so this is a freebie to get us started. No prompt or theme. post one academic comment about the video. Try relating your post to what we are learning about in AP psych. comment on two other post. check back for replies.
This video really blew my mind. It reminded me of the situation of objective 15 presentation we did in class. About the missing child and someone saw the sign and thought the other person was kidnapping the other kid.
It is interesting that you said objective 14. The video reminded me more of objective 19 and encoding failure, the kids remembered seeing the shooter even though they actually couldn't see the shooter.
i feel like objective 15 is more about information priming when someone sees something the latter leads them to another conclusion that may or may not be true in this case as i understand it the teenagers werent shown anything earlier to suggest a man fitting the man convicted characteristic was involved with the crime
This is an amazing yet scary video, to believe that an innocent person can be accused and sentenced from someone else's false memories. The whole idea is just hard to conceive even though it's true.
It is a truly tragic incident in which an innocent man is sentenced to life in prison because of created memories. It begs the question about whether all of the people put on trial with no evidence but eyewitness accounts are truly guilty or innocent.
It is scary, but at the same time disappointing. Why would a couple of teenagers put an innocent man in jail just because they thought he was the guy that shot the dad.
I can't agree more with Gabriel. It is scary to know that our mind can create a memory and falsely accuse someone. It makes you wonder how many innocent people are in jail.
i agree with you that it's scary that a reconstructed memory put an innocent person in prison, however, many people have been convicted the same way. it just sucks how the teenagers said there false memories due to the fact that they were under pressure. this still doesn't make it was the correct think to say/do though.
I'm sure the teenagers didn't purposely mean to falsely accuse the man by the misinformation effect (ob.23).. That's the whole thing about these constructed memories: people don't know they made 'em up! They just do not know. The pressure makes it easy to start saying things. The Central Park Five, anyone?
even with pressure they have to have been pressure in a certain direction there's no way that the boys just made up a discrption of a man that just so happened to match that of someone who lived a few blocks away
I think that now, more than ever, we need to have a much better understanding of the way our minds work and how our true memories can be accessed-it'll ultimately lead to much more just court rulings and innocents won't be thrown into prison for something they did not do.
This presentation that Scott Fraser showed was absolutely bewildering. I never though that your memory can trick you and your imagination can become true to you. I can relate this video to objective 23 as the misinformation effect because we fill in gaps of loss memory with guesses and assumptions.
It does seem really crazy how if we do not know something then we kind of just put our own ending to our memories with what probably could of happened. I was always so sure of what I remembered but now it could simply be something I just thought was real.
That's exactly what I was thinking! Also this example shows how the source amnesia phenomenon ties into the misinformation effect-one shows how easily it can be to induce false memories and the other shows that those false memories don't have a source. In other words, if you try to remember details regarding a false memory that was induced, it's very hard and usually there is little detail recall, just one way to tell a false memory from a real one.
This video really shows about all the obj.'s that we had to present in class. especially obj 14 when they had to go and recall who was the shooter. It amazed me how not just one of the teens knew who it was (or they thought they knew who it was), but all of the teens agreed that Carrillo was the shooter.
It isn't inconceivable to believe the teenagers discussed the pictures they were shown or asked leading questions by the investigators to influence the teenagers to recall Carrillo as the shooter.
What I find most interesting about that is how they all agreed upon one shooter. Either they all decided to bandwagon on one person or they reconstructed a memory of the same person which is highly unlikely.
It is understandable how the teenagers constructed such a memory because they were in a powerful emotional state and were genuinely convinced by what they saw, there was just an error in the encoding process. I just wonder how it was possible ALL of the teenagers identified the same man as the killer if they were questioned individually given the poor lighting.
Its like how Ramirez said when we were talking about children as an eye witness, the teens could of made an agreement amongst themselves about the killers characteristics. For all we know this could have been a case of witness tampering.
yeah, I totally agree with you. They would probably just pick a random guy that looked like he could shoot someone. Its crazy how mind can play tricks on us and what we saw and on what actually happened.
I wondered about that too. I can understand how one witness could have constructed the memory and thought it was one guy, but for all of them to have constructed the same memory and agreed on the same guy seems very unlikely.
