One of the imponderables of behavioural science, is how we remain ‘certain’ of uncertainties. A lot of research work in this area of psycho-analysis still remain work in progress; still police and state prosecutors continue to place premuim, sometimes sole reliance on evidence of eyewitness(es) like they were ‘gospel truths’. It is interesting how what we think we know, saw or even percieve can be the diametric opposite. We are still a long way from developing a body, or set of scientific knowledge or proof to achieve exactitute with our conclusions. The last 2 - 3 decades witnessed such phenomenal leap in forensic science, biometrics, DNA and technology that we still dont yet know all that we need to ‘know’.
The New York Times columnist Adam Liptak in his article entitled ’34 Years Later, Supreme Court Will Revisit Eyewitness IDs’ made certain profound and provocative analysis and conclusions worth reading. The issues raised continue to be relevant in our search for justice for those unjustly treated by the system; or victims of the tunnel visions of prosecutors and shoddy investigative work by the police. The full article can be accessed and read here at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/us/23bar.html
