It seems that there is no longer much need to invoke one’s right against self incrimination. Instead, all that is necessary is a faulty memory. It can be summed up as the ‘I do not recall’ response. It can be heard in places such as a court of law or a congressional hearing.

There are two approaches to take to such a response. Either the response is totally valid or it is invalid (and a ruse to evade answering).

If the response is valid, by the person’s own admission there are thinking anomalies. Then the person should be removed immediately from any positions of responsibilities and social safeguards should be set in place for their own protection. By their own testimony, there are repeated occasions where there are gaps in memory. They must be helped and there are precedents for doing so. For example, there are steps to be taken to protect those suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease. Fortunately, there are now tracking technologies to monitor these individuals and nursing homes to care for these unfortunate souls. And, undoubtedly, it is obvious to any caring individual why such surveillance steps must be taken. The loss of memory and inability to recall are not to be taken trivially.

If the ‘I do not recall’ response is not valid, then clearly it is evasion of the question and contempt for the judicial or congressional process. The obvious recourse is incarceration to contemplate means to stimulate a better memory. Surly, business people and government officials have appointment books, take notes, have PDAs, doodle or whatever. It might be remarkable how a time of quiet contemplation in jail aids in improving memory functions.

It seems time that the ‘I do not recall’ answer triggers a set of responses, instead of head shaking and guffawing among the general public.

Catherine Forsythe

[tags]self incrimination, do not recall, court, congress, validity, alzheimer’s disease, surveillance, tracking, contempt[/tags]