September 1995 Doe v. Maskell MD Court of Appeals
(filed July 29, 1996)
http://law.justia.com/cases/maryland/court-of-appeals/1996/102a95-1.html
Other links for this or something similar in this thread weren't working for me. Admittedly, I did not search back far - I am somewhat new to the Cesnik case and this thread.
It was extremely helpful in understanding the legal arguments, court proceedings, and research about repressed memories. I learned a lot!
For me, it highlights the limitations of our justice system's necessary functions - regardless what the crime, no matter how apparent the injustice, the court is bound to uphold existing law and nothing more. Right or wrong, I can understand how the court decided not to move forward with this case given the information available at the time.
From cursory research, it appears to me that the psychological community now accepts the concept of repressed memory recovery as scientifically supported, if not proven. So as someone in the documentary noted, the case's outcome might be different today due to those changes.
"After reviewing the arguments on both sides of the issue, we are unconvinced that repression exists as a phenomenon separate and apart from the normal process of forgetting. Because we find these two processes to be indistinguishable scientifically, it follows that they should be treated the same legally. Therefore we hold that the mental process of repression of memories of past sexual abuse does not activate the discovery rule. The plaintiffs' suits are thus barred by the statue of limitations.
If the General Assembly should wish the rewrite the law, that is its prerogative and responsibility." (page 13, Doe v. Maskell, 1996)
After that, the court cites extensive instances of legal precedence to bolster its judgment. This makes it abundantly clear that the court was unwilling to take unprecedented legal action, and that is exactly what Jane Doe's case required if it was to move forward. We are left debating whether that decision was right or wrong because what is morally right and legally right are not one in the same.
This analysis leaves me feeling unsettled, but any further curiosity will leave me debating the separation of church and state. In the end, even the most pragmatic systems have ethical gray tones. I believe Jane Doe was abused, I believe she legitimately repressed and recovered horrific memories, and I believe she deserves justice. Yet at the same time, I feel that our ideal justice system must strive to be consistent and fairly regulated to prevent ethical corruption, even in the face of cases like this.
Ok, I said I wasn't going down that rabbit hole!
I keep focusing on that last sentence in bold. I am stuck between two ways of interpreting this statement, either:
1 - The court imploring lawmakers to enact appropriate changes (they want this to move forward but believe their hands are tied by existing law) or
2 - The court distancing itself from responsibility (what more can we do?) and providing the public with an alternative scapegoat (lawmakers) for their outrage.
I am inclined to believe #2, but it seemed in the doc like public opinion was on Maskell's side, and the court's decision was met with general approval. In the end, maybe I am just being a nerd about legal argument! If you are into that sort of thing, you will also find this to be a fascinating read.