Short term memory and law enforcement. Judicial processes.

Short-term Memory and Law Enforcement
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Short-term Memory and Law Enforcement
Introduction
Judicial processes are subject to much scrutiny and particularly, when the issues are at stake are sources of ambiguity rather than much profound clarity. Short-term memory and the possible fallibility of the human information processing system in recollecting data from past encounters and offers them in judicial proceeding has been a bone of contention for a lengthy period. This topic became prominent in the ‘80s and ‘90s and continues its relevance in the present society. According to Brainerd (2013), “The science of memory is as central to the law as biology is to medicine.” Central to this assertion is that memory underscores significant limitations in the veracity of that evidence. One of the reasons lies in the fact that it fails to produce veridical representation of events as they happened. It is wrong to tacitly assume that a human being will be obliged to tell the truth if they make the effort to do so. There are significant sources if error including a deliberate intent to manipulate or reluctance to reveal or else a mechanical failure of the brain. Thereby, concerns lie in the need to mitigate related deficiencies as well as formulating a clear path that courts can follow and lessons that every stakeholder involved should learn.
Initially, people held a dominant perception of memory as a unitary capability or else a one-channel process. However, this notion has changed in modern times with memory considered to take several kinds and forms of organic operations. In this regard, there exist a significant difference in the output-only method and input-output methods in the study of memory (Sumrall, W., Sumrall, R., & Doss, 2016). The former allows for the subject to be exposed to the particulars of a specific task and later on, their performance on the task is tested. The test could also include their ability to retain content in the task. In this case, input is unknown and hence, inferences will be made to ascertain the possible inputs or else to compare an individual to a wider population. On the other hand, the input-output method takes into account what the subject has ‘digested’ and ways in which it has influenced the output. Usually, when the examiner is oblivious of the input, they use the output as inference to ascertain the possible inputs. However, research has proven that the output is beyond the mere effect of the input to include essential factors. Thus, the ordinary presupposition in the input-output relationship is unjustified. This stance reflects evolutionary forms of memory in humankind and aligns with an historical trend where the output-only approach became predominant before the input-output method. This understanding has sieved to the psychiatry professionals where the competent personnel.
The psychiatry profession specializes in diagnosing, treating, and preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders. Psychiatrists are the professionals competent in this field and specialize in offering solutions to mental incapacities. Therefore, they are relatively great assessing psychological problems in respect to their mental and physical aspects (American Psychiatric Association, n.d.). Their importance becomes relevant when it comes to determining judicial cases and more so, when any engaged stakeholder is perceived to have any type of mental fault (Basavaraju et al., 2019). Since they have exceptional competence in this field, they are important in extracting related information from the respective individual may they be witnesses, jurors, or judges. Conscious, preconscious, and unconscious encounters result in the formation of memories. This assertion justifies the primary elements of memory, which include the perpetual, recording, and processing elements. It requires the intellect and experience of the psychiatrist to retrieve any possible information from an individual that could be quite relevant in the judgement of the case.
It is not in every circumstance that the psychiatrist will come to the rescue. Children, in particular, have an undeveloped brain system that is incapable of handling the pressures that come with the investigations. The case for the children became more relevant in the ‘80s and ‘90s when the rate of sexual abuse increased. Social recognition of this underlying problem heightened the course and therefore, legal proceedings that accommodated the inclusion of children in testimonies begun. An increased level of concern quadrupled child abuse investigations between the late ‘70s and ‘90s (Basavaraju et al., 2019). The challenge is that these cases have little evidence as associated activities happen in privacy and they involve the victim and the perpetrator only. Even though there is a possibi...