I'd like to tell you about a legal case that I worked on involving a man named Steve Titus.
我想分享一個我曾處理過的法律案件, 關於一位名叫史帝芬.提多 (Steven Titus) 的男子。
Titus was a restaurant manager. He was 31 years old, he lived in Seattle, Washington, he was engaged to Gretchen, about to be married, she was the love of his life. And one night, the couple went out for a romantic restaurant meal. They were on their way home, and they were pulled over by a police officer. You see, Titus' car sort of resembled a car that was driven earlier in the evening by a man who raped a female hitchhiker, and Titus kind of resembled that rapist. So the police took a picture of Titus, they put it in a photo lineup, they later showed it to the victim, and she pointed to Titus' photo. She said, "That one's the closest." The police and the prosecution proceeded with a trial, and when Steve Titus was put on trial for rape, the rape victim got on the stand and said, "I'm absolutely positive that's the man." And Titus was convicted. He proclaimed his innocence, his family screamed at the jury, his fiancée collapsed on the floor sobbing, and Titus is taken away to jail.
提多是一家餐廳的經理, 那時他 31 歲,住在華盛頓西雅圖, 他和格麗卿 (Gretchen) 訂了婚, 即將舉行婚禮,她是他畢生的摯愛。 有天晚上,兩人外出, 去餐廳享用浪漫的晚餐, 在他們回家的路上, 被警察攔了下來。 提多的車有點類似 那天傍晚出現的另一部車, 那台車的司機性侵了搭便車的女子, 而提多和這名強暴犯長得有點像, 因此警察拍了一張提多的相片, 把相片放在相冊裡, 讓被害人指認。 被害人指著提多的照片, 她說:「這個人最像。」 警察和檢察官開始一連串的訊問, 當史帝芬.提多因為性侵案接受審判時, 被害人站上證人席, 她說:「我確定他就是那個男人。」 因此提多被宣判有罪, 他宣稱自己是無辜的, 他的家人對著評審團尖叫, 未婚妻哭倒在地, 而提多被送往監獄。
So what would you do at this point? What would you do? Well, Titus lost complete faith in the legal system, and yet he got an idea. He called up the local newspaper, he got the interest of an investigative journalist, and that journalist actually found the real rapist, a man who ultimately confessed to this rape, a man who was thought to have committed 50 rapes in that area, and when this information was given to the judge, the judge set Titus free.
這個時候你會怎麼做? 你會怎麼做? 提多不再信任司法制度, 但他靈光一閃, 打電話給當地報社, 引起一位調查記者的興趣。 這名記者後來確實找到了真兇, 這名男子後來承認犯罪, 他被指控犯了 50 起強暴罪, 就在那個地區裡, 這個消息傳到法官耳裡, 法官便釋放了提多。
And really, that's where this case should have ended. It should have been over. Titus should have thought of this as a horrible year, a year of accusation and trial, but over.
事實上,案子應該就此結束, 事情應該就停在這裡, 提多應該要覺得這一年糟透了, 歷經一年的指控和審判,但終於結束了,
It didn't end that way. Titus was so bitter. He'd lost his job. He couldn't get it back. He lost his fiancée. She couldn't put up with his persistent anger. He lost his entire savings, and so he decided to file a lawsuit against the police and others whom he felt were responsible for his suffering.
但事情並沒有結束, 提多感到非常痛苦, 他失去了工作,無法復職, 他失去了未婚妻, 她無法忍受他毫無止境的怒火, 他花光了所有積蓄, 因此他打算打官司, 控告警察和一些人, 那些他認為需要為他的苦難負責的人。
And that's when I really started working on this case, trying to figure out how did that victim go from "That one's the closest" to "I'm absolutely positive that's the guy."
