Dad Accused of Sexual Abuse Based on Daughter's Recovered Memory - Essay Sample

Introduction

A 24 year-old woman accuses her father of sexual abuse that happened 20 years ago. She bases the accusation on a "recovered memory" - while she did not remember the abuse until a month ago, she now feels that she has a clear memory of the abuse. Her attorney wants her to testify about her recovered memory of abuse. The attorney defending her father argues that scientists have proven such recovered memories cannot be real memories. Also, this testimony should not be allowed from the woman because it may emotionally bias the jury against the father. The woman's lawyer counters that recent scientific evidence supports the possibility that the recovered memory may be accurate, and that the woman should be allowed to present this testimony to the jury.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

If I were a judge, I would rule that the woman should NOT be allowed to present her recovered memory of abuse to the jury. The levels of skepticism surrounding repressed traumatic memories have been on the increase in recent times. To make matters worse, psychology practitioners and researchers still hold differing opinions on whether such memories exist and whether it is possible to recovery them successfully(Melinder & Magnussen 54).

Repressed memory is a Freudian concept in which the human mind subconsciously suppresses traumatic events. Whether or not repressed memories are accurate, and whether psychologists should pursue them, is a major debate in clinical psychology since Sigmund Freud's time. It is worth noting that Freud came up with two rather different definitions of the term repression. One corresponds to a fully unconscious defensive strategy while the other matches with a conscious defense. Attempts made to find scientific proof of the unconscious version have not achieved much success. On the other hand, the conscious version corresponds with day-to-day strategies such as thought suppression and avoidance (Dodier 3).

The controversy about repressed memories can be traced back to the 1990s. Some healthcare practitioners were of the opinion that it is possible for traumatic memories to be repressed for a long time and then recovered afterwards via therapy. However, others did not agree with the concept, pointing out the lack of scientific proof in favor of suppressed memories. Research was conducted to investigate whether and the extent to which beliefs about repressed memories may have changed since the controversy started. The researchers sought the opinions of practicing psychotherapists and clinicians, alternative therapists, and research psychologists. Their findings showed that mainstream psychology practitioners are more skeptical about repressed memories than they were in the 1990s. Also, they exercise more caution in trying to recover such memories. The research findings also show that a clear gap still exists between researchers and clinicians. According to Melinder & Magnussen (58), between 60% and 80% of the therapists, clinicians, and psychoanalysts are in agreement to some extent that disturbing memories are often suppressed, and that it is possible to retrieve them via therapy. This is in a sharp contrast to less than 30 percent of research-oriented psychologists.

Despite the apparent increased skepticism among research-based psychologists, a notable percentage of non-researchers to a certain degree endorse the validity of hidden memories, and approve their therapeutic retrieval. This results from the fact that some clinical psychologists tend to value their own observations and intuitions while ignoring scientific evidence. These clinicians perceive their excessively confident self-reports of alleged memory recovery as proof of how accurate repressed memories are. On the other hand, most researchers point out experimental research is needed if those self-reports are to be considered accurate.

Non-research clinicians believe it is erroneous to assume that there is no scientific concept behind memory repression, or that clinical-psychology professionals do not have sufficient knowledge on memory research. As mentioned earlier, the conscious definition of memory repression matches with every day thought patterns. The fact that certain mental health conditions are characterized by thought suppression or avoidance is well documented by research. It is worth bearing in mind that there is sufficient evidence of individuals forgetting traumatic events such as sexual assault, murder and death. However, there needs to research conducted that broadly focuses on conceivable cognitive explanations for instances when individuals forget disturbing events (Dodier 8).

For the woman to be allowed to testify about the recovered memory, her psychologist must be able to differentiate between the conscious suppression of unpleasant memories and unconsciously repressed memories. It is possible that memories, whether in the form of hurtful words or disturbing events, may not be remembered for lengthy period of time. Also, there is likelihood that such memories may be remembered later, probably with a cue. However, the scenario presented by the woman does induce some skepticism. For one, she had no recollection whatsoever of being subjected to abuse by her father. She then undergoes a series of suggestive memory techniques such as leading questions, guided imagery or hypnosis, and miraculously remembers severe abuse that happened twenty years ago. There is no known scientific proof that the human memory works this way.

It is worth looking at what the law says about repressed memories. Studies show that a significant percentage of abuse victims report a memory loss of their experiences, at least at a certain point in time. However, research has also indicated the possibility of false memories being implanted. It is difficult to differentiate between hidden memories and false one if there is no collaborating proof. A memory is generally made up of three processes: encoding, consolidation and retrieval. If an error occurs during any of the processes, it can result in false memories. For instance, a false memory may be created during encoding if the individual falsely remembers an imagined event as a perceived one. Recent studies show that memory consolidation can be affected by factors like sleep, thus causing false memories. It's also possible to create false memories during retrieval if it is induced by specified tasks or cues.

Additional research shows that a significant portion of the general public believes in repressed memories. Such a marked divide, whereby clinicians and the public are on one hand while researchers are on the other, presents a worrying trend. It has implications for both the psychology practice and for the judiciary system. In a court of law, perceptions about memory often determine whether any testimony based on repressed memories will be admitted into evidence. Some criminal cases have included recovered repressed memories as part of witnesses' testimony. Most of them usually involve allegations of childhood sexual abuse. Certain jurisdictions have even extended the extended the statute of limitations for such cases to accommodate the likelihood of hidden memories. On the flip side, other courts have rejected witness testimony involving false memories as evidence, ruling that it is unreliable and thus inadmissible.

Works Cited

Dodier, Olivier, et al. "Psychologists and Psychiatrists in Court: What Do They Know About Eyewitness Memory? A Comparison of Experts in Inquisitorial and Adversarial Legal Systems." Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology (2019): 1-9.

Melinder, Annika, and Svein Magnussen. "Psychologists and psychiatrists serving as expert witnesses in court: what do they know about eyewitness memory?." Psychology, Crime & Law 21.1 (2015): 53-61.