This is my second paper of the week, this time for my sociological enterprise course. The assignment was to find an academic article; summarize it; review it, identifying strengths and weaknesses; and describe its importance. My semester-long topic has been the dangers of overreliance on eyewitness testimony, so I decided to select an article related to judges’ knowledge on eyewitness testimony.

I titled my paper Article Review: “A comparison of Chinese judges’ and US judges’ knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony” (I know, such an original title).

The dangers of putting too much trust in eyewitness testimonies not only affect juries, but also have an impact on unsuspecting judges. It is important for both juries and judges to be aware of the skewed evidence presented by eyewitnesses. Although many people agree that juries need to be educated prior to deliberating on a case involving eyewitnesses, it is generally assumed that judges are already aware of the problems eyewitnesses introduce into a particular case. A group of psychologists in the United States worked with the Sichuan Provincial People’s Court in China to determine if that assumption is correct by surveying 160 US judges and 170 Chinese judges in a cross-cultural investigation of knowledge to find out if judges do in fact know as much as they should know about various facets of eyewitness testimonies.

The questions the researchers asked the judges covered a broad range of different topics, including (but not limited to) physical details, psychological effects, inadvertent bias, external choice influences, and assumed knowledge of attorneys. When the researchers asked a question, they read a statement (such as “A police officer who knows which member of the lineup or photo array is the suspect should not conduct the lineup or photo array”) and asked for a response of “A” for agreement with the statement, “D” for disagreement with the statement, or “T” for generally true (meaning, the statement is true most of the time). For example, the correct response for the previous statement about foreknowledge by police officers should be “A,” as the statement is true and the questioned judge should agree with the statement. The success rates for this question used in the example were 67% for Chinese judges and 62% for US judges – this means 67% of Chinese judges answered “A” while 33% of Chinese judges provided a different answer, and 62% of US judges answered “A” while 38% of US judges provided a different answer.

Statistics show that on average, Chinese judges performed slightly worse than US judges, but overall, both groups of judges performed poorly relative to what was expected by expert analysts for people of such a high standing in the legal system. The statements that both groups of judges did extremely poorly on were “A witness’ ability to recall minor details about a crime is a good indicator of the accuracy of the witness’ identification of the perpetrator of the crime” (correct response is “D,” accuracy rates were 36% correct by Chinese judges and 23% correct by US judges) and “At trial, an eyewitness’ confidence is a good predictor of his or her accuracy in identifying the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime” (“D,” 23% Chinese and 32% US). The statements on which Chinese judges performed significantly (p<0.01) poorer than US judges were “Attorneys know how most eyewitness factors affect eyewitness accuracy” (“D,” 8% Chinese and 41% US) and “Jurors now how most eyewitness factors affect eyewitness accuracy (“D,” 11% Chinese and 64% US).

The implications of the findings of this research are clear – even though judges in the United States might be slightly more aware of the dangers of eyewitness testimony, the awareness is still nowhere near what it should be. According to the Innocence Project (which, according to their website, is “an organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals”), problems in eyewitness testimonies are the primary contributing factor for 77% of wrongful convictions. The findings about judges’ lack of knowledge of these problems make it clear that eyewitnesses and jury members are not the only ones who are at fault for this massive discrepancy.

By placing too much weight and trust on eyewitness testimonies, judges are making wrong decisions that are placing innocent people in prison simply because someone claiming to have seen the crime first-hand points to the suspect and declares that “(s)he is the one.” The position of being a judge comes with great prestige and honor, and judges should not be making such dramatic errors within their own profession. This research acts as good support for providing continued and focused education for judges even after they earn their title. In order for them to complete their duties to the fullest, they must continue to receive a stream of accurate information and findings regarding research targeting the legal field so they are able to identify newly discovered sources of obstacles and adjust their performance accordingly.

My Homework for Your Reading Pleasure

I finished my sociological theory paper that is due tomorrow, and decided that it was a generic-enough paper to post. It was an open topic about anything related to a theory of Durkheim’s that we covered in our unit. There wasn’t really anything that I could think of, so I decided to do write about religion and solidarity. It wasn’t a topic that I really wanted to write about, but my instructor said that it would work out, so I wrote about it just for the sake of getting a good grade.

I titled it "Freedom of Religion: Is it Inadvertently Pulling Us Apart?"

If you are an American, are you proud to be one? According to a study conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, you more likely are than are not – Americans were rated as the second most proud people in the world, just barely trailing Venezuelans. But just what are all these Americans so proud of? According to a different, separate study run by NCL America of NCL Corporation, Ltd., 44% of adult respondents were most proud of the freedoms granted by the Constitution.

The First Amendment of the Constitution is responsible for providing a handful of freedoms, one of which is religion. Most Americans are glad they are part of a society where the church and the state are separated, but is this joy well-justified (or even at all justified)? Should Americans be spending more time being concerned about the freedom of religion rather than being proud of it?

According to the theories of Émile Durkheim, religion is a necessary and vital component of any society. Although he points out in Elementary Forms of Religious Life that science is becoming more powerful than and a possible alternative for religion, he concludes that a society cannot function properly in the entire absence of religion. According to Durkheim, religion gives the people a sense of collective effervescence, which is apparent from the social power they feel when they are with others of the same religion; this is visible through activities such as public speaking, revolutions, and complex instruments of everyday use.

