Essay On Repressed Memories
False Memories There are a significant number of people tried for crimes that they did not commit based off of another’s repressed memory. Elizabeth Loftus made it her goal to find justice for those wrongfully accused. It is hard to say whether or not those accused are truly innocent or not, but what we can say is that too many people are being locked away without all the right evidence; just another’s memory of what might have happened. Loftus found it unlikely that any one person could forget such a traumatic experience, then remember it years later. It was later found that a majority of the accusers were seeing therapists. Could this have lead to the repressed memories showing up after many years of harboring them? How do we know that
…show more content…
the so-called patients were not being corrupted by their therapists, especially by the therapists who are actively giving suggestions (Slater 189)? Plenty of cases have memory-based convictions as their primary source of evidence. With that being said, a repressed memory should not be a legitimate piece of evidence when attempting to convict another.
After a child has experienced a traumatic event, a therapist typically sees them. Therapists are generally supposed to help heal the child’s emotional wounds. It has been found in many cases that the therapists themselves have been suggesting false information to the abused children, causing the memories to appear as repressed. Through the studies conducted by Elizabeth Loftus, it has been proven that after traumatic events, therapists who use memory-retrieving therapy will worsen the patient’s mental health. After closely examining multiple types of memory-retrieving therapy, it has been proven that therapy which memory has been recovered is bad therapy (Loftus 28). Another experiment conducted in this article exposed the reality of memory-retrieving therapy, and the affects it has on its patients. Thirty patients, who had experienced a traumatic childhood, were used during this experiment. Towards the end of the experiment, a majority of the patients were divorced, without jobs, and had distanced themselves from their families (Loftus 29). Memory-retrieving therapy is harmful to the patients involved and can lead to the patient harming themselves, or cause false memories. When applying therapy to those with traumatic past, it’s safe to say that memory-retrieving therapy should not be used to ensure the safety of the patient and their families. Elizabeth Loftus has changed the way the legal system views eyewitnesses now. In the article Corrupted Memory, written by Moheb Costandi, he proves the impact of Loftus findings on memory. Loftus findings lead the Supreme Court in New Jersey to pass a law stating that if a memory is imperfect in any way, that the jurors must be notified of the nature of the memory (Costandi 268). It is important that if there are any flaws with an eyewitness that everyone should be aware, therefor the case involved has a better chance of achieving justice. Many cases today are based off of the eyewitnesses’ testimony, so it is imperative that the jurors are informed about all of the details involving a case to ensure that the outcome is fair and just. Loftus findings are found to be useful during cases with unreliable testimonies; with her help multiple cases have been rightfully tried, although some too late. In 1990, a case was uncovered and retried, a man by the name of George Franklin was sent to prison after his twenty year old daughter’s repressed memories of him murdering her best friend when she was eight. This was just one of the many cases where someone was imprisoned due to a repressed memory (George, I Could Have Sworn). It is frightening to think that there have been hundreds of cases like Franklin’s where they were wrongfully convicted based off of a repressed memory.
