What eyewitness accounts tell us about the science of memory

Human memory is often unreliable, especially in legal cases. Between 1989 and 2019, over 70% of wrongful convictions overturned by DNA evidence involved mistaken eyewitness identification. Research shows that memories can change each time they’re recalled, suggesting caution with eyewitness accounts. However, new studies indicate that memory can still be reliable if handled correctly. Memory is like forensic evidence; if contaminated, it loses value. Recollection isn’t like reading a book; it’s altered each time through a process called reconsolidation. Factors like distance, lighting, and race can affect memory accuracy. Intoxication’s impact on memory is less understood, but witnesses under the influence can still provide accurate details if questioned properly. This highlights the complexity of using memory in legal contexts and the need for careful handling. QUESTION: How might understanding the unreliability of memory change the way we view eyewitness testimony in court?