Exactly what I was thinking of. Probably they discussed it before going into questioning? Who knows, it is probably someone from a "rival gang" or someone they did not like and accused him of the crime.
that was exactly what i have been asking myself since the first time i saw this video! i've honestly seen it like 4 times already and this question still hasn't been clear to me.
It's a good point that you have. I think because they were all in the same situation, if they were questioned by the same person in the same fashion, mayhaps it led them all to construct the same "memory" or lead toward the same person as being the shooter . Maybe the investigator had his own assumption that it was that man, and unknowingly hinted toward him.
Yeah, Millian De Lo Carz, like how when remembering something you have to be in the same state? Maybe all these kids were questioned by the same person in the same fashion, indeed, thus rendering the same process in all of them that made 'em believe it was one specific random.
What I found really interesting about this video is how when they reenacted the shooting, the viewer could not see a single thing. Even when the shooter was stopped right in front of him. I was at least expecting to see a little bit of the face but there was nothing and the witnesses were so sure they saw someone. It now makes me question myself more than I used to.
I was expecting to at least barley see the face as well, I was surprised when I didn't. I also question myself too now, because what if i remember something and im so sure it happened, but it never did. I could be lying and not even know it.
I totally agree with you Jackie, I was thinking you could more or likely see the person in the car but it was pitch black. I think this shows how your brain can play tricks on you because if you wanted to see something badly then your brain will believe you did unconsciously.
I agree. It was pretty shocking to see how little one could see in the reenactment. And like other commenters suggested, the shock of the moment might have painted the face in the dark.
I am too feeling a lot of doubt in my own memories, because "I am my memories" and if I begin to doubt them, then I begin to doubt myself entirely. Now i feel like i have to do a "double-take" on my memories to get the feel that they are real. Whoo, kind of stressing..
It was interesting to see how all the teens falsely constructed a memory of who the shooter was, when clearly you could not see anything at that time. Their brains constructed a memory of what they wanted to see. It makes me wonder how many other inmates have been falsely convicted because of eyewitness accounts.
I really did enjoy this video. It was really shocking to know that when they reenacted the shooting, you were not able to see anything; I was expecting to see at least a faint figure but not just darkness.
after seeing waht was actually visible i for one find it hard to believe they werent motivated by something whether it be leading questions or their own prejudices i mean all four of them??? c'mon now
Deaum i've watched this video about 4 times already. it literally Messes with my mind each time in different perspectives. The only thing that this video doesn't give me a clear view of is how is it possible that all the teenagers claim to have seen the same person as the shooter if they never actually saw him. i understand their memory was reconstructed, but there were about 5 different pictures of different faces. it doesn't make sense that they all picked the same person, one must have reconstructed their memory differently.
It didn't make sense to me either, unless maybe they were shown at the same time and unintentionally chose the same person. They should have been separated and asked what they could remember about the shooter before being shown any pictures of the suspects.
I was truly amazed with this video, especially with the re-enactment part of it. I assumed I was going to see a face or at least a figure when the car and the actor with the gun pulled up next to the judge- but nothing. It is sad to see that eyewitness accounts don't always describe the actual happenings of a crime; it is not always intentional but rather what the brain encodes. As a result, an innocent victim can be sent to prison.
Yeah same here, I thought i was going to see an outline of a person maybe. The reenactment was very valuable because it showed the judge what was really seen that night.
I'm sure Scott Fraser knows his stuff (he has the credentials and calculations to prove it) but I really don't think the image he used in the video was accurate in representing what the boys or the judge saw. The resolution a human eye can perceive can't be measured like a camera image can. And also, humans see in stereo, with two eyes in two different locations, unlike a camera. Presenting the audience with an image captured on a camera isn't just inaccurate, it's misleading. Say the image was taken on a digital camera, as the grain in the images suggests. CCDs (the plates in the camera in which digital images are captured) are notoriously and invariably MISERABLE at taking pictures in low light (See any number of low-light pictures posted on Facebook via smartphones at parties and such). The human eye evolved on the African Savanna to perceive potential threats in dusk/nighttime conditions, exactly like those the shooting occurred in. And besides, though Scott may have perceived the judge's stoic reaction to the 4-foot-away test as being a poker-face, maybe the judge just wasn't all that impressed? So, maybe if any of us were there ourselves, we would have seen more.
