|
This article is an electronic version of an article originally
published in Cultic Studies Journal, 1997, Volume 14, Number 2, pages 207-289.
Please keep in mind that the pagination of this electronic reprint differs from
that of the bound volume. This fact could affect how you enter bibliographic
information in papers that you may write.
False Memory and Buridan’s Ass:
A Response to Karlin and Orne
Alan W. Scheflin, Esq.
Abstract
According to the Karlin and Orne position supporting the per se exclusion rule
for hypnotized witnesses, a person who has been lobotomized can testify in
court, a person who has received massive electroshock treatments can testify in
court, a person who has taken enormous dosages of mind-altering psychiatric
drugs or psychedelics can testify in court, a person who has suffered
substantial organic brain damage can testify in court; but a person who had been
competently hypnotized by an experienced licensed professional who carefully
followed strict guidelines to avoid undue suggestions, cannot testify in court.
This paper rejects the Karlin and Orne position supporting per se exclusion on
scientific and policy grounds; and it argues that the currently prevailing
expert opinion of forensic hypnosis specialists, in the United States and
abroad, also rejects the per se exclusion. In addition, this paper argues that
Karlin and Orne are mistaken in their conclusions that (1) hypnosis always
contaminates memory, (2) repressed memory does not exist, (3) there is a
recognized practice or school of thought called “recovered memory” therapy, and
(4) multiple personality disorder (MPD) or dissociative identity disorder (DID)
is always iatrogenic.
Full text available through
ICSA E-Library.
|
