Indian Journal of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Child Witness in Today's Courts


Affiliations
1 Dept. of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, S.S. Institue of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Davangere 577 005, Karanataka, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


The involvement of children in the legal system as witnesses has increased dra-matically in the recent past, mainly as a result of society's heightened awareness of the problem of sexual and physical abuse and the subsequent removal of several legal impediments to children's testimony. The increased interaction between children and the legal system helped to create research interest in the area of children's eyewitness capabilities. Several sensational cases in the 1980s and 1990s in which children were interviewed with highly suggestive tactics, thus compromising their credibility, raised concerns about children's suggestibility and ability to provide accurate testimony. Compared to earlier turn-of-the-century studies on children's eyewitness ability, more recent studies, especially studies conducted in the last decade, rep-resent several advances in research methodology. These studies have identified both strengths and weaknesses in children's eyewitness testimony.

Keywords

Legal, Eyewitness
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Ceci, Loftus, Leichtman. & Bruck, 1995; Leichtman & Ceci, 1995; Poole & Lindsay, 1995

  • Goodman, G S., Rudy, L., Bottoms, B. L., & Aman, C. (1990). Children’s concerns and memory: Issues of ecological validity in the study of children’s eyewitness testimony. In F. Robyn & J. Hudson (Eds.), Knowing and remembering in young children, Emory symposia in cognition, Vol. 3 (pp. 249-284). New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Saywitz, K. J., Goodman, G. S., Nicholas, E., & Moan, S. F. (1991). Children’s mem-ories of a physical examination involving genital touch: Implications for reports of child sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 682-691.

  • Ceci, S. J., Ross, D F, & Toglia, M. P. (1987). Suggestibility of children’s memory: Psycho-legal implications. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 38-49.

  • Zaragoza, M. S. (1987). Memory, suggestibility and eyewitness testimony in children and adults. In S. J. Ceci, M. P. Toglia, & D. F Ross (Eds.), Children’s eyewitness memory (pp. 53-78). New York: Springer-Verlag.

  • Zaragoza, M. S. (1991). Preschool children’s susceptibility to memory impairment. In J. Doris (Ed.), The suggestibility of children’s recollections (pp. 27-39). Washington. DC: American Psychological Association.

  • Zaragoza, M. S., Dahlgren, D., & Muench, J. (1992). The role of memory impairment in children’s suggestibility. In M. L. Howe, C. J. Brainerd, & V. F. Reyna (Eds.), The development of long-term retention (pp. 184-216). New York: Springer-Verlag.

  • Portwood, S. G, & Reppucci, N. D. (1996). Adults’ impact on the suggestibility of preschoolers’ recollections. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 17, 175-198.

  • Roberts, K. P., & Blades, M. (1999). Children’s memory and source monitoring of real-life and televised events. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 20, 575- 596

  • Schwartz-Kenney, B. M., & Goodman, G. S. (1999). Children’s memory of a naturalistic event following misinformation. Applied Developmental Science, 3, 34-46.

  • Poole, D. A., & Lindsay, D. S. (1995). Interviewing preschoolers: Effects of nonsuggestive techniques, parental coaching, and leading questions on reports of nonexperienced events. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 129-154.

  • Poole, D. A., & Lindsay, D. S. (2001). Children’s eyewitness reports after exposure to misinformation from parents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 27-50.

  • Ackil, J. K., & Zaragoza, M. S. (1995). Developmental differences in eyewitness sug-gestibility and memory for source. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 57-83.

  • Cassel, W S., Roebers, C. E. M., & Bjorklund, D. F (1996). Developmental patterns afj eyewitness responses to repeated and increasingly suggestive questions. Journal q Experimental Child Psychology, 61, 116-133

  • Lindsay, D. S., Johnson, M. K., & Kwon, P. (1991). Developmental changes in memo: source monitoring. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 52, 297-318.

  • Quas, J. A., Goodman, G. S., Schaaf, J. M., & Luenberger, J. (1997, April). Individual dif-ferences in preschoolers’ suggestibility: Identifying the source. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, DC.

  • Bjorklund, D. E, Bjorklund, B. R., Brown, R. D, & Cassel, W. S. (1998). Children’s sus-ceptibility to repeated questions: How misinformation changes children’s answers and their minds. Applied Developmental Science, 2, 99-111.

  • Ceci, S. I, Huffman, M. L., Smith, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1994). Repeatedly thinking aix jt a non-event: Source misattributions among preschoolers. Consciousness and Cozn-tion, 3, 388-407.

  • Ceci, S. J, Loftus, E. F, Leichtman, M. D, & Bruck, M. (1994). The possible role a source misattributions in the creation of false beliefs among preschoolers. Interimtional Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 42, 304-320.

  • Quas, J. A., & Schaaf, J. M. (2002). Children’s memories of experienced and nonexperi-enced events following repeated interviews. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83, 304-338.

  • Lindsay, D. S., Gonzales, V., & Eso, K. (1995). Aware and unaware uses of memories o postevent suggestions. In M. S. Zaragoza, I R. Graham, G. C. N. Hall, R Hirschman, & Y. S. Ben-Porath (Eds.), Memory and testimony in the child witnes (pp. 86-108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Schaaf, J. M., & Ghetti, S. (2001, April). Investigating the effects of post event misinfor-mation using the logic of opposition instruction. In S. Ghetti & J. Schaaf (Chairs). Developmental differences in false memory formation: Errors as by-products ofafunc-tional system! Symposium presented at the Biennial Conference of Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN.

