Courtrooms have openly welcomed the use of video evidence, largely due to the belief that video is an unbiased representation of true events. Granot and colleagues tackle this supposed truth in their article “In the Eyes of the Law: perception Versus Reality in Appraisals of Video Evidence”. The authors argue that due to the way a video may be filmed and the viewer’s internal visual attention patterns, decision making in court may be unknowingly biased.
In contrast to still images, dynamic images activate the superior temporal sulcus which is also known to be activated in response to cues that indicate intentions of one’s actions. Moreover, video is more enticing cognitively and emotionally and thus may hold the viewer’s attention in different ways compared to other forms of evidence. It is with this that viewers judge the video with “naïve realism”; they are overconfident that what they see is a whole and true representation of the events that occurred. Studies have shown that although people prefer to believe they know the whole truth, most people are prone to bias or “inattentional blindness”, the idea that all information present is not guaranteed to be perceived. In a 2014 study by Granot and colleagues, it was shown that group identification predicted a participant’s judgement of a scene. In this study, experimenters covertly recorded participants’ visual attention while they watched a video of an ambiguous altercation between a policeman and a civilian. Following the video, the participant was asked to rate the deserved punishment of the police officer for their actions in the video. Those who self-reported strong identity with police and those who self-reported weak identity with police both showed equal ratings for punishment if they exhibited few fixations on the police officer. If the participant weakly identified with the police and showed many fixations on the officer, they were more likely to punish the police officer than participants who reported strong identity with police. These effects were replicated when attention to video subject was controlled for, as well as when creating novel group identity (blue or green groups) instead of exploiting existing group identity with the police.
A large factor to consider when evaluating video evidence in court is the constraints of the video camera (angle, quality, depth, illumination) as well as context (how much of the event in question is shown). Granot and colleagues write that angle of the video has a significant effect on the perception of evidence; events shown from an individual’s perspective may decrease judgement of that individual and attribute greater agency to the target of the scene. This is exhibited in courtrooms when judging dashboard video evidence and body cam video; more empathy is given to the officer when viewing body camera film compared to dashboard surveillance that covers the whole scene.
The trial of Jason Van Dyke for the murder of Laquan McDonald grabbed the world’s attention when video surveillance of the shooting was released to the public. The Chicago Tribune details the testimony given during the trial surrounding the video. According to police reports, Van Dyke feared for his life and stepped back upon encountering McDonald; the video shows Van Dyke stepping forward. Police reports state that McDonald charged Van Dyke; in the video, McDonald backs away. Van Dyke testified that McDonald raised his arm toward him after being shot; the video shows McDonald still on the ground. Joseph Walsh, Van Dyke’s partner, stated that the video did not accurately portray the true events because the viewer could not see his perspective. Richard Kling, a Law professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, argues that no matter what perspective, McDonald’s arm is still his arm, and it clearly was not raised towards Van Dyke. Jason Van Dyke was found guilty of second-degree murder and sixteen counts of aggravated battery with a firearm for the events that unfolded that night. He is the first Chicago officer in nearly 50 years to be charged with murder. Van Dyke was found not guilty of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of official misconduct. In evaluating these cleared charges, we must consider the possible in-group bias of the mostly white jury made of Cook County residents. If In-group bias influenced the jury, they may have shown more empathy towards Van Dyke in judging his guilt which may have resulted in the conviction of fewer charges. Furthermore, the video clearly contradicted the accounts of police officers who witnessed the events and may have allowed some justice to be achieved for Laquan McDonald. But, what degree of justice would have been achieved if the video was from Van Dyke’s perspective?
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
Van Dyke trial: Breaking down all 44 witnesses. (2019, January 19). Retrieved from https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-van-dyke-trial-witnesses-htmlstory.html
No comments:
Post a Comment