Our minds harbor a copious amount of particulars, from meeting information to the daily shopping list, but our minds don’t always remember every little detail. For many of the eyewitnesses used during court hearings, they have quite a bit of information, but they seem to always be missing bits and pieces from their memories. There are typically multiple eyewitnesses involved in a case. When any one of the eyewitnesses is giving a false or corrupted testimony, it is smart to inform the others so they can be aware of their own testimonies (Echterhoff 374). We are not always going to remember every detail, but when in court it is imperative that all the information is given to ensure the best outcome for the wrongfully accused. Loftus believed that some people, even when giving false statements, completely believed that they were truthfully telling the story (Slater 190). This can be an issue when giving a testimony in court. A false testimony could lead to false imprisonment for more years than necessary, if at all. Many of those wrongfully convicted were proven to be innocent by Loftus. Loftus had the ability to help a majority of the wrongfully convicted, some sooner than others. One of the many convicted that Loftus helped goes by the name of Paul Ingram. Ingram was accused of raping his two daughters when they were younger. While being interrogated by the authorities, he began to believe that he truly did rape his daughters. He was imprisoned for the crime he thought he did, it wasn’t until many years later that Loftus came across his case. Loftus was able to prove his innocence, but unfortunately it was too late, he had already spent many years in prison believing that he committed the crimes (Slater 192). Loftus found from this case that not only can the repressed memories be false, but the memories of the one being accused could also be false. Paul Ingram’s memories were tampered with to the point of corruption. His perception of what was fact and what was fiction became distorted after hours of interrogation. This case is an example of how easily the mind can be corrupted. With persistence you can alter any one beings memory and thoughts, and make them believe in a false statement; now how is it possible that a memory is a viable piece of evidence when convicting another being? When a traumatic event happens in ones life, it is hard to forget, that is why it is unlikely that a repressed memory can be justified in the court of law. Now it is possible for a person to try to forget about a traumatic memory, rather than be reminded of it later on, but a recovered memory is not a repressed memory. There is a difference between failing to think of a memory verses not being able to think of it (Geraerts 23).
We find it hard to believe someone when they are telling an eccentric story without physical evidence, so how is it that during criminal cases the use of memories and stories is an acceptable form of evidence?
I believe that when attempting to convict a person of a crime, there should be plenty of physical evidence of that person doing the crime in order for there to even be a case. In many cases, repressed memories can be false, but the author of Repressed Memories: True and False, believes that in some cases repressed memories can be legitimate but neither should be used as a reliable source in a criminal case. Only reliable sources should be used when attempting to convict another on a crime they may or may not have done. Loftus experiments prove that the cases that involve repressed memories as a primary source are typically weak cases (Reisner Paragraph 13). In reality, any type of evidence used in a criminal case should be physical. Memories are not a form of physical evidence and should not be used. The use of physical evidence in criminal cases has a far better chance of convicting the true criminal, verses using memories or thoughts as evidence. There is no way to back up the evidence if it is based off of a memory. There have been a numerous amount of cases that have been dismissed due to the jury not believing in the repressed memories. It’s impossible to have a strong case when the jurors do not even believe the information given to
them. In one of the many articles written by Elizabeth Loftus, she states that when using a repressed memory during a criminal case, the accused is not able to prove their innocence. During a criminal trial, the accused can typically defend him/herself based off of the physical evidence but when there is only memory-based evidence, we are not allowing the accused to fully defend him/herself. It is nearly impossible to prove that the accusations made towards the accused are false with only memory-based evidence (Loftus 26). Now during a criminal case, I believe that all of those involved should have the ability to explain him/herself, but with a case based off of a repressed memory, it becomes difficult for all parties to justify themselves. I agree with Loftus and with many of the lawyers who use her finding to the fullest, that repressed memories should not be used during criminal cases due to the fact that it does not allow the accused to defend them and in today’s society with lawsuits and criminal cases, we need to be able to defend ourselves. Loftus did not have very many fans. Her ideas on repressed memories sparked confrontation with many. Some believe that repressed memories are very common and can be useful if convicting those whom are guilty. Even though some find them to be useful, they still do not fully understand how the repressed memories work. When interviewed by Karen S. Peterson, Schlitz stated, “It is hard to distinguish the victim who cannot remember and the victim who does not want to think about it.” Basically, they are unable to tell the difference between whether or not someone chooses not to remember, or if they truly do not remember, without the ability to tell the two apart, there is really no way to determine if someone is lying about a memory, or telling the truth, making it illogical to use repressed memories as a primary source of evidence. It would be unwise and difficult to base a statement off of something that is not fully understood.
