Initial response
After reading this article and watching the video. Answer the following.
Discuss the fallibility of memory and the controversy surrounding repressed memories. Think about the limitations of human memory involving eyewitness testimony in court. What kind of implications do particular limitations of human memory have on the use of eyewitness testimony in criminal and civil court cases?
Answers need to cover these questions and elaborate on key terms/concepts reviewed in the lesson this week. Replies can introduce new/different perspectives and must encourage the continuation of the discussion.
———————————————————-
Reply 1
Hello Class,
For this weeks discussion, we will be talking about memory loss, and mainly its effects on eyewitnesses in courts of law.
To get started, lets discuss her podcast that was recorded. She talks about how memories, once witnessed, are not just set in stone forever, they are constantly manipulated by newer memories and ideas. They are manipulated through conversations, interrogations by interrogators who might have an agenda, when we see media coverage, etc.. These memories can be contaminated through external sources.
She talks about sexual abuse victims going through therapy, who would go on to sue their counterparts, who would “recover” some information years later through therapy, when they did not have those recollections prior. This shows that the memories were false and planted into the memories of those people, where they ended up actually believing that possibly false memories could have actually happened. I correlate this to a new term that I have heard online, which is “gaslighting”, where you convince somebody to believe that something is true when it is not.
Now, I would like to discuss the main question at hand in this article. What does this effect in courts of law as a witness?
Well, I believe, after listening to her talk about this and reading the article, that she could be correct in her statements, that after witnessing something, your memories will be altered, not only factually, but ethically as well. Your memories, in my viewpoint, will be altered by mainly media and interrogations. I have done a ton of military trainings where, without getting in to detail, I have seen this type of stuff first hand actually happen. This is why it is important, as a witness, to file a witness statement immediately that only shows the facts that you remember, without your opinions and morals getting in to the way.
My favorite part of her study, is when she discusses planting false memories of people liking healthier foods, so they will like those foods more and eat those. This can actually be a good part of false memories, and could be used in helping alcoholics recover, by planting false memories in their minds of them having bad memories with drinking. There is a lot of moving parts in an operation like this, where you have to really control your experimental groups, but overall, I believe that she is correct in a lot of the things she discussed and this has really opened up my mind!
—————
Reply 2
Hello class,
Memory, a crucial component of our cognitive functions, is far from infallible. Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, a prominent figure in the field of psychology, has extensively researched the fallibility of memory, particularly in the context of eyewitness testimony and repressed memories. Her work highlights how memories can be distorted or entirely fabricated, a concept vividly illustrated in the controversy surrounding “false memory syndrome.” This syndrome suggests that individuals can develop solid and vivid memories of events that never occurred, often through suggestive questioning or therapeutic techniques.
The fallibility of memory becomes particularly significant in the legal arena, where eyewitness testimony can profoundly impact the outcomes of criminal and civil cases. Eyewitnesses are often perceived as highly credible sources of information; however, the inherent limitations of human memory can lead to wrongful convictions. For instance, memory distortion can occur when individuals recall events with altered details due to external suggestions, stress, or the passage of time. This distortion is compounded by the malleability of memory, where recalling an event can alter the memory.
Moreover, the issue of repressed memories adds another layer of complexity. Repressed memories, often surfacing years after the purported events, are highly controversial. Dr. Loftus’ research suggests that these memories can be influenced by external factors and may not be reliable. This skepticism is crucial in legal contexts, as validating repressed memories can determine the credibility of testimonies that emerge long after the events.
The implications of these memory limitations are profound. In criminal cases, unreliable eyewitness testimony can lead to miscarriages of justice, such as the conviction of innocent individuals based on inaccurate recollections. Similarly, in civil cases, the stakes can be equally high, with financial and reputational damages hinging on the reliability of witness memories. Therefore, understanding the fallibility of memory not only underscores the need for corroborative evidence, but also emphasizes the urgent and crucial need for cautious handling of eyewitness testimonies.
In conclusion, the work of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus underscores the critical need to approach eyewitness testimony with a nuanced understanding of human memory’s limitations. The susceptibility of memory to distortion and the controversy surrounding repressed memories not only highlight the potential for error in legal proceedings, but also raise significant concerns. As such, integrating psychological insights into legal practices is not just beneficial, but essential to mitigate the risks associated with unreliable eyewitness accounts and ensure justice is accurately served.
-Codey——-
| Criteria | Exemplary |
Accomplished |
Developing |
Beginning |
Did Not Attempt |
Criterion Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Initial post |
40 points Initial post fully answers discussion question, demonstrates comprehension of course concepts using rich detail and examples. |
34 points Initial post fully answers discussion question, demonstrates comprehension of course concepts. |
30 points Initial post demonstrates limited comprehension of course concepts and may have some inaccuracies. |
26 points Initial post does not demonstrate comprehension of course concepts; response may be entirely opinion based. |
0 points Initial post is not completed, or does not meet the criteria for beginning. |
Score of Initial post, / 40 |
|
Engagement |
40 points Responds to feedback that peers and instructor post about the students initial post. Responds to initial posts of three or more peers. Replies advance discussion by: – Posing a thoughtful question; – Sharing additional sources; – Sharing specific, applied examples; – Providing alternative point-of-view |
34 points Responds to initial posts of three peers. Replies advance discussion by: – Posing a thoughtful question; – Sharing additional sources; – Sharing specific, applied example – Providing alternative point-of-view |
30 points Responses are minimal and mostly compliment, summarize, or evaluate peer posts. |
26 points Responses do not add to or advance discussion in a meaningful way. |
0 points No engagement with peers, or engagement does not meet the criteria for beginning. |
Score of Engagement, / 40 |
|
Communication |
20 points Posts are professional and free of errors in mechanics, spelling, and grammar. |
17 points Posts are professional and mostly free of errors in mechanics, spelling, and grammar. |
15 points Posts contain some errors in mechanics, spelling, and grammar |
13 points Posts contain many errors in mechanics, spelling, and grammar. |
0 points Meaning of posts is difficult to evaluate because of many errors. |
Score of Communication, / 20 |
TotalScore of PSYC SOCI UG Discussion Rubric,
/ 100
Overall Score
Exemplary
90 points minimum
Accomplished
80 points minimum
Developing
70 points minimum
Beginning
60 points minimum
Did Not Attempt
0 points minimum
