The prevalent use of video evidence in courtrooms has started the debate regarding its reliability. Despite approximately 50% of the cortex being devoted to the processing of visual inputs, the probative value of the evidence is compromised due to its dependence on the perceptual experiences of its perceivers. On one hand, video information recruits the superior temporal sulcus more than static images, indicating that video evidence is more cognitively and emotionally arousing than still images. However, the context and conditions can influence the decision-making when watching the video, which raises the issue of credibility. The Authors of “In the Eyes of the Law: Perception Versus Reality in Appraisals of Video Evidence” discuss three reasons that comprise the probative value of video evidence in court.
Due to the cognitively and emotionally arousing nature of video evidence, people tend to over believe video by overestimating the accuracy of their interpretations. The limitations of visual acuity may shift attention away from crucial information leading to inaccuracy. The second problem with video evidence is the failure to discriminate between accurate and inaccurate interpretations leading to bias. Lastly, people tend to lack awareness due to not knowing that their visual experiences are biased. The bias is often overlooked because it is generally beyond conscious awareness. Dr. Granot along with colleagues discusses the importance of one’s perspective. In “Justice Is Not Blind: Visual Attention Exaggerates Effects of Group Identification on Legal Punishment” researchers demonstrate that the viewers of the video empathize with the police officer when it was filmed with a body camera as opposed to a dashboard surveillance camera questioning the accuracy of video evidence.
The issues with video evidence are seen in the case of Atatiana Koquice Jefferson, a black woman, whose death has been recorded by a police body camera. The police officer reported that he “perceive[ed] a threat” by noting a firearm inside the woman’s home. The body camera recorded a still image of the gun inside the bedroom and it was clear that the woman was not holding the firearm. Dr. Granot’s eye-tracking technology showed that every person divides their attention differently, which results in different interpretations of events. The still image that captured the gun not in the hands of the woman demonstrates the woman’s innocence, and therefore, the increased reliability of the still image rather than video. The body camera recorded the police officer patrolling around the house and commanding the woman to “Put [her] hands up!”. It only took four seconds from the moment of the verbal command until the woman was shot in her own home. Dr. Granot’s research demonstrates that the accurate visual detection of images in a scene can occur in as few as 13 ms, which shows that although visual processing is more facile than auditory processing, error can still occur, which is seen when the officer shot the woman after four seconds. Video evidence is much more cognitively demanding, which increases the possibility of bias due to over believing the video, failure to discriminate as well as the lack of awareness. Jefferson’s case demonstrates that still images are more reliable than video because they do not require eye gazing. Despite video evidence creating bias, it continues to resolve many cases in courtrooms.
References
Granot, Y., Balcetis, E., Schneider, K. E., & Tyler, T. R. (2014). Justice is not blind: Visual attention exaggerates effects of group identification on legal punishment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(6), 2196–2208. doi: 10.1037/a0037893
Granot, Y., Balcetis, E., Feigenson, N., & Tyler, T. (2018). In the eyes of the law: Perception versus reality in appraisals of video evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 93–104. doi: 10.1037/law0000137
https://time.com/5699327/atatiana-jefferson-killed-police-officer/
No comments:
Post a Comment