Admission of a Recovered Memory in a Court Case
My Ruling as a Judge
My ruling is that the woman should only be allowed to present her recovered memory of abuse to the jury as long as there is other supporting evidence because it could be a false memory triggered by recent experiences. According to Loftus (1997), people may take a long time to realize their memory is wrong, especially when exposed to misinformation. This was evident in the case where a Minnesota psychiatrist misinformed patients, making them believe that they remembered a sexual abuse incident but later realized that the memory was false and had been triggered during their interactions with the psychiatrist. Therefore, presenting a recovered memory in court may mislead the jury and result in an unfair judgment. The jury can only rely on memory, and no other supporting evidence may exist.
Scientific Evidence Favoring and Scientific Evidence Disqualifying the Testimony
The scientific evidence that favors allowing the woman to testify about the recovered memory is that it can be genuine if recalled outside the therapy context. In contrast, scientific evidence that favors not allowing the women to testify about recovery memory indicates that recovered memories can be false if the memory is retrieved within the therapy context. Individuals who see therapy due to abuse are likely to have false recovered memories if the individual who abused them abuses another person again. In such cases, the memory cannot be relied on in court and could be interpreted as a recurring trauma triggered by a recent incident. Information exchanged during therapy may also create false recovered memories, especially if the therapist gives the patient their view of how the abuse occurred. According to Geraerts et al. (2007), continuous childhood sexual abuse memories and discontinuous memories that were unexpectedly remembered outside therapy are more likely to be valid compared to anticipated erratic memories recalled during treatment.
Controversy About Recovered Memories
The controversy about recovered memory is founded on whether it is possible to forge an incident and then vividly after a long time. Loftus (1997) argues that recovered memories are false and often triggered by misinformation during suggestive interrogation or when an individual reads or views media coverage about an event they have experienced. According to Loftus (1993), recovered memories are not accurate because new information acquired after an event is usually incorporated into memory, altering and supplementing a person’s recollection of what happened. Loftus (1993) also argues that memory can be changed, especially when an individual is exposed to misleading information. Most research supporting the reliability of recovered memories about abuse has focused on the therapy context because most victims of abuse see therapists to help them cope with the trauma. The basic assumption is that therapists may be suggestive, hence putting the wrong ideas in the victim’s mind. However, it is essential to consider other triggers outside the therapy sessions (Geraert et al.,2009). The triggers could be exposure to a similar event or an encounter with the perpetrator. In the current case, the woman is accusing her father of sexual assault. The abuse allegedly happened 20 years ago when the victim was still a young girl who may not have been able to discern right and wrong. Therefore, I would rule that the woman’s recovered memory may be disclosed to the jury as long as there is supporting evidence to prove that the father is capable of sexual abuse.
References
Geraerts, E., Lindsay, D. S., Merckelbach, H., Jelicic, M., Raymaekers, L., Arnold, M. M., & Schooler, J. W. (2009). Cognitive mechanisms underlying recovered-memory experiences of childhood sexual abuse. Psychological Science, 20(1), 92-98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02247.x
Geraerts, E., Schooler, J. W., Merckelbach, H., Jelicic, M., J.A. Hauer, B., & Ambadar, Z. (2007). The reality of recovered memories. Psychological Science, 18(7), 564-568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01940.x
Loftus, E. F. (1993). The reality of repressed memories. American Psychologist, 48(5), 518-537. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.48.5.518
Loftus, E. F. (1997). Creating False Memories. Scientific American, 227(3), 70-75.
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
Admission of a Recovered Memory in a Court Case
Topic: Admission of a “recovered” memory in a court case.
The issue of recovered memories touches on topics related to memory research, clinical psychology, and the legal interpretation of scientific evidence.
Imagine you are a judge. A 24-year-old adult woman accuses her father of sexual abuse 20 years ago based on a “recovered memory” – she did not remember the abuse until last month but now feels that she has a clear memory of the abuse. Her lawyer wants the woman to testify about her recovered memory of abuse. The lawyer defending her father argues that scientists have shown that such recovered memories cannot be real memories and that this testimony should not be allowed from the woman because it may emotionally bias the jury against the father. The woman’s lawyer counters with the argument that recent scientific evidence supports the possibility that the recovered may be accurate and that the woman should be able to present this testimony to the jury.
What is your ruling as a judge – should the woman be allowed to present her recovered memory of abuse to the jury? What is the scientific evidence that favors allowing the woman to testify about the recovered memory, and what is the scientific evidence that favors not allowing her to testify about the recovered memory?
In your paper, explain the controversy about recovered memories, summarize the evidence for and against the likely accuracy of recovered memories, and explain how you would rule and why.
Use only the four sources listed below as sources of evidence. In addition, you may optionally use material from the textbook.
Your paper should be 3–4 pages long, double-spaced, 12-point font.
Sources
Loftus, E. “Creating False Memories.” Scientific American 277, no. 3 (1997): 70–5.
Loftus, E. “The Reality of Repressed Memories.” American Psychologist 48 (1993): 518–37.
Geraerts, E., et al. “The Reality of Recovered Memories.” Psychological Science 18, no. 7 (2007): 564–8. ( PDF)
Geraerts, E., et al. “Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Recovered-Memory Experiences of Childhood Sexual Abuse.” Psychological Science 20, no. 1 (2009): 92–8.