Conhecimento sobre processos de memória na obtenção de relatos testemunhais e reconhecimento de pessoas

Abstract

This dissertation consists of two studies, one theoretical and one empirical, on the knowledge of judges regarding memory in the processes of recognition of persons and reporting of witnesses in the judiciary. The theoretical section consisted of a systematic review of the literature, with the objective of identifying how many and which are the Brazilian publications that interlocution between Psychology of Witness and Law. The initial hypothesis was that few Brazilian publications would be found on the subject. It was identified that the predominant themes in the articles found were related to false memories and recognition of people. There was a lack of Brazilian scientific literature and a shortage of research that interlocution between Psychology of Witness and Law in the country. The empirical section consisted of a survey that aimed to identify the knowledge of the magistrates on topics related to the Psychology of Witness in relation to the reporting of witnesses and the recognition of persons. Subsequently, the knowledge of the judges was compared with that of the lay public. In order to reach the proposed objective, an instrument was developed containing questions about the accuracy of memory in relation to judicial evidence dependent on memory, essentially the testimonial testimony and the recognition of people. The questionnaire was applied to judges and the lay public. In light of international studies, the initial hypotheses of the empirical section were that (a) judges would have limited knowledge about memory and factors that may influence the accuracy and reliability of person recognition and witness reports (Houston et al., 2013; And Safer, 2004, 2010), b) that this knowledge would not be very different from the knowledge of the lay public (Wise & Safer, 2010) and c) that knowledge of legal actors would be based on common sense, and from that conception, these professionals guide their practices and decisions (Houston et al., 2013). The results confirmed the hypotheses and, in some questions, the laymen's answers were more in keeping with the literature coming from the Psychology of Witness than the answers of the magistrates. The results of the present study reinforce the importance of expanding Brazilian publications related to the topic, which could facilitate the access of magistrates to the knowledge related to Psychology of Witness related to the judicial context. Further studies could be carried out with magistrates and other legal actors (e.g. prosecutors, police officers, lawyers) involved in collecting evidence on human memory in order to broaden and qualify the sample. This study may contribute to specific training for professionals involved in conducting memory-dependent judicial evidence as a way to improve the practices performed. The knowledge about the fallibility of memory, as well as the impact of the collection of evidence on the quality of evidence, may allow new guidelines to be regulated on how to conduct the processes related to the collection of testimonies and the conduction of acknowledgments.