I swear I've seen this video before.. Whoa, déja vú! Chapter 9 Objective 16!!
Nah, but I'm sort of bothered by the fact that a judge would sentence a man based solely on what a few kids think they saw, and on inefficiency the legal system in general. Not searching for harder evidence before making a final decision. I mean, good thing they let the poor guy out, but the real shooter is still out there somewhere. Anyway, ye've already stressed memory construction and false remembering as it pertains to this video, but here's a link for an article about false eyewitness testimony that i liked, if you guys are looking for more examples http://m.livescience.com/16194-crime-eyewitnesses-mistakes.html It says some pretty interesting things about how inaccurately we can remember/recognize a face which proves a pretty good point.
I checked out that link you mentioned. It's pretty insane how the court systems could discard a case for up to 11 years without the proper evidence. Crazy stuff man.
i was actually bothered that the appeal judge overruled the case in our justice system we believe in giving people a right to a jury made by their peers we put our trust in reasonable everyday citizens who when given all the facts can discern whether someone is guilty or not that being said of course they aren't always right but its a better system than having one person make the guilty or not guilty call. What bothers me is this is basically what happened here is a judge saw the information and came to a different conclusion than the jury which is reasonable but ultimately the power of guilty or innocent isnt given to judges but the people via a jury a judge should only overrule a case if there is new information or information that wasnt available during trial otherwise a jury word is final
It is pretty sad to imagine all those innocent people, convicted only by false eye-witness accounts. It must be a horrible feeling to know you're innocent and nobody believes you- not even the law- the justice-maker making injustice.
It makes me wonder what had made the teens choose the picture. I wonder if they all chose it simultaneously or agreed to choose him after meeting and agreeing. (It reminds me of the Crucible, where the one of the girls accused someone and the others would follow as if it were real.) Maybe they had seen the guy in the picture before, earlier that day, and in the shock connected his face to the event.
I am glad the lawyer had payed suck attention to specific details. It is the little things...
Yes, it is all the little things that the difference. :) I believe it was a good possibility that the teens had seen the man they accused earlier before, given that he lived a few streets away and that he attended the same school. His face must've triggered a retrieval cue.
Oh my gosh! I just posted something almost exactly like this! Angelica I agree with you so much. I guess they just really wanted revenge, and they didn't care at all who it was. They just wanted someone to pay. Just imagine if the lawyer didn't get called in. An innocent man would be paying the price for something he didn't do. Man does that suck!
I was surprised that this video shed light on all the objectives that we have covered in class. It was in fact remarkable how a person could be convicted, without a second glance, solely on the eyewitness accounts from a couple of teens. You can never measure how accurate a person's memory is. We need more science in the courtrooms! However, it wasn't the teenagers' fault either; it's not like they were out to get the man. The teenagers had reconstructed that memory and most likely believed in their false memory. I was pleased that Scott stood up to the judge, and had the guts to believe in his evidence as much as he did. Go Scotty!!!
I agree with you Jessica, the courts should use more science. Testimonies shouldn't be considered because based on what we've learned, our minds aren't always reliable.
I was very surprised after seeing this video. It amazed me to see that there are people who are falsely accused of crimes and are only found guilty off of testimonies. After learning about how memories can be reconstructed and can't always be trustworthy it amazed me even more that the justice system can depend on testimonies like these.
I honestly believe it is the education system's fault because I bet the judge was brought up with teachings that psychology is not important in a crime case as proven otherwise.
It is unfortunate that eyewitness testimony is so integral in American courts' decisions. How is it that 3/4 of the 280 wrongful convictions involved eyewitness testimony as their primary source of evidence, and yet it is still perfectly admissible in court as factual evidence? I'm certain that thousands of criminals have been served justice based entirely on testimonies, but life-sentences and death-penalties are extraordinarily serious. It is indisputable that the human memory is susceptible to memory reconstruction. This much is evident in the wrongful conviction of Francisco Carillo. In cases involving sentences at the more severe end of the spectrum (life sentences and such), it is imperative that scientific evidence and experimentation, such as Scott Fraser presented it to the judge, be relied upon more heavily than testimony. I agree completely with Scott Fraser, lawyers and potential judges should certainly be required to undertake more rigorous science and engineering courses. Interrogative skills should be considered only as supplements to factual inquisition.
