About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

5 Psych., Crime & L. i (1999)

handle is hein.journals/pcyceadl5 and id is 1 raw text is: Psychology, Crime & Law, Vol. 5, pp. i-ii © 1999 OPA (Overseas Publishers Association) N.V. Reprints available directly from the publisher Published by license under Photocopying permitted by license only the Harwood Academic Publishers imprint, part of The Gordon and Breach Publishing Group. Printed in India. EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION The study of witness memory is perhaps one of the longest standing areas of interest for psychologists concerned with legal matters. As long ago as 1908, Hugo Munsterberg published On the Witness Stand, since when various writers and researchers have periodically raised the issue of the applicability of psychological research findings within the legal arena. Historically, the psychological study of eyewitness mem- ory has passed through three broad stages. The first stage might be thought of as one of discovery as psychologists realised the applied potential of their research. In a sense, this era of discovery was quite benign as applied psychologists sought to show the legal profession how psychological knowledge and skills could be put to good use. The second stage in the process began to emerge in the early 1970s as psychologists took a rather different stance with respect to the application of research findings to legal issues. Following the pioneer- ing work of researchers such as Elizabeth Loftus and Daniel Yarmey in the States, and Brian Clifford and Ray Bull in the UK, the prevailing ethos evolved to one of highlighting the shortcomings in witness memory. In one sense, this era was destructive in character as, essentially, it said to the criminal justice system that a fundamental pivot of the system, an individual's ability to remember a crime, was flawed, even fatally flawed. Naturally, not all psychologists agreed with this stance and several spirited exchanges took place in the literature (and out of it, one suspects!). It was evident that there were real tensions between applied psychologists and the legal profession; tensions which on occasion crossed the boundaries of academic debate and became acrimonious and even insulting. The third evolutionary stage saw a move from destruction to con- struction as, having emphasised the problems, psychologists became interested in solutions. If eyewitness memory is, as the evidence suggests, prone to error, then what can be done to reduce the likeli- hood of errors? It is evident that the psychological process of retrieval from memory should be one about which psychologists are partic- ularly well informed. If shortcomings in eyewitness testimony are, in part at least, due to retrieval failure, then what can be done to optimise accurate retrieval? There are strategies that can be used to try to achieve this goal of reduced eyewitness error, such as training in face

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most