那是我開始接觸這件案子的時間點, 試著去理解, 為何受害者最初的想法, 「那是最像的一個」 變成「絕對是這個傢伙」。
Well, Titus was consumed with his civil case. He spent every waking moment thinking about it, and just days before he was to have his day in court, he woke up in the morning, doubled over in pain, and died of a stress-related heart attack. He was 35 years old.
提多全神貫注在他的官司上, 他每天一睜開眼就開始思考這件事, 就在要上法庭的前幾天, 他在早上起床時 忍受著雙倍的疼痛, 最後死於壓力引起的心臟病, 那時他才 35 歲。
So I was asked to work on Titus' case because I'm a psychological scientist. I study memory. I've studied memory for decades. And if I meet somebody on an airplane -- this happened on the way over to Scotland -- if I meet somebody on an airplane, and we ask each other, "What do you do? What do you do?" and I say "I study memory," they usually want to tell me how they have trouble remembering names, or they've got a relative who's got Alzheimer's or some kind of memory problem, but I have to tell them I don't study when people forget. I study the opposite: when they remember, when they remember things that didn't happen or remember things that were different from the way they really were. I study false memories.
因此,我被派來研究提多的案子, 因為我是心理學家, 我研究記憶已有數十年之久。 如果在飛機上有人問我 ──這事才發生在往蘇格蘭的途中── 如果我在機上碰到某個人, 我們會問彼此:「你做什麼工作?」 我說:「我研究記憶。」 通常人們會想跟我說他們很難記住名字, 或是他們的親友患有阿茲海默症, 或是一些記憶上的問題, 但是我必須告訴他們, 我研究的不是人遺忘了什麼, 我研究的是相反的事:是人記得了什麼, 他們記得從沒發生過的事, 或是他們記得不同的事, 和事實不同的事。 我研究的是錯誤記憶,
Unhappily, Steve Titus is not the only person to be convicted based on somebody's false memory. In one project in the United States, information has been gathered on 300 innocent people, 300 defendants who were convicted of crimes they didn't do. They spent 10, 20, 30 years in prison for these crimes, and now DNA testing has proven that they are actually innocent. And when those cases have been analyzed, three quarters of them are due to faulty memory, faulty eyewitness memory.
不幸的是,史帝芬.提多不是唯一一位 受到某人錯誤記憶而被指控的人。 美國有一項計畫顯示, 搜集到的資訊證明 有 300 名無辜的人, 300 名被告受到莫虛有的指控。 他們因為那些罪行, 在監獄裡耗了 10、20、30 年。 現在 DNA 鑑定已經證實 他們其實是無辜的, 分析那些案子後發現 其中有 3/4 的人 都是由於錯誤的記憶、 錯誤的指證記憶而被誤判。
Well, why? Like the jurors who convicted those innocent people and the jurors who convicted Titus, many people believe that memory works like a recording device. You just record the information, then you call it up and play it back when you want to answer questions or identify images. But decades of work in psychology has shown that this just isn't true. Our memories are constructive. They're reconstructive. Memory works a little bit more like a Wikipedia page: You can go in there and change it, but so can other people. I first started studying this constructive memory process in the 1970s. I did my experiments that involved showing people simulated crimes and accidents and asking them questions about what they remember. In one study, we showed people a simulated accident and we asked people, how fast were the cars going when they hit each other? And we asked other people, how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other? And if we asked the leading "smashed" question, the witnesses told us the cars were going faster, and moreover, that leading "smashed" question caused people to be more likely to tell us that they saw broken glass in the accident scene when there wasn't any broken glass at all. In another study, we showed a simulated accident where a car went through an intersection with a stop sign, and if we asked a question that insinuated it was a yield sign, many witnesses told us they remember seeing a yield sign at the intersection, not a stop sign.