If someone shot your dad, would you not be viciously eager to blame someone for it? The faintest resemblance to who ever they saw in the car (or the face they constructed from the car), they would pick it out, of course! You know, like in Obj. 17 with the mood-congruent factor. They were probably all in a bad mood, primin' all their negative associations 'n' stuff.. They weren't thinking about ruining a possibly-innocent man's life, they were like, "Yeah, FUCK this guy! This is the guy who did it!"
There is so much emotion involved in people's actions- especially when accusing. I agree, the teens were caught up in the denial, anger, sadness, frustration, etcetera.
In my mind, I would like to believe that if I were one of the teens I would not blame the first guy in the pile of pictures. But, truth unknown, I have no idea how I would react towards those pictures. His picture was pretty dark in the video but maybe when they saw it they felt it was the most menacing or threatening. And even if they really did have no idea who the real shooter was, when they saw the most menacing face they connected him to being the shooter.
Josh, see my reply to Daisy Valle's post at 6:48PM. Rachel's post is about priming and mood-congruent factors, so consider it completely independent of my reply to the other post.
This video makes me think. All the people who have gone to jail for no reason, do we really just convict people that easily? It all just makes me wonder. What if I just happened to be walking by and then people thought I was the one who did it. They constructed a memory. That's it. I'm in prison for something I didn't do. I don't know man. This just really makes me double think about our justice system. But then again, what can we really do about it? When we have the best justice system in the world. So it seems..
i feel like this video relates to objective 23 and 26 however im unsure as to what motivated the men to imagine the story i mean did the arresting officers use leading questions if so what was there motivation for doing so if not what explains the creative imagination of all 6 teenagers ? where they question together or separately did they construct their stories together or separately? so many questions
True dude he seemed so incredulous about it all and then just blown away with the evidence. I still though they would at least see the face... Just goes to show the flawed system of eye-witness accounts..
In a kind of backwater way, the whole situation here, with a bunch of kids convicting someone and the authorities believing them solely by their word, reminds me of the witch trials we read about in Karon's class. Like those cases, there was pretty much no tangible evidence other than the words of a few teenagers. It got me thinking that our court systems need to really get refined, it's ridiculous to think that in one of the most advanced countries in the world someone can get sentenced to life just because another person claims that they'd done something wrong or illegal-much evidence is needed, words aren't always enough.
{Insert something smart here} Haha just kidding, well Harut, I agree completely! It's strange that in the times we live in , there are situations like these with the false accusations and the need to just blame someone because there's a need to blame someone (like in the witch trials) to feel better about a tragedy.
That's what we'd all love to know :) I believe it just highlights the need for better technology, a way to ensure we are seeing the true memories in someone's head. As for who the shooter was...I know! It was Griselda-always the quiet ones!! Haha obviously I'm just messin' but there is something to be said and done if someone can be convicted just like that ..
It's kinda scary that the memories we think we have, might not be what really happened (redundant but for the sake of the reply...). This whole faulty memory debate is great and all but what happened to the case afterwards?
well this video reminds me of objective 19 And 23 its crazy how our mind works we fill in the gap of our memory with other information memories its scary how our mind could put false information in a situation And acusse someone innocent
comment here.
ReplyDeletereply here
Gotcha!
DeleteThis video really blew my mind. It reminded me of the situation of objective 15 presentation we did in class. About the missing child and someone saw the sign and thought the other person was kidnapping the other kid.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that you said objective 14. The video reminded me more of objective 19 and encoding failure, the kids remembered seeing the shooter even though they actually couldn't see the shooter.
DeleteThis video also reminds me of objective 15 also. Its crazy how your brain can incorporate with misleading information.
Deletei like how you mentioned about the missing child Betsy because i thought the exact same thing!
Deletei feel like objective 15 is more about information priming when someone sees something the latter leads them to another conclusion that may or may not be true in this case as i understand it the teenagers werent shown anything earlier to suggest a man fitting the man convicted characteristic was involved with the crime
DeleteThis is an amazing yet scary video, to believe that an innocent person can be accused and sentenced from someone else's false memories. The whole idea is just hard to conceive even though it's true.
ReplyDeleteI can agree with you because it's astonishing how your brain can create false memories.
