The forensic psychologist should ensure they maintain professionalism in the field when determining who among the five possible suspects could have sexually assaulted and killed the 11-year-old victim. In this instance, the psychologist should affirm that eyewitness testimony is most often biased and cannot be used as a tool when seeking accurate notions concerning an event. The scientist should note the park had various people that provided widely varying accounts. People may develop false memories to fill in the blanks and convince themselves of their accuracy (Laney & Loftus, 2022). A forensic scientist must maintain professionalism in these situations and avoid bias from eyewitnesses.
Furthermore, a forensic scientist must remain objective when making assertions about a case. It is crucial to note that forensic evidence is usable in court, necessitating accurate analysis to ensure they find a real solution to their problems. Forensic scientists consider that bias affects people despite claiming their objective stance (Sunde, 2022). One’s perceptions and growth greatly influence individual actions and thought processes (Laney & Loftus, 2022). This is evident when twelve people at the park noted seeing a person from a minority group. While it is improbable to recognize the accuracy of these statements, forensic scientists should refrain from using biased information to make decisions and remain objective.
Potential Risks
The first risk involves false eyewitness testimony that is exceedingly convincing and leads to a wrongful conviction. Forensic scientists frequently testify in court, using their findings as evidence against potential perpetrators. This implies that such work requires a thorough understanding of the case before making assertions (Meyers, 2006). A forensic scientist may fail to note the variations in a witness’s narrative and conclude that many people within a population cannot be wrong. This assumption about the legitimacy of a statement, because many people share it, is erroneous and could lead to disastrous effects. A large section of the eyewitnesses claims the crime’s perpetrator is a Latino, while four states they were African American. This variation indicates that a sizeable population among the twenty people who said they saw the victim with the perpetrator is split between the physical nature of the criminal. In this way, if the forensic scientist uses eyewitnesses’ most widely accepted notion, they may be subject to bias based on the witness’s perceptions.
Recommended Course of Action
Law enforcement should question people to discern the period when they interacted with the victim. The girl’s parents lost track of her movement for 45 minutes. These individuals should have alibis for the period to eliminate most of them from the list. As five possible criminals were seen at the park by eyewitnesses, they should account for their time during the period when the girl was unaccounted for by her parents. It is integral to note the park had other people during this time, and some may collaborate with the potential perpetrators’ response. In this case, the forensic scientist would reduce the list of possible criminals. It is important to discern that eyewitness accounts are frequently flawed (Laney & Loftus, 2022); the forensic scientist should refrain from using this information and determine who was at the park and the period they visited the area to conduct an in-depth investigation that may yield more accurate results.
Implications of Diversity
Diversity
Forensic scientists must be cautious of the variations between different groups regarding issues such as gender and race. The main implication when considering the young girl was sexually assaulted is a male criminal. However, this notion can be dispelled as the only possible solution to the problem as the DNA test did not yield any results. Therefore, it is essential to note that gender bias may affect the case and lead to erroneous assumptions that deviate from the accurate case facts (Meyers, 2006). Furthermore, many eyewitnesses in the matter either reported a Latino male or an African American man. Racial bias should be alleviated in the case as some individuals are traditionally labelled as potential criminals, where a racist society can influence the potential for such people to get jailed despite inadequate evidence to claim they are guilty.
Addressing Diversity Issues
Considering the racial connotations specified by eyewitnesses as erroneous as they vary widely is prudent. One should further note the indeterminate nature of the criminal’s gender, as DNA does not elicit any form of match that would provide additional information to aid in the investigation (Sarwar et al., 2014). It is crucial to determine that the case has no leads except the time of the murder, enabling the scientist to determine the people at the park during this period. Forensic scientists should ignore ambiguous information and focus on the development of accurate narratives based on facts rather than people’s recollections of events.
Steps to ensure Cultural Competency
Forensic scientists should ascertain that racial tension exists in society and should not assume each eyewitness is accurately depicting the perpetrators of a crime. It is crucial to determine the motive behind every crime and whether anyone within the vicinity would benefit from the action (Laney & Loftus, 2022). Finally, forensic scientists must ensure they do not exhibit bias towards potential perpetrators and avoid leading eyewitnesses towards a specific outcome by nudging them in this direction.
References
Laney, C., & Loftus, E. F. (2022). Eyewitness testimony and memory biases. All About Forensic Psychology. Web.
Meyers, L. (2006). Ethics workshop focuses on self-care. Monitor on Psychology. Web.
Sarwar, F., Allwood, C. M., & Innes-Ker, Å. (2014). Effects of different types of forensic information on eyewitness’ memory and confidence accuracy. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 6(1), 17–27. Web.
Sunde, N. (2022). Strategies for safeguarding examiner objectivity and evidence reliability during digital forensic investigations. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 40. Web.