Posted by Anovagrrl on March 15, 2004 at 11:30:54
In the mid-1990s, clinical psychologists in the United States began writing about a phenomenon popularly known as “False Memory Syndrome.” The issue arose as a consequence of adults making claims of having “recovered” memories of childhood sexual abuse (CSA). Typically, these “recovered” memories come about as a consequence of engaging in psychotherapy. Scientists who study human memory creation and recall raised serious questions about the reliability of “suppressed” or “forgotten” memories of abuse that can be recovered in adulthood, particularly when they arise in response to hypnosis.
Dr. Elizabeth Loftus of the University of Washington Psychology Department, published a seminal article in the 1996 Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, (24:3, pp. 281-295) called “Memory Distortion and False Memory Creation.” An online copy of this article is located at <http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000599/00/199802009.html>
Beyond the role that psychotherapy played in the creation of “false memories,” there is evidence that social contagion, i.e., the influential effect of highly-publicized court cases involving claims of recovered abuse memories as well as the public disclosures of CSA by high-profile celebrities created a climate for civil lawsuits that was not unlike the Salem witch trials.
Given the devastating impact an allegation of child sexual abuse can have on the lives of individuals accused of this crime, responsible people were forced to ask: How can we tell the difference between a false memory of childhood sexual abuse and one that is true?
External corroboration is the only reliable way to tell the difference between a false or true memories of abuse. If I recall that Uncle Dave Skincrawler raped or molested me in 1985 at age 8 while we were living in the Shop of Horrors Home, are there others who can corroborate that:
1)Uncle Dave was there at the same time I was, and/or 2) I told them about Uncle Dave’s rape/molestation long before coming out with a public accusation, and/or 3) they also were victimized by Uncle Dave, and/or 4) Uncle Dave told them about the rape/molestation, and/or 5) they actually observed or overheard the rape/molestation, and/or 6) they saw evidence of the rape/molestation such as blood, bruises, semen, disheveled hair & clothing, or visible emotional distress on my part.
I urge Albatross and other SGAs involved with putting together the Name Them & Shame Them list of alleged abusers and sexual perpetrators to corroborate specific accusations with as much as possible. This should not be difficult to do, given the circumstances under which so much of the abuse actually occurred.
I also urge SGAs involved in the Name Them & Shame Them project to provide a mechanism for the accused perpetrators to respond to the allegation of abuse. Victims who name their perpetrators should make it clear whether or not they are open to contact from the offender if s/he is interested in seeking forgiveness and/or making an amends. Corroborating witnesses—often brothers, sisters, and lifelong friends—may feel that the only suitable justice is public shaming and/or a lawsuit.
Nevertheless, I believe it is the responsibility of the victim to decide whether or not forgiveness and/or reconciliation is an option. If it is not, victims should not be judged as being “unforgiving” or “vindictive” people. Until you have stood in the victim’s shoes, you cannot know what it would take to amend the damage. Only the victim can determine whether forgiveness and/or reconciliation is an appropriate response to the perpetrator and the crime.
If the victim’s perpetrator is, in fact, a sexual predator and not simply a mind-controlled cult zombie under situational stress who acted in a despicable manner, then true reconciliation is not possible and forgiveness can be socially irresponsible.
Reconciliation implies a change has taken place in the offender. Forgiveness implies that whether or not the offender has changed and/or expressed appropriate sorrow for his/her crimes, the victim has no desire to seek retribution.
Sexual predators DO NOT and CANNOT change without a great deal of external pressure, i.e., prison, treatment, and/or behavioral contracts under the supervision of a parole or probation officer. Victims can forgive them time and again, and they will continue to prey on vulnerable children. For sexual predators, forgiveness is just another “green light” that allows them to continue violating children without consequence.