Deletei agree with it being a amazing video but scary while watching it especially the part where they asked the judge to experience it himself.
DeleteIt is a truly tragic incident in which an innocent man is sentenced to life in prison because of created memories. It begs the question about whether all of the people put on trial with no evidence but eyewitness accounts are truly guilty or innocent.
DeleteIt is scary, but at the same time disappointing. Why would a couple of teenagers put an innocent man in jail just because they thought he was the guy that shot the dad.
DeleteI can't agree more with Gabriel. It is scary to know that our mind can create a memory and falsely accuse someone. It makes you wonder how many innocent people are in jail.
Deletei agree with you that it's scary that a reconstructed memory put an innocent person in prison, however, many people have been convicted the same way. it just sucks how the teenagers said there false memories due to the fact that they were under pressure. this still doesn't make it was the correct think to say/do though.
DeleteI'm sure the teenagers didn't purposely mean to falsely accuse the man by the misinformation effect (ob.23).. That's the whole thing about these constructed memories: people don't know they made 'em up! They just do not know. The pressure makes it easy to start saying things. The Central Park Five, anyone?
Deleteeven with pressure they have to have been pressure in a certain direction there's no way that the boys just made up a discrption of a man that just so happened to match that of someone who lived a few blocks away
DeleteI think that now, more than ever, we need to have a much better understanding of the way our minds work and how our true memories can be accessed-it'll ultimately lead to much more just court rulings and innocents won't be thrown into prison for something they did not do.
DeleteThis presentation that Scott Fraser showed was absolutely bewildering. I never though that your memory can trick you and your imagination can become true to you. I can relate this video to objective 23 as the misinformation effect because we fill in gaps of loss memory with guesses and assumptions.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem really crazy how if we do not know something then we kind of just put our own ending to our memories with what probably could of happened. I was always so sure of what I remembered but now it could simply be something I just thought was real.
DeleteThose teens really wanted to see the shooter so the brain made them think they did but in reality they just assumed and wrongly convicted a man
DeleteThat's exactly what I was thinking! Also this example shows how the source amnesia phenomenon ties into the misinformation effect-one shows how easily it can be to induce false memories and the other shows that those false memories don't have a source. In other words, if you try to remember details regarding a false memory that was induced, it's very hard and usually there is little detail recall, just one way to tell a false memory from a real one.
DeleteThis video really shows about all the obj.'s that we had to present in class. especially obj 14 when they had to go and recall who was the shooter. It amazed me how not just one of the teens knew who it was (or they thought they knew who it was), but all of the teens agreed that Carrillo was the shooter.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't inconceivable to believe the teenagers discussed the pictures they were shown or asked leading questions by the investigators to influence the teenagers to recall Carrillo as the shooter.
DeleteI agree with Taylor, the investigators probably asked leading questions, but the mind is very complicated so who knows.
DeleteWhat I find most interesting about that is how they all agreed upon one shooter. Either they all decided to bandwagon on one person or they reconstructed a memory of the same person which is highly unlikely.
DeleteIt is understandable how the teenagers constructed such a memory because they were in a powerful emotional state and were genuinely convinced by what they saw, there was just an error in the encoding process. I just wonder how it was possible ALL of the teenagers identified the same man as the killer if they were questioned individually given the poor lighting.
ReplyDeleteIts like how Ramirez said when we were talking about children as an eye witness, the teens could of made an agreement amongst themselves about the killers characteristics. For all we know this could have been a case of witness tampering.
Deleteyeah, I totally agree with you. They would probably just pick a random guy that looked like he could shoot someone. Its crazy how mind can play tricks on us and what we saw and on what actually happened.
DeleteI wondered about that too. I can understand how one witness could have constructed the memory and thought it was one guy, but for all of them to have constructed the same memory and agreed on the same guy seems very unlikely.
DeleteExactly what I was thinking of. Probably they discussed it before going into questioning? Who knows, it is probably someone from a "rival gang" or someone they did not like and accused him of the crime.
Deletethat was exactly what i have been asking myself since the first time i saw this video! i've honestly seen it like 4 times already and this question still hasn't been clear to me.
DeleteIt's a good point that you have. I think because they were all in the same situation, if they were questioned by the same person in the same fashion, mayhaps it led them all to construct the same "memory" or lead toward the same person as being the shooter . Maybe the investigator had his own assumption that it was that man, and unknowingly hinted toward him.