There have been hundreds wrongfully convicted people due to repressed memories. Loftus designed her experiments off of theses cases and has gone on to try to help free innocent people. Her findings on repressed memories and their lack of stability have been used in many cases, and has even changed the way the supreme court of New Jersey views trials based on these repressed memories. When in court, repressed memories should not be used as a legit source in convicting a person of the crime. Not everyone agrees, but if enough do we might just be on the right track to ensuring reliable sources and evidence during criminal trials.
the so-called patients were not being corrupted by their therapists, especially by the therapists who are actively giving suggestions (Slater 189)? Plenty of cases have memory-based convictions as their primary source of evidence. With that being said, a repressed memory should not be a legitimate piece of evidence when attempting to convict another.
After a child has experienced a traumatic event, a therapist typically sees them. Therapists are generally supposed to help heal the child’s emotional wounds. It has been found in many cases that the therapists themselves have been suggesting false information to the abused children, causing the memories to appear as repressed. Through the studies conducted by Elizabeth Loftus, it has been proven that after traumatic events, therapists who use memory-retrieving therapy will worsen the patient’s mental health. After closely examining multiple types of memory-retrieving therapy, it has been proven that therapy which memory has been recovered is bad therapy (Loftus 28). Another experiment conducted in this article exposed the reality of memory-retrieving therapy, and the affects it has on its patients. Thirty patients, who had experienced a traumatic childhood, were used during this experiment. Towards the end of the experiment, a majority of the patients were divorced, without jobs, and had distanced themselves from their families (Loftus 29). Memory-retrieving therapy is harmful to the patients involved and can lead to the patient harming themselves, or cause false memories. When applying therapy to those with traumatic past, it’s safe to say that memory-retrieving therapy should not be used to ensure the safety of the patient and their families. Elizabeth Loftus has changed the way the legal system views eyewitnesses now. In the article Corrupted Memory, written by Moheb Costandi, he proves the impact of Loftus findings on memory. Loftus findings lead the Supreme Court in New Jersey to pass a law stating that if a memory is imperfect in any way, that the jurors must be notified of the nature of the memory (Costandi 268). It is important that if there are any flaws with an eyewitness that everyone should be aware, therefor the case involved has a better chance of achieving justice. Many cases today are based off of the eyewitnesses’ testimony, so it is imperative that the jurors are informed about all of the details involving a case to ensure that the outcome is fair and just. Loftus findings are found to be useful during cases with unreliable testimonies; with her help multiple cases have been rightfully tried, although some too late. In 1990, a case was uncovered and retried, a man by the name of George Franklin was sent to prison after his twenty year old daughter’s repressed memories of him murdering her best friend when she was eight. This was just one of the many cases where someone was imprisoned due to a repressed memory (George, I Could Have Sworn). It is frightening to think that there have been hundreds of cases like Franklin’s where they were wrongfully convicted based off of a repressed memory.
Our minds harbor a copious amount of particulars, from meeting information to the daily shopping list, but our minds don’t always remember every little detail. For many of the eyewitnesses used during court hearings, they have quite a bit of information, but they seem to always be missing bits and pieces from their memories. There are typically multiple eyewitnesses involved in a case. When any one of the eyewitnesses is giving a false or corrupted testimony, it is smart to inform the others so they can be aware of their own testimonies (Echterhoff 374). We are not always going to remember every detail, but when in court it is imperative that all the information is given to ensure the best outcome for the wrongfully accused. Loftus believed that some people, even when giving false statements, completely believed that they were truthfully telling the story (Slater 190). This can be an issue when giving a testimony in court. A false testimony could lead to false imprisonment for more years than necessary, if at all. Many of those wrongfully convicted were proven to be innocent by Loftus. Loftus had the ability to help a majority of the wrongfully convicted, some sooner than others. One of the many convicted that Loftus helped goes by the name of Paul Ingram. Ingram was accused of raping his two daughters when they were younger. While being interrogated by the authorities, he began to believe that he truly did rape his daughters. He was imprisoned for the crime he thought he did, it wasn’t until many years later that Loftus came across his case. Loftus was able to prove his innocence, but unfortunately it was too late, he had already spent many years in prison believing that he committed the crimes (Slater 192). Loftus found from this case that not only can the repressed memories be false, but the memories of the one being accused could also be false. Paul Ingram’s memories were tampered with to the point of corruption. His perception of what was fact and what was fiction became distorted after hours of interrogation. This case is an example of how easily the mind can be corrupted. With persistence you can alter any one beings memory and thoughts, and make them believe in a false statement; now how is it possible that a memory is a viable piece of evidence when convicting another being? When a traumatic event happens in ones life, it is hard to forget, that is why it is unlikely that a repressed memory can be justified in the court of law. Now it is possible for a person to try to forget about a traumatic memory, rather than be reminded of it later on, but a recovered memory is not a repressed memory. There is a difference between failing to think of a memory verses not being able to think of it (Geraerts 23).