為什麼呢? 就像是陪審團宣告那些無辜的人有罪, 陪審團也宣告提多有罪, 許多人相信記憶, 就像錄影的儀器一樣, 你只要錄下資訊, 然後調出檔案就能重播, 只要你想要回答問題或是辨別影像。 但是心理學研究此事數十年, 已顯示了那並非事實。 我們的記憶是可建構的, 是可以改造的, 記憶的運作方式有點像維基百科, 你可以更改裡面的資訊,但其他人也可以。 我首次研究這個可建構的記憶過程, 是在 1970 年代。 我的實驗是向許多人展示 模擬的犯罪和意外場景, 然後詢問他們記得什麼。 在一次研究中,我們給受試者看模擬的意外場景, 然後問他們: 這兩台車碰撞的時候速度有多快? 然後再問其他人: 這兩台車猛烈撞擊的時候速度有多快? 如果我們用的是「猛烈撞擊」的問句, 目擊者會回答的車速較快。 如果我們用的是「猛烈撞擊」的問句, 會讓受試者更傾向回答, 他們在意外場景中看見碎玻璃, 但事實上根本沒有碎玻璃。 在另一次的研究,模擬的意外現場中, 有一台車穿越有「暫停」標誌的十字路口, 如果我們的問題暗示現場有「禮讓」標誌, 許多目擊者會回答他們有看到「禮讓」標誌, 在十字路口,而不是「暫停」標誌,
And you might be thinking, well, you know, these are filmed events, they are not particularly stressful. Would the same kind of mistakes be made with a really stressful event? In a study we published just a few months ago, we have an answer to this question, because what was unusual about this study is we arranged for people to have a very stressful experience. The subjects in this study were members of the U.S. military who were undergoing a harrowing training exercise to teach them what it's going to be like for them if they are ever captured as prisoners of war. And as part of this training exercise, these soldiers are interrogated in an aggressive, hostile, physically abusive fashion for 30 minutes and later on they have to try to identify the person who conducted that interrogation. And when we feed them suggestive information that insinuates it's a different person, many of them misidentify their interrogator, often identifying someone who doesn't even remotely resemble the real interrogator.
你可能會想 這些只是影片, 沒什麼壓力, 同樣的錯誤會出現在 讓人有壓力的真實場景嗎? 幾個月前我們才公佈的一份研究顯示, 我們找到這個問題的解答, 因為這份研究和以往不同的是, 我們讓受試者體驗的,是很有壓力的場景。 這個研究的實驗對象 是美國退役軍人, 他們經歷過非常恐怖的操練演習, 讓他們知道如果成為戰俘, 可能會碰到什麼情形。 由於這是操練演習的一部分, 這些土兵被審問時面對的是挑釁的, 充滿敵意的身體凌辱,歷時半小時, 之後他們要試著指認 誰是那場審問的指揮者。 當我們暗示他們 那是不一樣的人, 大部分的人會指認錯誤的訊問者, 甚至經常會是和真正的訊問者 看起來不太相似的人。
And so what these studies are showing is that when you feed people misinformation about some experience that they may have had, you can distort or contaminate or change their memory.
這份研究顯示, 當你提供給人們錯誤的資訊, 是他們可能有過的經驗, 你可以扭曲、誤導或改變他們的記憶。
Well out there in the real world, misinformation is everywhere. We get misinformation not only if we're questioned in a leading way, but if we talk to other witnesses who might consciously or inadvertently feed us some erroneous information, or if we see media coverage about some event we might have experienced, all of these provide the opportunity for this kind of contamination of our memory.
