Judges and lawyers' beliefs in repression and dissociative amnesia may imperil justice: further guidance required.

IF 2.2 3区心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL

Memory Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-15 DOI:10.1080/09658211.2024.2383311

Pamela J Radcliffe, Lawrence Patihis

{"title":"Judges and lawyers' beliefs in repression and dissociative amnesia may imperil justice: further guidance required.","authors":"Pamela J Radcliffe, Lawrence Patihis","doi":"10.1080/09658211.2024.2383311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines continuing misunderstanding about memory function especially for trauma, across three UK samples (N = 717). Delayed allegations of child sexual and physical abuse are prevalent in Western legal systems and often rely upon uncorroborated memory testimony to prove guilt. U.K. legal professionals and jurors typically assess the reliability of such memory recall via common sense, yet decades of scientific research show common sense beliefs often conflict with science. Recent international surveys show controversial notions of repression and accurate memory recovery remain strongly endorsed. In historical cases, these notions may lead to wrongful convictions. The current study surveyed the U.K. public, lawyers, and mental health professionals' beliefs about repression, dissociative amnesia and false memories. Study findings give unique data on judges' and barristers' beliefs. Overall, the study findings reinforce international scientists' concerns of a science - knowledge-gap. Repression was strongly endorsed by lay, legal and clinical participants (> 78%) as was dissociative amnesia (> 87%). Moreover, suboptimal professional legal education and juror guidance may increase misunderstanding. Correcting beliefs about memory function, and extending the contribution of memory science in the courtroom remains an important quest for cognitive scientists.","PeriodicalId":18569,"journal":{"name":"Memory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Memory","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2024.2383311","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines continuing misunderstanding about memory function especially for trauma, across three UK samples (N = 717). Delayed allegations of child sexual and physical abuse are prevalent in Western legal systems and often rely upon uncorroborated memory testimony to prove guilt. U.K. legal professionals and jurors typically assess the reliability of such memory recall via common sense, yet decades of scientific research show common sense beliefs often conflict with science. Recent international surveys show controversial notions of repression and accurate memory recovery remain strongly endorsed. In historical cases, these notions may lead to wrongful convictions. The current study surveyed the U.K. public, lawyers, and mental health professionals' beliefs about repression, dissociative amnesia and false memories. Study findings give unique data on judges' and barristers' beliefs. Overall, the study findings reinforce international scientists' concerns of a science - knowledge-gap. Repression was strongly endorsed by lay, legal and clinical participants (> 78%) as was dissociative amnesia (> 87%). Moreover, suboptimal professional legal education and juror guidance may increase misunderstanding. Correcting beliefs about memory function, and extending the contribution of memory science in the courtroom remains an important quest for cognitive scientists.

查看原文本刊更多论文

法官和律师对压抑和分离性健忘症的信仰可能会危及司法公正：需要进一步指导。

本文研究了英国三个样本（N = 717）对记忆功能（尤其是创伤记忆）的持续误解。在西方法律体系中，对儿童性虐待和身体虐待的延迟指控非常普遍，而且往往依靠未经证实的记忆证词来证明有罪。英国的法律专业人士和陪审员通常通过常识来评估此类记忆回忆的可靠性，然而数十年的科学研究表明，常识信念往往与科学相冲突。最近的国际调查显示，有争议的压抑和准确恢复记忆的观念仍然得到强烈支持。在历史案件中，这些观念可能会导致错误定罪。本研究调查了英国公众、律师和心理健康专业人士对压抑、分离性失忆和虚假记忆的看法。研究结果提供了有关法官和大律师信念的独特数据。总体而言，研究结果加强了国际科学家对科学知识差距的担忧。非专业人士、法律界和临床参与者对压抑记忆（> 78%）和分离性遗忘（> 87%）的认可度很高。此外，不理想的专业法律教育和陪审员指导可能会增加误解。纠正人们对记忆功能的看法，扩大记忆科学在法庭上的贡献，仍然是认知科学家的重要追求。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Memory PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-

CiteScore

3.50

自引率

9.50%

发文量

期刊介绍： Memory publishes high quality papers in all areas of memory research. This includes experimental studies of memory (including laboratory-based research, everyday memory studies, and applied memory research), developmental, educational, neuropsychological, clinical and social research on memory. By representing all significant areas of memory research, the journal cuts across the traditional distinctions of psychological research. Memory therefore provides a unique venue for memory researchers to communicate their findings and ideas both to peers within their own research tradition in the study of memory, and also to the wider range of research communities with direct interest in human memory.