To say, 'I was abused,' you don't need the kind of recall that would stand up in a court of law. The above quotation comes from a book called The Courage to Heal, by Ellen Bass and Laura Davis. They set out, I must assume, with good intentions, to help female victims of sexual abuse come to terms with the suffering that abuse undoubtedly brings. And they are right in assuming that the law requires a higher burden of proof than does a simple statement. Crying abuse, however, means more than just uttering healing words, for it is often the beginning of therapeutic vengeance that leads the accuser and the accused to a court of law.
Sexual abuse is a real and undeniable problem, but so are false accusations.
In recent times, the notion of repressed memories has been one of the most highly debated topics in the field of psychology, and parallel debates have sprung up in legal arenas. The questions for psychologists center on whether or not repressed memories actually exist, and the central legal question involves what the courts should do until the matter is resolved among psychologists. In this paper, I will look at how this debate has been manifested in both fields, with reference to the work of Elizabeth Loftus and to decisions in relevant cases. I will argue that both psychologists and the justice system must take measures to ensure that, until this debate is settled, the rule of law does not give way to persecutions based on unsubstantiated assertions of repressed memories. In 1972, Loftus published Leading Questions and the Eyewitness Report, a study in which she showed how the phrasing of a question can not only help one recall a previously unremembered detail but also create false memories.