There are many types of trails that are presented in court during this era that usually consist of at least two eyewitnesses. However, it is very unreasonable to have eyewitnesses during a very serious trial concerning a life or death outcome. Owing to the fact that whatever the individual saw could in fact be modified to fit a certain individual's liking so that he/she could perhaps win the case. Let’s not forget that humans are not perfect and are very different individuals, what one may have witness could possibly not happened exactly as they thought, dependent on the angle they saw the event. Another important factor of viewing an event unfolding, is that whatever is happening could maybe traumatized that individual which also can alter the way he/she saw the event and what really happened. From a personal perspective there are a few selective trials that should not allow eyewitness to testify during court. For instance if the eyewitness is a relative or a friend of the defendant or the plaintiff they should not be able to testify during court, because it is very likely that the eyewitness have modified whatever that is it that he/she saw to compliment the plaintiff or the defendant. Or even if the trail involves a …show more content…
For instance, it spoke of how unlike computers human’s memory is unlimited, which indicates that humans are capable to learn even well up until their last days of breathe, which is quite remarkable! Overall the chapter actually contradict what I had thought about humans not being able to interpret what they saw, with humbleness I agree 100% with the response I got. One thing in particular I appreciate learning was that our memory has order (organization), as if to say that everything that relates to trees goes into the tree section of our