We live in a time where a large amount of information comes from watching videos and the way we process it. People would rather watch videos rather than read or listen to an article. However, the way one processes and perceives a video can be much different than how someone else may process or perceive it. Currently, there are many new advancements in technology which means that anyone can record and or change a video. There are many debates about video evidence and whether they tell the whole truth. Additionally, courtrooms have even questioned the reliability of video evidence. Credibility can also come into question due to the conditions and context of watching a video that can influence one’s decision. An individual might think that video evidence would be an effective way of getting answers, but in reality this might not be the case. Articles done by Yael Granot, Hutchinson, and Mooreprovided research to unravel the underlying truth to video evidence and whether it can provide both reliability and credibility in courtrooms. Both came across different, yet unique mechanisms related to video evidence and how bias can occur.
The article, “In the Eyes of the Law: Perception Versus Reality in Appraisals of Video Evidence,” Yael Granot and her colleagues argued why video evidence is not the best resource to use in courtrooms. The article described that video evidence can be misconstrued by individuals and that it does not provide objective and concrete evidence especially when it is used in cases. According to Dr. Granot, video evidence can be unreliable because people can over-believe videos which can lead to several biases. In addition, she provided facts on why people recall visual experiences better. This is because the optic nerve has more neuronal circuits than the auditory system. Additionally, there are limitations to visual acuity that can move attention away from critical information which can lead to an inaccuracy in evidence and interpretations. Researchers suggested there should be guidelines set in place for biases and that jurors, judges, and lawyers should be educated on how to approach video evidence. In conclusion, there are discrepancies in using video evidence in courtrooms due to one’s lack of awareness, failure to discriminate, and the overbelief of what is being presented.
There are many cases that can prove that there are issues with video evidence. The case that stuck out to me was a Texas woman (Atatiana Jefferson) who was fatally shot in her home by a law enforcement officer (Aaron Dean). The call originally came out as a check for well-being. Footage taken from the officer’s body camera show Dean with his handgun out and while approaching a window he sees a woman and shouts, “Put your hands up.” The officer then shot the woman and noted that he “perceived a threat.” The perceived threat was the woman’s handgun which was found near the window that she was shot by. The body camera showed a still image of the firearm that was in Jefferson’s bedroom, but it was evident that she was not holding it or threatening the officer. Dr. Yael Granot’s research proves that individuals have different interpretations and that one’s attention might be different from another. The still image taken from the officer’s body camera showed Jefferson’s innocence and proved that still images can be more reliable than video evidence. Additionally, Dr. Granot’s article addresses the fact that visual detection of an image can occur in 13 milliseconds or fewer. Jefferson only had a .6 milliseconds from the time the officer gave the command to the time she was shot. She had no time to respond to the officer’s verbal command and there was no time for law enforcement to perceive a threat. The article successfully proved that even though video evidence can resolve courtroom cases it can also create bias due to an individual’s lack of awareness, failure to discriminate, and over believing a video.
If it were not for the body camera footage, the law enforcement officer would have not gotten charged for murder and he might still be a cop today. Some people believe that law enforcement officers are good, but in reality this may not be the case. When a person sees footage from a law enforcement officer’s perspective then they might support and understand the officer versus the perpetuator. If an individual has a negative perspective on law enforcement, then they more than likely will side with the perpetuator. In relation, this can create bias on how one views law enforcement. In closing, it is important to view all interpretations and to set regulations in order to reduce error from occurring in video evidence.
In conclusion, it is important to note that video evidence may not provide reliability and accuracy. Many people think that video evidence cannot be misunderstood, but in reality it can lead to invalid judgements and biases. Additionally, hackers can alter and manipulate police body cameras. They can manipulate the data and wipe certain evidence clear. Even though many people argue that video evidence can protect both law enforcement and citizens, security needs needs to be addressed. Additionally, both articles show that video evidence can be misinterpreted and manipulated. Even though video evidence can create biases, it can also settle many cases in the courtroom. Despite the differences in both articles, they aim to spread awareness and to initiate regulations in using video evidence in courtroom cases.
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
Hutchinson, B., & Moore, M. (2019, October 14). Texas officer who fatally shot woman in her
home arrested on murder charges. Retrieved April 11, 2020, from https://abcnews.go.com/US/demand-justice-family-texas-woman-fatally-shot-home/story?id=66261203
No comments:
Post a Comment