DeleteYeah, Millian De Lo Carz, like how when remembering something you have to be in the same state? Maybe all these kids were questioned by the same person in the same fashion, indeed, thus rendering the same process in all of them that made 'em believe it was one specific random.
DeleteWhat I found really interesting about this video is how when they reenacted the shooting, the viewer could not see a single thing. Even when the shooter was stopped right in front of him. I was at least expecting to see a little bit of the face but there was nothing and the witnesses were so sure they saw someone. It now makes me question myself more than I used to.
ReplyDeleteI was expecting to at least barley see the face as well, I was surprised when I didn't. I also question myself too now, because what if i remember something and im so sure it happened, but it never did. I could be lying and not even know it.
DeleteI totally agree with you Jackie, I was thinking you could more or likely see the person in the car but it was pitch black. I think this shows how your brain can play tricks on you because if you wanted to see something badly then your brain will believe you did unconsciously.
DeleteI agree. It was pretty shocking to see how little one could see in the reenactment. And like other commenters suggested, the shock of the moment might have painted the face in the dark.
DeleteI am too feeling a lot of doubt in my own memories, because "I am my memories" and if I begin to doubt them, then I begin to doubt myself entirely. Now i feel like i have to do a "double-take" on my memories to get the feel that they are real. Whoo, kind of stressing..
This video was amazing, it shows that the brain can cloud your perception of certain events.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to see how all the teens falsely constructed a memory of who the shooter was, when clearly you could not see anything at that time. Their brains constructed a memory of what they wanted to see. It makes me wonder how many other inmates have been falsely convicted because of eyewitness accounts.
ReplyDeleteI really did enjoy this video. It was really shocking to know that when they reenacted the shooting, you were not able to see anything; I was expecting to see at least a faint figure but not just darkness.
ReplyDeleteExactly; it was a good idea that they chose to re-enact it. Without a flaslight there was no way the teenagers could have seen the person's face.
Deleteafter seeing waht was actually visible i for one find it hard to believe they werent motivated by something whether it be leading questions or their own prejudices i mean all four of them??? c'mon now
DeleteDeaum i've watched this video about 4 times already. it literally Messes with my mind each time in different perspectives. The only thing that this video doesn't give me a clear view of is how is it possible that all the teenagers claim to have seen the same person as the shooter if they never actually saw him. i understand their memory was reconstructed, but there were about 5 different pictures of different faces. it doesn't make sense that they all picked the same person, one must have reconstructed their memory differently.
ReplyDeleteIt didn't make sense to me either, unless maybe they were shown at the same time and unintentionally chose the same person. They should have been separated and asked what they could remember about the shooter before being shown any pictures of the suspects.
DeleteI was truly amazed with this video, especially with the re-enactment part of it. I assumed I was going to see a face or at least a figure when the car and the actor with the gun pulled up next to the judge- but nothing. It is sad to see that eyewitness accounts don't always describe the actual happenings of a crime; it is not always intentional but rather what the brain encodes. As a result, an innocent victim can be sent to prison.
ReplyDeleteYeah same here, I thought i was going to see an outline of a person maybe. The reenactment was very valuable because it showed the judge what was really seen that night.
DeleteI'm sure Scott Fraser knows his stuff (he has the credentials and calculations to prove it) but I really don't think the image he used in the video was accurate in representing what the boys or the judge saw. The resolution a human eye can perceive can't be measured like a camera image can. And also, humans see in stereo, with two eyes in two different locations, unlike a camera. Presenting the audience with an image captured on a camera isn't just inaccurate, it's misleading. Say the image was taken on a digital camera, as the grain in the images suggests. CCDs (the plates in the camera in which digital images are captured) are notoriously and invariably MISERABLE at taking pictures in low light (See any number of low-light pictures posted on Facebook via smartphones at parties and such). The human eye evolved on the African Savanna to perceive potential threats in dusk/nighttime conditions, exactly like those the shooting occurred in. And besides, though Scott may have perceived the judge's stoic reaction to the 4-foot-away test as being a poker-face, maybe the judge just wasn't all that impressed? So, maybe if any of us were there ourselves, we would have seen more.