在記憶之外的真實世界中, 錯誤的資訊無所不在。 我們收到錯誤的訊息, 不只是我們被有意地引導詢問, 還有如果其他的證人 在有意無意間透露出 一些錯誤的訊息, 或是我們看到媒體報導 關於我們可能曾有過的經驗, 所有這些經驗都會製造機會 來誤導我們的記憶。
In the 1990s, we began to see an even more extreme kind of memory problem. Some patients were going into therapy with one problem -- maybe they had depression, an eating disorder -- and they were coming out of therapy with a different problem. Extreme memories for horrific brutalizations, sometimes in satanic rituals, sometimes involving really bizarre and unusual elements. One woman came out of psychotherapy believing that she'd endured years of ritualistic abuse, where she was forced into a pregnancy and that the baby was cut from her belly. But there were no physical scars or any kind of physical evidence that could have supported her story. And when I began looking into these cases, I was wondering, where do these bizarre memories come from? And what I found is that most of these situations involved some particular form of psychotherapy. And so I asked, were some of the things going on in this psychotherapy -- like the imagination exercises or dream interpretation, or in some cases hypnosis, or in some cases exposure to false information -- were these leading these patients to develop these very bizarre, unlikely memories? And I designed some experiments to try to study the processes that were being used in this psychotherapy so I could study the development of these very rich false memories.
在 1990 年代,我們開始檢視 更極端的記憶問題。 有些病人因為某些問題正在接受治療, 他們可能患有憂鬱症、飲食失調, 他們接受治療, 都是因為不同的問題。 針對恐怖殘酷的極端記憶, 有時候是在極度邪惡的儀式中, 有時候包含了真的非常奇怪、不尋常的元素, 有一位女士接受了心理治療, 因為她相信自己已經 忍受多年經常性的虐待,她曾被迫懷孕, 而且寶寶從她的肚子被切下來。 但是在她的身上看不出任何疤痕, 或是任何身體上的證據 能夠證明她的故事是真的。 當我開始研究這些案件, 我感到疑惑, 這些奇怪的記憶究竟從何而來? 我發現大部分的情況 都包含了某種形式的心理治療。 因此我提出了 是否在這種心理治療中發生了什麼事─ 例如想像練習, 夢境解析, 或某些案例中的催眠, 或接收到錯誤訊息─ 是這些事讓病人 產生非常奇怪 又不真實的記憶嗎? 因此我設計了一些實驗, 試著研究心理治療使用的療程, 因此我就能研究 這些大量的錯誤記憶是如何形成的。
In one of the first studies we did, we used suggestion, a method inspired by the psychotherapy we saw in these cases, we used this kind of suggestion and planted a false memory that when you were a kid, five or six years old, you were lost in a shopping mall. You were frightened. You were crying. You were ultimately rescued by an elderly person and reunited with the family. And we succeeded in planting this memory in the minds of about a quarter of our subjects. And you might be thinking, well, that's not particularly stressful. But we and other investigators have planted rich false memories of things that were much more unusual and much more stressful. So in a study done in Tennessee, researchers planted the false memory that when you were a kid, you nearly drowned and had to be rescued by a life guard. And in a study done in Canada, researchers planted the false memory that when you were a kid, something as awful as being attacked by a vicious animal happened to you, succeeding with about half of their subjects. And in a study done in Italy, researchers planted the false memory, when you were a kid, you witnessed demonic possession.
在早期我們做的某個實驗中, 我們使用了暗示, 在上述案例中運用了這種心理治療法, 我們用這種暗示療法 植入錯誤的記憶: 當你還是個五、六歲的孩子時, 你在購物中心走失了, 你很害怕,開始大哭, 最後有一位大人前來協助, 讓你和家人團聚了。 我們成功地植入這個記憶, 成功植入約 1/4 研究對象的心裡。 你可能會想 聽起來不太有壓力, 但我們和其他研究員也試過植入 大量錯誤的記憶, 那些記憶更加不尋常且更有壓力。 在田納西州有一項研究, 研究員植入錯誤的記憶, 讓你誤以為自己還小時曾差點溺死, 然後被救生員救了起來。 在加拿大有項研究, 研究員植入錯誤的記憶, 讓你誤以為當你還小的時候 發生了某件恐怖的事, 類似被猛獸攻擊一樣恐怖的事, 幾乎半數的實驗對象都植入成功。 在義大利有項研究, 研究員植入錯誤的記憶, 讓你誤以為當你還小時目擊了邪魔附體。
I do want to add that it might seem like we are traumatizing these experimental subjects in the name of science, but our studies have gone through thorough evaluation by research ethics boards that have made the decision that the temporary discomfort that some of these subjects might experience in these studies is outweighed by the importance of this problem for understanding memory processes and the abuse of memory that is going on in some places in the world.
