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.

Research Methods Across Six Studies

Researchers choose their methodology based on how well it answers the research question at hand. The contextual approach set for understanding a research topic is therefore central to selecting the appropriate method. The topic of this paper is studied through various research methods across the six selected journal articles, discussed in turn below.

The first selected scholarly journal article uses a qualitative research method via case study evaluation and a description of theoretical and practical implications for criminology and memory in legal cases. The author, Marko Jelicic, in "Testing Claims of Crime-Related Amnesia," discusses the case of a 29-year-old man named Randy who murdered his girlfriend but had no memory of doing so. Memory loss through amnesia can complicate the prosecution of an offender, particularly in homicide cases—serious crimes that may lead to life imprisonment (Jelicic, 2018).

The second selected scholarly journal article uses evidence-based practices and prior research—primarily secondary research—to scrutinize the fairness of legal verdicts when the accused suffers from amnesia and resulting memory loss, with psychological testing support (Go, 2017). Current court standards are examined alongside a debate about whether courts should focus on the accused's intent or rely on their medical condition when reaching a conclusion.

The third selected scholarly article examines eyewitness memory using available evidence and graphical presentations of earlier cases and laboratory studies involving scenarios where eyewitness memory produced near-accurate identification (Wixted, Mickes & Fisher, 2018). This study also relies on secondary data. The majority of findings indicated that the duration of an eyewitness's retention interval affects how well they can recall an incident; however, this relationship does not always hold.

The fourth selected article concerns jurors' note-taking and their ability to recall evidence presented at trial. This is the first primary research study included in this paper; three sub-studies were conducted to test different scenarios for juror memory. The first sub-study involved mock jurors assessing their handwriting speed, the amount of critical evidence they could record, the amount they could recall, and whether what they noted predicted the final verdict (Lorek et al., 2019). For this purpose, 141 participants were selected, of whom 24 were male and 117 female, ranging in age from 18 to 66 years. The Alphabet Fluency Task was used to assess handwriting speed. Participants watched a video of a 1992 murder trial and noted down important points. The resulting data were analyzed using the PROCESS macro in SPSS.

The second sub-study examined the relationship between jurors' short-term memory capacity, working memory capacity, information-processing ability, and the amount of critical information noted. Here, 85 mock jurors participated, of whom 17 were male and 68 female, ranging in age from 18 to 61 years. The Letter Span Task, Listening Span Task, and Word Reordering Task were used to collect data. The same trial footage from the first sub-study was used again, and results were analyzed through correlational analyses to identify associations among variables.

The third sub-study tested the relationship between jurors' attention, their ability to collect critical evidence while note-taking, and the amount of information they later recalled. A total of 134 participants took part, of whom 24 were male and 110 female. The Lottery subtest of the Everyday Attention Test and the Dual-Task technique by Baddeley and Hitch were employed to gather data, and again a correlational analysis was conducted.

The fifth study explores how emotions influence memory and recall ability, as well as the final verdict in a case. A study was conducted to examine mock jurors' mood—specifically anger—and its effect on detecting evidential inconsistencies. This primary research study invited 123 community members eligible for jury service and student participants to listen to four audio trials that varied in emotional tone, specifically angry versus neutral (Semmler & Hurst, 2017). There were 53 males and 70 females; individuals above the age of 70 were excluded. Four versions of the same trial were created to induce either anger or a neutral state, enabling researchers to assess cognitive functioning and psychological responses. Fourteen multiple-choice questions and one open-ended question examined the number of memory inconsistencies associated with each emotional state. The study used a two-factor between-subjects design (mood state × evidence inconsistency), and results were analyzed using Welch's t-test.

The sixth and final selected article explored the reliability of memory and its fallibility, and the effect of memory errors on judicial cases. The study relies on secondary data, drawing on prominent cases from the 1980s and 1990s to assess memory reliability across three critical forensic areas: children as eyewitnesses, the history of sexual abuse claims, and eyewitness misidentification (Howe & Knott, 2015). The study discusses the truth and falsity of memory and whether their integration within courtroom trials has produced fair verdicts, while examining gaps in memory for specific dates, times, and places.

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.