether a crime occurred. However, this paper shows that there is significant progress in the application of memory evidence in the judicial system despite the knowledge gaps in the field. The good news is that the latest trials have banked on memory evidence to determine the truth or false information presented in courts. The hallmark literature that is reviewed, as well as the case studies, stimulate considerable research that will augment the understanding of memory evidence in the judicial system context. Overall, there is hope that advanced cognitive research on memory will establish a strong bond with the court system and become a better approach to cross-examining eyewitnesses.