I do not believe that repressed memories should be used in court. Our court systems today are built on truth and hard facts, repressed memories have been proven to be unreliable in many cases and therefore are hardly considered hard evidence.
The memories in question are those of sexual molestation. A person could be molested at a young age, and because it is so traumatic, it is put in the far back of her mind. Then, as time goes by, the memory surfaces from hypnotherapy or the use of drugs. The only problem is that memories are influenced by what we see in the media, what we want to see, and what we see and believe based on emotional attachments. In one case, all of the evidence was in the media, locations, descriptions, pictures, people. In her testimony, nothing new was said except who the murderer was.
That is really way to coincidental to be taken seriously in my opinion.
Another reason that these repressed memories should not be taken so seriously is that people don't want to take responsibility for screwing up their life. Repressed memories are the perfect excuse for every disease and the best way to keep Therapists in business. Isn't it weird how many therapists never fully document the case? Why there are no videotapes of these sessions when the most horrible, outrageous allegations are made? Why there are no audiotapes? Why there are no third parties present? Why notes are destroyed or lost? Why this phenomenon isn't officially recognized by the psychiatric community? No scientific data has ever been published which supports the existence of these memories. David Holmes examined sixty years of research and could not find one scientific study showing that memories can be repressed then unearthed in their pristine...