Memory and the Law: Criminology Research Review

Introduction: Memory's Role in the Legal System

Memory has ample implications in the field of law for identifying true criminals and for defenders who are struggling to prove their innocence. The journey from an investigator seeking the truth to a court's final verdict is affected by various dimensions of memory. Even the participants in the process—eyewitnesses, jurors, and criminal investigators—each contribute differently within the operational circle of an investigation. This paper aims to elucidate the relationship between memory and law by presenting six scholarly journal articles, the methods used in their evaluations, the results of those studies, and the future directions identified from their outcomes. Limitations are also presented so that future research gaps can be identified accurately.

Importance of the Topic

The inability to remember a crime that a person committed does not mean that the accused did not intend to commit it, nor does it eliminate proof of the offense. The mental state and loss of memory due to certain conditions—such as amnesia or alcohol intoxication—could complicate the process of establishing guilt in a court of law. Punishing the rightfully guilty and providing justice to those affected is the sole responsibility of any country's criminal justice system, and it must be carried out carefully so that no innocent person is punished.

Disturbances in memory cause disruptions in the facts cited in relation to a crime scene, whether from an eyewitness, from a juror's note-taking abilities, or from a defendant who may have no memory of the criminal activity at all. Cognitive consciousness, identity, and environmental perception all play a part in a person's memory—an element that courts must examine carefully when deciding a case.

Psychiatrists have investigated various cases in which the accused was found to be suffering from a dissociative disorder that affected their memory, leaving them unable to fully recall or be aware of their surroundings at the time of an incident. Psychiatrists must consider several specifications before clinically proving that an accused had a mental impairment, so that memory and law can be balanced when deciding the fate of both accused and victim. These specifications include the accused's mental suffering, unsound mental capacity, the extent to which the illness could drive them to commit serious crimes such as murder, and whether the accused is mentally capable of caring for themselves or their property (Chadda, 2013).

The criminal justice system is responsible for conducting fair trials under a country's constitution. The Sixth Amendment establishes that the determination and provision of civil rights lie in impartial trials, where the court is obligated to pursue a truthful process and bring resulting charges against the entitled person (Cornell Law School, n.d.). This is a serious accountability because wrongly accused individuals can suffer profound consequences afterward: social stigma, psychological distortions, memory effects from long imprisonment, changed behavioral attitudes toward the justice system, difficulties readjusting to society after release, damaged family relationships, false accusations' effects on family members, and negative impacts on the financial and social wellbeing of the wrongfully convicted individual (Brooks & Greenberg, 2020). Hence, the topic holds immense significance when a complex element like memory is involved. The judicial system must act reasonably at every step of court proceedings, and strategies for building sound public perceptions about decisions involving memory must be devised so that mental trauma—and the resulting economic costs—can be avoided.

References

Brooks, S. K., & Greenberg, N. (2020). Psychological impact of being wrongfully accused of criminal offences: A systematic literature review. Medicine, Science and the Law, 61(1), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0025802420949069

Chadda, R. K. (2013). Forensic evaluations in psychiatry. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(4), 393–399. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.120558

Cornell Law School. (n.d.). Sixth Amendment. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment

Go, G. (2017). Amnesia and criminal responsibility. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 4(1), 194–204.

Howe, M. L., & Knott, L. M. (2015). The fallibility of memory in judicial processes: Lessons from the past and their modern consequences. Memory, 23(5), 633–656.

Jelicic, M. (2018). Testing claims of crime-related amnesia. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00617

Loprinzi, P. D., & Frith, E. (2018). The role of sex in memory function: Considerations and recommendations in the context of exercise. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 7(6), 132.

Lorek, J., Centifanti, L. C. M., Lyons, M., & Thorley, C. (2019). The impact of individual differences on jurors' note-taking during trials and recall of trial evidence, and the association between the type of evidence recalled and verdicts. PLOS ONE, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212491

Semmler, C., & Hurst, J. (2016). The impact of state and trait anger on processing of evidential inconsistencies. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 24(4), 594–604.

Wixted, J. T., Mickes, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2018). Rethinking the reliability of eyewitness memory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(3), 324–335.