DeleteI swear I've seen this video before..
ReplyDeleteWhoa, déja vú! Chapter 9 Objective 16!!
Nah, but I'm sort of bothered by the fact that a judge would sentence a man based solely on what a few kids think they saw, and on inefficiency the legal system in general. Not searching for harder evidence before making a final decision. I mean, good thing they let the poor guy out, but the real shooter is still out there somewhere.
Anyway, ye've already stressed memory construction and false remembering as it pertains to this video, but here's a link for an article about false eyewitness testimony that i liked, if you guys are looking for more examples
http://m.livescience.com/16194-crime-eyewitnesses-mistakes.html
It says some pretty interesting things about how inaccurately we can remember/recognize a face which proves a pretty good point.
Secrest out!
Dude, so true!
DeleteLike, i feel you!
You're pretty rad!
I checked out that link you mentioned. It's pretty insane how the court systems could discard a case for up to 11 years without the proper evidence. Crazy stuff man.
Deletei was actually bothered that the appeal judge overruled the case in our justice system we believe in giving people a right to a jury made by their peers we put our trust in reasonable everyday citizens who when given all the facts can discern whether someone is guilty or not that being said of course they aren't always right but its a better system than having one person make the guilty or not guilty call. What bothers me is this is basically what happened here is a judge saw the information and came to a different conclusion than the jury which is reasonable but ultimately the power of guilty or innocent isnt given to judges but the people via a jury a judge should only overrule a case if there is new information or information that wasnt available during trial otherwise a jury word is final
DeleteIt is pretty sad to imagine all those innocent people, convicted only by false eye-witness accounts. It must be a horrible feeling to know you're innocent and nobody believes you- not even the law- the justice-maker making injustice.
ReplyDeleteIt makes me wonder what had made the teens choose the picture. I wonder if they all chose it simultaneously or agreed to choose him after meeting and agreeing. (It reminds me of the Crucible, where the one of the girls accused someone and the others would follow as if it were real.) Maybe they had seen the guy in the picture before, earlier that day, and in the shock connected his face to the event.
I am glad the lawyer had payed suck attention to specific details. It is the little things...
Yes, it is all the little things that the difference. :) I believe it was a good possibility that the teens had seen the man they accused earlier before, given that he lived a few streets away and that he attended the same school. His face must've triggered a retrieval cue.
DeleteOh my gosh! I just posted something almost exactly like this! Angelica I agree with you so much. I guess they just really wanted revenge, and they didn't care at all who it was. They just wanted someone to pay. Just imagine if the lawyer didn't get called in. An innocent man would be paying the price for something he didn't do. Man does that suck!
Deletedarn...* I am glad the lawyer payed SUCH attention to specific details...
DeleteI totally agree, Jessica. And Joshua, yes. They wanted blind revenge, no worries about accusing an innocent man.
I was surprised that this video shed light on all the objectives that we have covered in class. It was in fact remarkable how a person could be convicted, without a second glance, solely on the eyewitness accounts from a couple of teens. You can never measure how accurate a person's memory is. We need more science in the courtrooms! However, it wasn't the teenagers' fault either; it's not like they were out to get the man. The teenagers had reconstructed that memory and most likely believed in their false memory. I was pleased that Scott stood up to the judge, and had the guts to believe in his evidence as much as he did. Go Scotty!!!
ReplyDelete(;
DeleteI agree with you Jessica, the courts should use more science. Testimonies shouldn't be considered because based on what we've learned, our minds aren't always reliable.
DeleteI was very surprised after seeing this video. It amazed me to see that there are people who are falsely accused of crimes and are only found guilty off of testimonies. After learning about how memories can be reconstructed and can't always be trustworthy it amazed me even more that the justice system can depend on testimonies like these.
ReplyDeleteI honestly believe it is the education system's fault because I bet the judge was brought up with teachings that psychology is not important in a crime case as proven otherwise.
