We live in an era where a significant amount of the information we process comes from watching videos. Most people would agree that watching to process information is dramatically less exhaustive than reading or listening. Although our complex system of image processing is fantastic, we have to be careful of how we translate this feature into our legal justice system. With all the technological advancements today, almost anyone can record a video. Thus, we would think that with all the wrongful convictions our society is facing today, videos would be an effective way of debunking wrongful convictions. Well, we might have to think again.
In the article “In the Eyes of the Law: Perception Versus Reality in Appraisals of Video Evidence,” Yael Granot and her colleagues primarily focus on the numerous errors that occur because of videos used in trial. They argue that visual information is interpreted more dominantly than auditory information in respect of speed and memory. The regulations for how jurors should approach the representation of video evidence are unclear. Usually there are two main categories, substantive and illustrative evidence. The former being evidence intrinsically proving the facts, while the latter contextualizing the facts for better understanding towards a holistic view. The authors emphasize the importance of relevance, nonetheless the reliability of the video. They also propose three significant areas where interpretation can be flawed substantially; overbelief, failure to discriminate and lack of awareness.
In her article “The Always-On Police Camera,” Sidney Fussel tells the story of a wrongful conviction due to the strategic manipulation of a video recording. A police officer was caught red-handed tampering with evidence, in specific, he placed a bag of pills inside a soup can in an attempt to frame an innocent person. He then proceeded to click record on his bodycam to arrest the “suspect.” The bodycam records and saves 30 seconds before you click the record button. The police officer was clueless about this; thus submitted evidence of himself committing a crime, which led to his suspension and arrest, and the suspect’s release. As pointed out in Granot’s article, “...research finds that camera angles that show events from another’s perspective may increase empathy with that person…whether the person is a victim or a perpetrator” (4-5). As police have extensive law enforcement training, we often believe that police are the “good guys” in a situation, following the law. So when we see from a police officer’s perspective, not only do we over believe the happening, but we have a tendency to sympathize with the police versus the suspect. If those 30 seconds weren’t captured, the police could have gotten away with their unjust actions. The following excerpt from Granot’s article particularly resonated with this news article: “Videos of police interrogations may be particularly susceptible to the camera perspective bias and its sequelae...(Kassin et al., 2010).” If someone is consistently in support of policemen, they are more likely to be biased towards the policeman in the video. In contrast, if someone has a negative outlook on policemen, they may sympathize more with the victim.
This incident could have had completely different consequences if it weren’t for the reckless behavior of the police, this could have easily slipped through the cracks. It shows how powerful video evidence can be when manipulated and taken out of context. Therefore, it is of great importance to establish regulations to minimize the error of interpretation of video evidence.
Granot, Yael, et al. “In the Eyes of the Law: Perception versus Reality in Appraisals of Video Evidence.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, vol. 24, no. 1, 2018, pp. 93–104., doi:10.1037/law0000137.
Fussell, Sidney. “The Always-On Police Camera.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 27 Sept. 2018, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/09/body-camera-police-future/571402/.
No comments:
Post a Comment