We find it hard to believe someone when they are telling an eccentric story without physical evidence, so how is it that during criminal cases the use of memories and stories is an acceptable form of evidence?
I believe that when attempting to convict a person of a crime, there should be plenty of physical evidence of that person doing the crime in order for there to even be a case. In many cases, repressed memories can be false, but the author of Repressed Memories: True and False, believes that in some cases repressed memories can be legitimate but neither should be used as a reliable source in a criminal case. Only reliable sources should be used when attempting to convict another on a crime they may or may not have done. Loftus experiments prove that the cases that involve repressed memories as a primary source are typically weak cases (Reisner Paragraph 13). In reality, any type of evidence used in a criminal case should be physical. Memories are not a form of physical evidence and should not be used. The use of physical evidence in criminal cases has a far better chance of convicting the true criminal, verses using memories or thoughts as evidence. There is no way to back up the evidence if it is based off of a memory. There have been a numerous amount of cases that have been dismissed due to the jury not believing in the repressed memories. It’s impossible to have a strong case when the jurors do not even believe the information given to
them. In one of the many articles written by Elizabeth Loftus, she states that when using a repressed memory during a criminal case, the accused is not able to prove their innocence. During a criminal trial, the accused can typically defend him/herself based off of the physical evidence but when there is only memory-based evidence, we are not allowing the accused to fully defend him/herself. It is nearly impossible to prove that the accusations made towards the accused are false with only memory-based evidence (Loftus 26). Now during a criminal case, I believe that all of those involved should have the ability to explain him/herself, but with a case based off of a repressed memory, it becomes difficult for all parties to justify themselves. I agree with Loftus and with many of the lawyers who use her finding to the fullest, that repressed memories should not be used during criminal cases due to the fact that it does not allow the accused to defend them and in today’s society with lawsuits and criminal cases, we need to be able to defend ourselves. Loftus did not have very many fans. Her ideas on repressed memories sparked confrontation with many. Some believe that repressed memories are very common and can be useful if convicting those whom are guilty. Even though some find them to be useful, they still do not fully understand how the repressed memories work. When interviewed by Karen S. Peterson, Schlitz stated, “It is hard to distinguish the victim who cannot remember and the victim who does not want to think about it.” Basically, they are unable to tell the difference between whether or not someone chooses not to remember, or if they truly do not remember, without the ability to tell the two apart, there is really no way to determine if someone is lying about a memory, or telling the truth, making it illogical to use repressed memories as a primary source of evidence. It would be unwise and difficult to base a statement off of something that is not fully understood.
There have been hundreds wrongfully convicted people due to repressed memories. Loftus designed her experiments off of theses cases and has gone on to try to help free innocent people. Her findings on repressed memories and their lack of stability have been used in many cases, and has even changed the way the supreme court of New Jersey views trials based on these repressed memories. When in court, repressed memories should not be used as a legit source in convicting a person of the crime. Not everyone agrees, but if enough do we might just be on the right track to ensuring reliable sources and evidence during criminal trials.