The defendants in sexual assault cases are likely to offend this event like alleged victims – a new study

Psychologists have Intensively lesson Factors that make both eyewitnesses and victims more or less likely to distort memory. However, there has been no experimental evidence comparing the memory that indicates the susceptibility of complaint and the accused in cases of sexual assault.

for me A recent study He was the first to compare memory errors between the complainants and the accused. The results of this study, which examined the memories of the persons involved in the issue of fictional sexual assault, indicate that both parties are likely to abuse the details of what happened.

Imagine that you were called to work in a jury, and assess a state of alleged sexual assault. In this case, David and Rebecca are a university classmate and went to a party on Saturday evening. Near the end of the night, they went to a bedroom on the upper floor, where sexual activity occurred. The next day, Rebecca went to the police to file a complaint of sexual assault, saying she did not agree to have sex with David.

In this trial, as often in real court cases, the accused, David, claims that sexual activity was completely mutual. As an alliance, this puts you in a difficult position. Both parties agree that sexual activity has occurred, so anything Physical evidence It may be limited to use. To make your decision, you should rely on David and Rebecca’s certificate, based on their memories in the evening. This means that you should assess the credibility of David and Rebecca memories.

When the court case depends on the memories of the victims or eyewitnesses, the witnesses of experts are sometimes called Explain memory science To the jury. The case has been strengthened, but the evidence indicates that in cases of sexual assault, these experts are almost always Call Instead of claiming.

In the case you described above, this means that experts ’testimony will be used for the Israeli that Rebecca – but not David – will be used – but not David – It may be distorted.

The research in the literature of the memory of eyewitnesses is largely driven by the desire to reduce the errors of the eyewitnesses and Avoid abortion of justice. As a result, the majority of evidence that the expert can depend on providing their certificates will focus on distorting the memory between witnesses and victims of crimes. This can give the impression that witnesses and complaint are especially vulnerable to memory errors, while the memory of the complainant is infallible.

People accused of crimes are also humans, and their memories are subject to the same restorations as anyone else. In response to this issue, my colleagues and I have a series of experiments – published commonly in Scientific reports– Which showed that both parties said, “He said,” The issue is likely to suffer from distorting memory.

In our study, the participants were invited to imagine that they were at a date with a man or a woman. Then they watched a video of the viewer from the date, filmed from the perspective of the first person. After the video, the participants were told that he was accused of sexual assault, and they were randomly appointed to the role of the complainant or the accused.

After that, witnesses of witnesses were shown from a security guard, waiter and a taxi driver that included some misleading descriptions of history. For example, the statement indicated that the accused was flying the complainant with drinks, or that the complainant was sexual aggressive. During three experiences, we found that the “accused” and “the complainant” are likely to integrate these misleading details in their memory of history.

Many people tend to think about remembering as a simple work to access information, such as withdrawing the computer file. But research showed that we Rebuilding every memory From A to Z every time we remember, as if we were building a Lego tower of individual bricks, instead of remembering the event as a whole. This reconstruction process can be vulnerable to error, and Sometimes we integrate wrong information In our memories, such as adding a brick to our horoscope where it should not be.

The problem arises when we expect humans to have a machine -like male to get the event details, and judge them harshly when they do not.

These errors can have devastating consequences in judicial environments. The Independent Independent Patent Foundation in the United States stated in 2014 72 % of the wrong condemnation This was later canceled when the DNA evidence has originally relied on the wrong eyewitness certificate.

But psychologists have Advanced technologies Investigators can be used to obtain a certificate of non -contaminated eyewitnesses. For example, interviews can be trained to extract eyewitness reports using techniques from Cognitive interviewIt is a technique developed by psychologists to avoid misleading information after the event and witnesses. In this technique, the interview can help witnesses Mention the details By asking them to form a picture of the original scene (such as the location of the objects in a room), commenting on their emotional reactions at that time, describing any sounds, smell and other physical conditions.

When people ask why we did not do that The development of perfect memoriesThe answer is the same when we ask why we did not develop to be 4 meters long or we have hearts that overcame 300 times per second: We didn’t need it. Evolutionary pressures led us to stand upright and reach a height that supports our ability to nutrition and defend ourselves, but once that need is met, natural selection no longer prefers an increasing rise.

In the same way, our memories have evolved to support our daily life – to help us make decisions and take the necessary measures – and not to be an infallible registration device.

When it comes to eyewitness memory, we must deal with it just like any other form of evidence, with awareness of its value but also we understand that it can be contaminated. In the case of sexual assault, it is important to understand that the factors that may undermine the victim’s account – including The passage of time Since the event, Alcohol consumption And exposure to After the misleading event It is likely to apply to the defendant as well.

This article has been republished from Conversation Under the creative public license. Read The original article.