DeleteIt is unfortunate that eyewitness testimony is so integral in American courts' decisions. How is it that 3/4 of the 280 wrongful convictions involved eyewitness testimony as their primary source of evidence, and yet it is still perfectly admissible in court as factual evidence? I'm certain that thousands of criminals have been served justice based entirely on testimonies, but life-sentences and death-penalties are extraordinarily serious. It is indisputable that the human memory is susceptible to memory reconstruction. This much is evident in the wrongful conviction of Francisco Carillo. In cases involving sentences at the more severe end of the spectrum (life sentences and such), it is imperative that scientific evidence and experimentation, such as Scott Fraser presented it to the judge, be relied upon more heavily than testimony. I agree completely with Scott Fraser, lawyers and potential judges should certainly be required to undertake more rigorous science and engineering courses. Interrogative skills should be considered only as supplements to factual inquisition.
ReplyDeleteIf someone shot your dad, would you not be viciously eager to blame someone for it? The faintest resemblance to who ever they saw in the car (or the face they constructed from the car), they would pick it out, of course! You know, like in Obj. 17 with the mood-congruent factor. They were probably all in a bad mood, primin' all their negative associations 'n' stuff.. They weren't thinking about ruining a possibly-innocent man's life, they were like, "Yeah, FUCK this guy! This is the guy who did it!"
ReplyDeleteWell see this is what I think is dumb. If you can't see the shooter, then why would you pick some random guy! Rachel I agree with you so much on this!
DeleteThere is so much emotion involved in people's actions- especially when accusing. I agree, the teens were caught up in the denial, anger, sadness, frustration, etcetera.
DeleteIn my mind, I would like to believe that if I were one of the teens I would not blame the first guy in the pile of pictures. But, truth unknown, I have no idea how I would react towards those pictures. His picture was pretty dark in the video but maybe when they saw it they felt it was the most menacing or threatening. And even if they really did have no idea who the real shooter was, when they saw the most menacing face they connected him to being the shooter.
Josh, see my reply to Daisy Valle's post at 6:48PM. Rachel's post is about priming and mood-congruent factors, so consider it completely independent of my reply to the other post.
DeleteThis video makes me think. All the people who have gone to jail for no reason, do we really just convict people that easily? It all just makes me wonder. What if I just happened to be walking by and then people thought I was the one who did it. They constructed a memory. That's it. I'm in prison for something I didn't do. I don't know man. This just really makes me double think about our justice system. But then again, what can we really do about it? When we have the best justice system in the world. So it seems..
ReplyDeletei feel like this video relates to objective 23 and 26 however im unsure as to what motivated the men to imagine the story i mean did the arresting officers use leading questions if so what was there motivation for doing so if not what explains the creative imagination of all 6 teenagers ? where they question together or separately did they construct their stories together or separately? so many questions
ReplyDeleteI honestly find the Judge's stubborn attitude all the better when he got his mind blown by the flawed eyewitness account.
ReplyDeleteTrue dude he seemed so incredulous about it all and then just blown away with the evidence. I still though they would at least see the face... Just goes to show the flawed system of eye-witness accounts..
DeleteIn a kind of backwater way, the whole situation here, with a bunch of kids convicting someone and the authorities believing them solely by their word, reminds me of the witch trials we read about in Karon's class. Like those cases, there was pretty much no tangible evidence other than the words of a few teenagers. It got me thinking that our court systems need to really get refined, it's ridiculous to think that in one of the most advanced countries in the world someone can get sentenced to life just because another person claims that they'd done something wrong or illegal-much evidence is needed, words aren't always enough.
ReplyDelete{Insert something smart here}
DeleteHaha just kidding, well Harut, I agree completely! It's strange that in the times we live in , there are situations like these with the false accusations and the need to just blame someone because there's a need to blame someone (like in the witch trials) to feel better about a tragedy.
All of our memories are reconstructed memories, so uhh... who was the shooter?
ReplyDeleteThat's what we'd all love to know :)
DeleteI believe it just highlights the need for better technology, a way to ensure we are seeing the true memories in someone's head. As for who the shooter was...I know! It was Griselda-always the quiet ones!!
Haha obviously I'm just messin' but there is something to be said and done if someone can be convicted just like that ..
It's kinda scary that the memories we think we have, might not be what really happened (redundant but for the sake of the reply...). This whole faulty memory debate is great and all but what happened to the case afterwards?
Deletewell this video reminds me of objective 19 And 23 its crazy how our mind works we fill in the gap of our memory with other information memories its scary how our mind could put false information in a situation And acusse someone innocent
ReplyDelete