我想補充說明一下, 這聽起來像是我們以科學之名, 讓這些實驗對象受到創傷, 但是我們的研究已通過完整的評估, 研究倫理委員會 曾通過一項決議: 暫時性的不舒適感 可能會產生在實驗對象身上, 但是更重要的是 能夠了解記憶的形成, 以及了解世界上某些地方 正在發生的記憶濫用問題。
Well, to my surprise, when I published this work and began to speak out against this particular brand of psychotherapy, it created some pretty bad problems for me: hostilities, primarily from the repressed memory therapists, who felt under attack, and by the patients whom they had influenced. I had sometimes armed guards at speeches that I was invited to give, people trying to drum up letter-writing campaigns to get me fired. But probably the worst was I suspected that a woman was innocent of abuse that was being claimed by her grown daughter. She accused her mother of sexual abuse based on a repressed memory. And this accusing daughter had actually allowed her story to be filmed and presented in public places. I was suspicious of this story, and so I started to investigate, and eventually found information that convinced me that this mother was innocent. I published an exposé on the case, and a little while later, the accusing daughter filed a lawsuit. Even though I'd never mentioned her name, she sued me for defamation and invasion of privacy. And I went through nearly five years of dealing with this messy, unpleasant litigation, but finally, finally, it was over and I could really get back to my work. In the process, however, I became part of a disturbing trend in America where scientists are being sued for simply speaking out on matters of great public controversy.
讓我訝異的是, 當我發表這項研究,並開始對外說明 這個和心理治療相違背的特殊情形時, 其實讓我惹了一些麻煩: 敵意,主要是來自壓抑記憶治療師, 他們感到四面受敵, 來自那些曾被他們影響的病人, 有時候會有一些警衛在 我受邀的演講現場, 有人想利用投書活動讓我丟掉工作, 但最糟糕的可能是 我懷疑有位女性 其實是無辜的, 她的成年女兒卻聲稱受她虐待, 她指控母親對她性侵, 而她根據的是受壓抑的記憶, 提告的女兒後來還將自己的故事 拍成電影並公開播放。 我懷疑這個故事的真實性, 因此我開始著手調查, 最後發現了一項證據,讓我相信 這位母親是無辜的。 我公開揭露了這個案件, 一陣子過後,那位控告的女兒 對我提告。 即使我從未說出她的姓名, 她還是控告我誹謗和侵犯隱私權。 我幾乎花了五年 處理這個麻煩又不愉快的訴訟, 但是最後終於結束了,我可以真正地 回到工作崗位上。 在這整個過程中,雖然我成為 美國的亂源之一, 在國內,科學家會被控告, 只因為他們說出和主流社會認知不同的事情。
When I got back to my work, I asked this question: if I plant a false memory in your mind, does it have repercussions? Does it affect your later thoughts, your later behaviors? Our first study planted a false memory that you got sick as a child eating certain foods: hard-boiled eggs, dill pickles, strawberry ice cream. And we found that once we planted this false memory, people didn't want to eat the foods as much at an outdoor picnic. The false memories aren't necessarily bad or unpleasant. If we planted a warm, fuzzy memory involving a healthy food like asparagus, we could get people to want to eat asparagus more. And so what these studies are showing is that you can plant false memories and they have repercussions that affect behavior long after the memories take hold.
