In cases of sexual abuse, defendants are likely to misunderstand the incident as alleged victims – new study

Psychologists have studied the factors that make both eyewitnesses and victims less sensitive to memory distortion. But to date, there is no experimental evidence to compare the memory proposal between the accused and the accused in cases of sexual abuse.

My recent study was the first to compare memory mistakes between the complainants and the accused. The search for this study, which examined the memories of people involved in an unrealistic case of sexual abuse, suggests that the two sides are equally likely that the details of their details are false.

Imagine that you have been called to serve on the jury, reviewing the alleged sexual abuse. In this case, David and Rebecca are the classmates of the University and went to a party a week evening. On the end of the night, they moved to the upper bedroom, where sexual activity took place. The next day, Rebecca went to the police to file a sexual abuse complaint, saying she was not willing to have sex with David.

At the trial, as often in real judicial cases, the accused, David claims that sexual activity was fully consensus. As a jar, it keeps you in a difficult position. The two sides agreed that sexual activity had taken place, so no physical evidence was probably used. You have to rely on the testimony of David and Rebecca based on the memories of Syria. This means that you have to assess the reputation of David and Rebecca’s memories.

When the court case depends on the memories of victims or witnesses, expert witnesses are sometimes called to the jury to explain the science of memory. The issue has been reduced, but evidence suggests that in cases of sexual abuse, these experts are always called by defense rather than prosecution.

In this case I mentioned above, it means that the expert’s testimony will be used to argue that Rebecca’s – but not David – memory can be distorted.

Witnesses ‘memory literature research is largely affected by eyewitnesses’ desire to reduce mistakes and avoid justice abortion. As a direct result, the evidence of the majority that the expert can rely on his testimony may have focused on memory distortion among witnesses and criminals. This can give the impression that witnesses and complainants are especially suffering from memory mistakes, while the complainant’s memory is incomprehensible.

Those who are accused of crime are human, and their memories are subject to the same reconstruction process as someone else. In response to this issue, my colleagues and my colleagues organized a series of experiments. Scientific Reports– Who showed that “he said,” he said, “he said” the matter is so likely to be a victim of memory distortion.

In our study, the participants were invited to imagine that they were going to history with a man or a woman. He then watched a video of the scenes of history, which was filmed from the first person’s point of view. After the video, the participants were told that sexual abuse was charged, and they were collectively assigned to the complainant or the role of the accused.

Subsequently, he was shown statements from the security guard, bartendra and taxi driver’s witnesses, which included some misleading details of the history. For example, the statement said that the accused was suffering from the complainant, or the complainant was sexually aggressive. More than three experiments, we found that “accused” and “complainant” are just as likely to be included in the memory of their history.

Many people think about remembering as an easy task of accessing information, such as pulling a computer file. But research has shown that whenever we remember it, we make every memory from the ground, as if we were making a Lego tower out of individual bricks rather than remembering the event as a whole. It may be a reorganization mistake, and we sometimes add misinformation to our memories, such as adding bricks to our tower where it should not be.

The problem arises when we expect humans to remember the machine for the details of an event, and when they do not do so, they will make a strong decision.

The judicial settings of these mistakes can yield devastating consequences. The innocence project, based in the United States, reported in 2014 that 72 % of wrongdoing was abolished when DNA evidence was revealed, which actually rely on the poor testimony of witnesses.

But psychologists have developed a technique that investigators can use to test the testimony of unintentional witnesses. For example, interviewers can be trained to extract reports of witnesses using academic interview techniques, which is prepared to introduce a false information after the incident and to distort witnesses’ memories. In this technique, interviewer can help witnesses remember the details so that they can create a picture of the original scene (such as space in a room), commenting on their emotional reaction at this time and describing any sound, odor and other physical conditions.

When people ask why we didn’t prepare the perfect memories, the answer is when we ask why we are not 4 meters long or hearts that beating 300 times per second: we didn’t need it. The evolutionary pressure forced us to stand upright and reach the height, which supported our ability to feed and defend themselves, but once it was met, the natural choice is no longer in favor of a growing height.

Similarly, our memories are ready to support our daily lives – to help us make decisions and take action – not to be an incomprehensible tool of recording.

When it comes to witnesses’ memory, we should treat it, recognizing its value, recognizing its value, as well, but it should also be understood that it can be contaminated. In the case of sexual assault, it is important to understand that factors that can damage the affected person’s account-including time since the incident, alcohol consumption and misinformation after the event is just as likely that the defendant will be applicable.

This article is reproduced from the conversation under a creative license. Read the original article.