In the article, “Justice Is Not Blind: Visual Attention Exaggerates of Group Identification on Legal Punishment,” Dr. Yael Granot explained the ways in which video evidence can be used in the legal system. She focused on how video evidence can be perceived in different ways by different people, which in turn leads to biased decision making. One hypothesis presented in the article is that “increased attention to a common target reduces identification-based discrepancies in legal decisions.” Another said that “focusing attention on a common target will exaggerate bias in punishment decisions among individuals who vary in identification.” Granot described that though viewers of videos may pay greater attention to the subjects in the videos, this can lead to greater discrepancies and varying opinions among viewers. Despite watching the same videos or paying attention to the same target, viewers may miss critical details in other parts of the video which can lead to varying and/or biased decisions.
Granot further explained this concept in her lecture, using the basketball/gorilla video as an example. This video depicts a basketball game and more often than not, viewers place their attention on following the ball as it’s passed from player to player. What this leads to the viewers not noticing is a man in a gorilla suit dancing and making his way right through the middle of the basketball game. Despite the gorilla being in plain view, by placing all of their attention on watching the ball, the viewers don’t even notice him.
This example, along with the evidence presented in Granot’s article, show that the use of video evidence in court cases may not be as reliable as we think. In fact, when considering the video of the basketball game and the gorilla — in which viewers miss a big detail that is right in front of them — it begins to seem completely unreliable. How can we rely on a jury to make a judgment based on a video when each person perceives it differently and may miss critical details?
In an article published by TIME magazine, “Body Cameras Help Everyone — Including the Police,” author Maya Wiley discusses the implementation of body cameras for police officers and their benefits as another source of evidence, particularly in police brutality cases. She begins by describing a case in Texas, in which a police officer shot and killed a 15-year-old boy and upon reviewing footage from his body camera, it was discovered that what really happened was inconsistent with the officer’s statement. Following this discovery the officer was fired and faced murder charges. This case showed a benefit of body cameras and video evidence. However, Granot’s research shows this may not be the case.
This article was published in 2017, when body camera implementation was on the rise and pilot programs were coming up through the country. Now, body cameras continue to be used by police officers in the U.S. Wiley points that civilian eyewitnesses and police officers often have different perceptions and therefore different accounts of what happens at the scene of a crime or case of police brutality. Therefore, Wiley explains, body cameras would be beneficial in showing exactly what occurred and who is at fault. While in theory this seems like a valuable tool and the most clear way to determine who is guilty, Granot’s research shows that viewers might still interpret or perceive the video in different ways. While one juror may place their focus on one subject in the video, another may be paying attention to something completely different. This results in bias, unjust or incorrect decision making and negative consequences for those involved.
As technology evolves, it is only natural for us to want to utilize it in any way we can, particularly with things like video evidence being available when it never has been before. However, it is important to consider that what we see may not be entirely accurate and video evidence — though it seems to be something that can’t possibly be misread or misunderstood — can lead to the same biased or invalid judgments as any other piece of evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment