Memories

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick has this essay on the issue of repressed memories. (Hat tip, Bashman).

She covers most of the pertinent stuff very well (as is usually the case), including the (UCLA alumna) Elizabeth Loftus' study creating false memories in younger siblings. But I just want to add that the debate is basically between research psychologists and clinicians. Both swear by their work. How dare a research psychologist tell a clinician that the hundreds of clients he has are lying? Similarly, how the hell can you trust anything gathered by someone whose goal is to make patients feel they have issues that they are resolving? You get the idea. Like many things, I think the answer is somewhere in between and I actually think juries should be instructed as such. Specifically they should be told:

"Psychology research indicates that people can believe to be true what is actually false. They do not think they are lying nor are they trying to deceive. Simply their memory of an event is altered or created. There is also evidence that people repress memories of traumatic events as a defense mechanism. In weighing evidence of repressed memories, please consider such factors as (1) the method of gathering the repressed memory, (2) the credentials of experts from each side, (3) and the likelihood that the memories do (not) represent fact."

I have a bit of a trouble with this last one, but I think it is necessary to draw the jury's attention to other evidence produced in the case. In almost any eyewitness case, when there is corroborating evidence, the accuracy of the witness is significantly higher. Similar factors should apply here. I think.