Your memory isn't what you think it is

There was an interesting segment (in four parts) on 60 Minutes about the reliability of eye witness testimony in criminal proceedings:

• Part I
• Part II
• Part III
• Part IV
  

The program made the point that juries tend to ascribe more credibility to eye witness testimony than it deserves. It also suggested that unless witnesses are handled very carefully, they too tend to give more credence to their memories of the crime than the memories actually deserve.

Of course, there is information in eye witness accounts, and consequently of course eye witnesses should testify to the police and to the courts. However, police should be well trained as to how to avoid biasing identifications. One possibility that was suggested is to have photo and live lineups handled by computers, with the interface carefully managed by professional psychologists to minimize bias.

It might also be useful to provide some training to jurors on the credibility of eye witnesses, in a standardized fashion.

I would extrapolate that we tend to believe eye witnesses too much in other circumstances, even when there are fewer constraints on their honest description of what they witnessed.