Psychotherapy in the context of criminal investigations is therefore often viewed critically – especially in cases of directly conflicting testimonies. Victims and therapists are thus faced with a dilemma: Should affected persons accept urgently needed treatment or maintain the credibility of their testimonies in court? Skepticism towards psychotherapy persists, even though initial studies have shown that professionally conducted, evidence-based procedures focusing on trauma do not lead to distortion of memories. Rather, the risks appear to lie in interventions that are not in compliance with guidelines and are suggestive, rather than in lege artis trauma confrontation methods.

An appropriate solution to this complex situation is yet to be established. To make matters worse, various professional groups – from therapists to legal agents and experts – are likewise affected to a varying degree by the so-called trauma-therapy dilemma and at times introduce divergent assumptions and levels of knowledge into an assessment.

At the Ladenburg Roundtable “Health or Credibility? Is it essential to choose between mental health and maintaining the credibility of a statement in court?” under the scientific management of Dr. Larissa Wolkenstein, LMU Munich, representatives from the fields of psychotherapy, legal psychology, jurisprudence, the criminal police, the public prosecutor’s office, victim protection, and organizations concerned with professional policy discussed the tensions between psychotherapy and the legal applicability of statements in cases of suspected traumatic experience. The aim was to bring to light the tensions between professional psychotherapeutic support for victims of violence and the requirements of criminal law with regard to evidence, consistency of testimonies, and credibility – and to jointly devise specific, realistic solutions for practice and for basic and advanced training in order to improve the situation for those affected.

The discussions made it clear that psychotherapy can and should also take place before or during criminal proceedings – as long as it is carried out professionally and is based on evidence. To prevent negative effects on criminal proceedings, however, clear standards, interdisciplinary understanding, and specific forms of documentation and communication are required.

Sustainable professionalization at this sensitive interface calls for common standards, more transparency between the disciplines, and more intensive debate among both the general public and experts. Specific measures and projects were devised at in-depth workshops to sensitize specialist groups to this problem (e.g. discipline-specific recommendations, and standards regarding assessment and documentation) and to improve the systematic transfer of knowledge. Adjustments to basic and advanced training were also discussed.

This Ladenburg Roundtable provided a promising initial impulse for interdisciplinary exchange on the trauma-therapy dilemma. Several subgroups were already formed in the course of this event to further pursue specific projects – for example to identify and describe therapy situations fraught with risk and to devise practice-oriented recommendations. Likewise at the planning stage is the establishment of an interdisciplinary working group for the long-term structural continuation of the exchange already initiated. The aim is to continue working on key topic areas, launch joint research projects, and coordinate the establishment of a digital platform for networking, providing information, and securing results.