So what happens when religion is not present in a society, or is developed to a lesser degree? One would guess that all the benefits provided by religion would be missing, and a society would not have sufficient social power to fulfill their needs for advancement. The members of the society would be more fearful of doing high-risk activities because they would no longer have a strong group of supporters backing them up when in need.

We shift now to a related topic of solidarity. When religious connection is strong and people are supportive of each other, there is a high level of solidarity, or the unity of feeling and action. It is important to maximize solidarity because, similar to religion, being solid makes the members of a group feel more connected and supported by others. This instills courage and encourages members to take high-risk but high-reward chances that people would normally cower away from that will advance a society. There are two different types of solidarity, each rooting from a different principle but both having the same benefits.

The first and most primitive type of solidarity is mechanical solidarity. Mechanical solidarity arises when members of a society share many common beliefs, possess many common resemblances, and have a common main goal. For example, a group of hunters all equipped with swords are mechanically solid because they are similar in construct (they all have the same resources available to them), and they are similar in desire (they all wish to hunt and kill the prey). Having mechanical solidarity is better than being alone because a group of three hunters equipped with swords will collectively be able to accomplish much greater tasks than three individual hunters all fighting for themselves.

The other and more complex type of solidarity is organic solidarity. Organic solidarity arises when members of a society are different and unique in construct, but still have a common main goal. For example, a group of clan members possessing different skills (such as a swordsman, a craftsman, and a cook) is organically solid because the members are different in capability (one attacks the prey, one processes the prey, and one prepares the food for eating) but are still similar in desire (they all wish to kill and eat the prey).

As apparent from these examples, it is important for a community to have a strong sense of any form of solidarity in order to be productive with their efforts.

Now it is time to link everything together. In order to have a strong sense of solidarity, sharing a common religion and reaping the benefits of collective effervescence is important. This means, when more people share a common religion, solidarity will increase; on the other hand, when more people have different religions, there will be disconnects in beliefs and solidarity will decrease. Thus, because the American government is allowing American citizens to select their own religion, they are putting American solidarity in great jeopardy. If people are given the choice to pick their own religion, there will be many subdivisions within the American population. According B.A. Robinson of the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, surveys show that there are 20 different generic classifications of religions, and within each classification, there can be anywhere between tens to thousands of even further divisions. This effectively means that the American people can be divided in thousands upon thousands of manners due to the discrepancies among the beliefs of various religions.

One may argue that even though the freedom of religion would prevent the development of mechanical solidarity because people would be dissimilar, it could still cause organic solidarity to flourish. However, there is an important component of organic solidarity that will prevent this from happening.

In order for different people to become solid, their differences must be complimentary. Just because a collection of people are different from each other does not mean they will form a cohesive and supportive group. For example, a group consisting of individuals whose differences can be brought together to complete a common task (such as the swordsman, craftsman, and cook in the previous example) will become solid. However, a group consisting of individuals whose differences conflict (such as a swordsman, an axeman, and an archer) cannot be brought together to complete a common task because even though all three of them have different weaponry skills, they are all trying to do the same thing – kill the prey.

This same thing will happen to people possessing different religions. If having different religions was beneficial, it would mean that there are elements contained in one religion that are absent in other religions, and in order to have a complete and fulfilling religion, members of many different religions would have to come together and collaborate their beliefs. Unfortunately for the people, that is not the case. Although an individual believing in a specific religion might find other religions intriguing or enlightening, the other religions will not bring new information that would complement his/her current beliefs. It is more likely that it would instead conflict with his/her current beliefs and provide alternative explanations for things already described by his/her religion (such as how the world came to be or who the creator is).

For example, consider two individuals, one who believes in Christianity and one who believes in atheism. If these two people were to go out on a dangerous journey, they will have completely different approaches to preparation. The Christian would rely on the Christian God and pray for protection, while the atheist would take a realistic and logical approach to the situation and prepare defensive weapons and armor. The atheist would observe the actions of the Christian and criticize him/her for wasting time and partaking in impractical activity, which would then cause the Christian to become irritated that his/her ways are not being accepted. In this circumstance, instead of the two individuals complementing each other, they would prevent each other from fulfilling what they believe is the best way to prepare for the trek. This conflict would pull the two individuals apart rather than bringing them together, thus reducing rather than increasing solidarity. As a result, because the individuals would not have each other’s support, they may be unable to act with courage and bravery.

When the American government allows citizens to freely choose their religion, they are essentially creating a scenario similar to that previously illustrated with the Christian and atheist. With an increase of the variety religions comes an increase of differences in beliefs, which then causes an increase in disconnections among the society and a decrease in solidarity.

In summary, if Americans expect their country to accelerate their advancement, it is important that the freedom of religion is revoked, and is instead replaced by an overshadowing singular religion such that all American citizens will possess the same beliefs, ultimately maximizing social effervescence and allowing us to do things that were once seen as outrageous and impossible.

Disclaimer: I do not personally support the main argument made that the freedom of religion is causing harm to Americans and should be abolished. The argument and supporting evidence were developed and compiled for the sole purpose of completing the requirements of this assignment in a relevant manner.