當我回到工作後,我問了這個問題: 如果我在你的心裡植入錯誤的記憶 會有影響嗎? 那會影響你未來的思想 和將來的行為嗎? 我們的首次研究報告植入了錯誤的記憶, 讓你認為你小時候生了病,是因為吃了特定食物: 水煮蛋、酸黃瓜、草莓冰淇淋。 我們發現只要植入這個錯誤的記憶, 受試者就不會那麼想吃這些食物, 在戶外野餐的時候。 錯誤的記憶不一定是不好或是不愉快的。 如果我植入了一個溫暖、舒適的記憶 與蘆筍這類健康食物有關, 就能讓大家多吃一點蘆筍。 這些研究報告顯示, 你能夠植入錯誤的記憶, 而且這些記憶會造成影響, 只要記憶已形成,就會影響行為。
Well, along with this ability to plant memories and control behavior obviously come some important ethical issues, like, when should we use this mind technology? And should we ever ban its use? Therapists can't ethically plant false memories in the mind of their patients even if it would help the patient, but there's nothing to stop a parent from trying this out on their overweight or obese teenager. And when I suggested this publicly, it created an outcry again. "There she goes. She's advocating that parents lie to their children."
由於這個可能性, 植入記憶和控制行為的能力 顯然有很大的道德問題, 比如說,我們什麼時候可以用這項心智科技? 我們是否應該禁止使用這項能力? 在道德上,治療師不能將錯誤的記憶 植入病人的心裡, 即使這麼做可以幫助病人, 但是卻沒有辦法阻止家長 讓他們過重或肥胖的 青少年孩子嘗試這個方式。 當我公開建議這件事, 又再次引發強烈的抗議, 「她又來了,她鼓勵家長對孩子說謊。」
Hello, Santa Claus. (Laughter)
哈囉!聖誕老公公(笑聲)。
I mean, another way to think about this is, which would you rather have, a kid with obesity, diabetes, shortened lifespan, all the things that go with it, or a kid with one little extra bit of false memory? I know what I would choose for a kid of mine.
我的意思是,換個方式思考這件事, 用你不曾有過的想法, 你希望孩子有肥胖、糖尿病、提早面臨死亡, 或是其它相關問題, 還是只有一點錯誤記憶的孩子? 我知道我會怎麼為自己的孩子選擇,
But maybe my work has made me different from most people. Most people cherish their memories, know that they represent their identity, who they are, where they came from. And I appreciate that. I feel that way too. But I know from my work how much fiction is already in there. If I've learned anything from these decades of working on these problems, it's this: just because somebody tells you something and they say it with confidence, just because they say it with lots of detail, just because they express emotion when they say it, it doesn't mean that it really happened. We can't reliably distinguish true memories from false memories. We need independent corroboration. Such a discovery has made me more tolerant of the everyday memory mistakes that my friends and family members make. Such a discovery might have saved Steve Titus, the man whose whole future was snatched away by a false memory.
但也許我的工作讓我有不同於大眾的思維。 大部分的人很珍惜自己的記憶, 他們知道那象徵著身分, 他們是誰,來自何方。 我認同,我也這麼想。 但是從我的工作中 有多少幻象早已存在那裡。 這幾十年來我已經了解 要如何解決這些問題,那就是: 只因為有人告訴你某件事, 而且他們很確信的告訴你, 只因為他們說了很多細節, 只因為他們在說的時候帶有情緒, 並不代表這件事真的發生過。 我們無法確實地分辨真實與錯誤的記憶, 我們必須自己證實。 這個發現讓我更能忍受 每天面對記憶錯誤, 尤其是親友所犯下的記憶錯誤。 這個發現也許能在當時拯救史帝芬.提多, 那個未來人生都被抹殺的男子, 只因為一個錯誤的記憶。
But meanwhile, we should all keep in mind, we'd do well to, that memory, like liberty, is a fragile thing. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. (Applause) Thanks very much. (Applause)
但同時,我們都應該牢記, 我們最好記得, 記憶,就像是自由, 是非常脆弱的。 謝謝,謝謝。 謝謝(掌聲), 非常感謝(掌聲)。