คือ เราพึ่งเขียนรายงานเสร็จ จากกระทู้ที่เเล้วที่เราถามไป เราก็พยายามมาปรับให้มีอุเบกขาเยอะๆตามที่เราเข้าใจ เเละใส่ข้อมูลฝ่ายตรงข้าม เเละพยายามเขียนเหตุผลส่วนตัวบ้างนอกเหนือจากข้อมูลจากงานวิจัย....

เเต่เรารู้สึกว่าเวลาอ่านงานของตัวเอง มันยังให้ความรู้สึกขัดๆๆๆ เเบบเหมือนเรายังเเย้งได้ไม่สุด 100% เหมือนได้เเค่ 70% เหมือนรายงานเราน่าเบื่อ (ซึ่งตรงนี่ไม่เเน่ใจว่าเพราะอาจารย์บังคับให้ใช่เเต่ academic sources อย่างเดียวหรือเปล่า)  

เเบบว่าอ่านๆไปเเล้วยังไม่เเซบพอ ประมาณนั้น... อันนี้จริงเราอยากเล่นกับอารมณ์คนอ่านมากกว่านี่เเต่ว่ากลัวมันไม่เป็น อุเบกขา เพราะว่าถ้ามีอารมณ์มาเกี่ยวมันจะทำให้เราลำเอียงได้ (หรือเปล่า)

เลยอยากให้คนที่ว่างๆมาอ่านรายงานเราหน่อยเถอะค่ะ อยากรู้ว่าต้องปรับตรงไหน นั่งคิดนอนคิดเเล้วก็ยังคิดไม่ออก

งานเราขอซ่อนใน spoil ละกัน  เพราะยาวมาก  ปล เเกรมม่าเรายังไม่ค่อยเเม่น ทำใจนิดนึงนะคะ ><

อันนี้เป็น introduction
[Spoil] คลิกเพื่อดูข้อความที่ซ่อนไว้
When the Risk Is Too Great: The Use of Witnesses in Justice Process Should Be Demolished

The criminal justice system makes an enormous error when including witnesses as part of evidences in a trial. In USA, the majority of wrongful conviction are from eyewitness misidentification (Gross et al, 2005;Rattner,1988). Even though, the witnesses have a pure intention and believe that they have testified the truth, memory can lie. Memory can be changed and twisted to support our belief or what other want us to belief, or it is simply fading due to time and in some cases , distress. Memory is fragile and sometimes it cannot be trust. Yet eyewitnesses are often called to testify in court. And worse, witness testimonies often have a strong influence toward the jurors’ decision of guilty conviction (Bell & Loftus,1988 ; Sigler&Couch,2002) ,which sometimes lead to wrongful convictions. Other than the initial information that witnesses report to the police within a day, a few hours when the actual crime happened, witnesses should not be call to testify in court. Since the time lapse is so great that the other additional information they testify may be unreliable and may cause a wrongful conviction of an innocent person.

1st + 2nd body paragraph
[Spoil] คลิกเพื่อดูข้อความที่ซ่อนไว้
Witnesses’ memory error often happen due to a time lapse between an actual crime event, police investigation and a trial that can take from months to years. Unlike a computer where we can encode information and it would not change, memory can be manipulated and changed. Witnesses talk to other people, listen to other people and receive suggestion about the crime from the other. Unconsciously, witnesses start to corporate an original information with a new information causing false memories to occur. And, a confidentiality level on the false memory goes up as time goes by (Mudd & Govern,2004). Mudd and Govern (2004) study on witness memory error shows the conformity memory error tends to occur when witnesses start talking to one another to confirm the detail about crime. When participants briefly watched an ambiguous crime event, where the police was chasing a suspicious car with no detail regarding a nature of the crime; they were asked to answer the 2 questionnaires about the video clip. The first questionnaire was given right after the video. And then a 3 minutes discussion is given before the participants were required to answer the 2nd questionnaire. In each group, a confederate, who posed as a participant, started a conversation. In the experimental group the confederate talked about the video clip and repeatedly saying that the video was about a police chasing a stolen motor vehicle instead of a suspicious car. While in the control group, the confederate talked about an unrelated matter (Mudd & Govern,2004). Unconsciously, the experimental group, who had a chance to discuss in details about the crime, almost half of the participants changed their answer about the nature of crime in a 2nd test. And more than half had changed their answer at the 2 weeks re-test with more confident in detail about the crime when compare to a control group. The change in the answer and memory occurred due to misinformation that secretly introduce by the confederate (Mud & Govern,2004). In reality, eyewitnesses’ memory can be misled by talking to other eyewitnesses to confirm the detail, or watching the news and try to match their information with the news with the intention to make their memory of the crime conform to the other and try to be more accurate. As showed by Mudd&Govern (2004) only 3 minutes can make a big impact in a memory change, in the justice process that takes months to years the risk of memory error from conformity would be enormous. By confirming with other about the possibility of what they had witnessed and with pure intention to get the best clear information for the police and lawyers, the witnesses can cause a major error to occur in the justice process. Such as in Mud&Govern (2004) where a suspicious person, yet may be innocent, is framed as a motor vehicle theft. Therefore, in order to avoid wrongful conviction, eyewitnesses should not be called to deliver testimonials in court because by the time a trial start, witnesses’ memories are already disturbed. Yet the initial stage of investigation may requires polices and detectives to work with witnesses. The witnesses may not be able to form a conformity belief with the other witnesses at that time ,but other factors such as ambiguous and suggestive questions from polices and detectives may lead to an unintentional false memory.

Ambiguous questions and false questions from authority persons such as polices, detectives and lawyers can manipulate eyewitness’s memories crating false memories. Ambiguous leading questions such as how fast the cars were driving when they ‘smashed’ compare to a similar question using the word ‘hit’ would make a different impression of how fast the cars were droved (Loftus, 2003). The slightest change in wording can leads to unconsciously response bias. During a trial or an interviewed, an eyewitness may feel distress and could not analyze the question thoroughly and answering in a way that the lawyers or polices wanted them to answer. Such as in the case presented by Loftus (2003), participants who were presented with the word ‘smashed’ answered that the cars were drove faster than those who were presented with the word ‘hit’. With that polices and lawyers can manipulate eyewitness’s memory, especially when a certain amount of time went by.  Also, False memory distribution can occur during polices interviews and a lawyer cross examination. Polices and lawyers can repeatedly asking false or suggestive questions several times until the witnesses believe that the false or suggestive events actually happened (Pezdek et al. 2009). The result from Pezdek et al (2009) shows that when participants were shown a video clip and repeatedly forced to answer the questions of  events that did not occur in the video clip, false confabulations and memory error can occur. After the participants were forced to answer unanswerable question for a 2nd time, more participants reported that they were more confident when they had to answer the same question 2nd time. Yet, there is a small limitation in Pezdek et al (2009), when comparing to another group in which the participants had a choice to answer ‘I don’t know’, 75% of the participants answered ‘I don’t know’ in the 1st questionnaire and 88% chose ‘ I don’t know’ in the 2nd time. The results shows that participants actually remember that the events in the questionnaire were not actually happened and is not manipulated by the misleading questions. However, Pezdek et al. (2009) argues that that polices are likely to persuade the witness until they answer, rather than accepting ‘I don’t know’ as an answer. Therefore, the first scenario, a forced confabulation, is likely to happen as well as wrongful convictions. As a conclusion, witnesses should not be interviewed by polices, detectives and lawyers repeatedly especially when a huge amount of time has passed from the actual crime event. Yet , Oeberst (2012) , argues that eyewitness memories , even though it is not 100% accurate, the percentage of  memory error is not much comparing to what people generally belief.