  • Flin, R., Boon, I, Knox, A., & Bull, R. (1992). The effect of a five-month delay on children’s and adults’ eyewitness memory. British Journal of Psychology, 83. 323-336.

  • Follmer, A., & Furtado, E. A. (1997, April). Children’s longterm retention: Using hier-archical linear models to estimate recall functions over time. Paper presented at Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington DC.

  • Salmon, K., & Pipe, M. E. (1997). Recalling an event one year later: The impact of props. drawing and a prior interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 99-120.

  • Ceci, S. I, Huffman, M. L., Smith, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1994). Repeatedly thinking aix jt a non-event: Source misattributions among preschoolers. Consciousness and Cozn-tion, 3, 388-407.

  • Garven, S., Wood, J. M., Malpass, R. S., & Shaw, J. S. (1998). More than suggestion effect of interviewing techniques from the McMartin Preschool case. Journs. applied Psychology, 83, 347-359.

  • Tobey, A. E., & Goodman, G. S. (1992). Children’s eyewitness memory: Effects of par-ticipation and forensic context. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, 779-796.

  • Leichtman, M. D., & Ceci, S. J. (1995). The effects of stereotypes and suggestions on preschoolers’ reports. Developmental Psychology, 31, 568-578.

  • Brainerd, C. X, & Ornstein, P. A. (1991). Children’s memory for witnessed events: The developmental backdrop. In X Doris (Ed.), The suggestibility of children’s recollec-tions (pp. 10-20). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

  • Cassel, W S., Roebers, C. E. M., & Bjorklund, D. F (1996). Developmental patterns afj eyewitness responses to repeated and increasingly suggestive questions. Journal q Experimental Child Psychology, 61, 116-133.

  • Dent, H. R., & Stephenson, G. M. (1979). An experimental study of the effectiveness of different techniques of questioning child witnesses. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 41-51.

  • Goodman, G. S., & Reed, R. (1986). Age differences in eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 317-332.

  • Oates, K., & Shrimpton, S. (1991). Children’s memories for stressful and non-stressfmlj events. Medical Science and Law, 31, 4—10.

  • Nelson, K. (1986). Event knowledge: Structure and function in development. Hillsdale. XJfc Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Goodman, G. S., Bottoms, B. L„ Schwartz-Kenney, B. M., & Rudy, L. (1991). Child testimony about a stressful event: Improving children’s reports. Journal of Sm & Life History, 1, 69-99.

  • Carter, C. A., Bottoms, B. L., & Levine, M. (1996). Linguistic and socioemoticr.^ influences on the accuracy of children’s reports. Law & Human Behavior, 20. 335-358.

  • Alexander, K., Redlich, A. D., Christian, P., & Goodman, G. S. (2003). Interviewing chil-dren. In M. Peterson & M. Durfee (Eds.), Child abuse and neglect: Guidelines for the identification, assessment, and case management (pp. 17- 19). Volcano, CA: Volcano Press, Inc.

  • Poole, D. A., & Lamb, M. E. (1998). Investigative interviews of children: A guide for helping professionals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

  • Aldridge, X, & Cameron, S. (1999). Interviewing child witnesses: Questioning techniques and the role of training. Applied Developmental Science, 3, 136-147.

  • Warren, A. R., Woodall, C. E., Hunt, J. S., & Perry, N. W. (1996). “It sounds good in theory but”: Do investigative interviewers follow guidelines based on memory research? Child Maltreatment, 1, 231-245.

  • Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Esplin, P. W., & Baradaran, L. P. (1999). Using a scripted protocol in investigative interviews: A pilot study. Applied Developmental Science, 3, 70-76.

  • Zaragoza, M. S., & Mitchell, K. J. (1996). Repeated exposure to suggestion and the cre-ation of false memories. Psychological Science, 7, 294-300.

  • Poole, D. A., & Lindsay, D. S. (2002). Reducing child witnesses’ false reports of misin-formation from parents. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 81, 117-140.

  • Schaaf, J. M. (2000). Do children believe misleading information? Investigating the effects of postevent misinformation using the logic of opposition instruction. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 60, 5240 (UMI Number AA19987507).

  • Jacoby, L. L., Woloshyn, V., & Kelley, C. M. (1989). Becoming famous without being rec-ognized: Unconscious influences of memory produced by dividing attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 115-125.


Abstract Views: 215

PDF Views: 0




  • Child Witness in Today's Courts

Abstract Views: 215  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

V. Vijayanath
Dept. of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, S.S. Institue of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Davangere 577 005, Karanataka, India
M. R. Anitha
Dept. of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, S.S. Institue of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Davangere 577 005, Karanataka, India
R. Rohini
Dept. of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, S.S. Institue of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Davangere 577 005, Karanataka, India
Sarika Manolli
Dept. of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, S.S. Institue of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Davangere 577 005, Karanataka, India
B. Vijaya Kumar
Dept. of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, S.S. Institue of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Davangere 577 005, Karanataka, India

Abstract


The involvement of children in the legal system as witnesses has increased dra-matically in the recent past, mainly as a result of society's heightened awareness of the problem of sexual and physical abuse and the subsequent removal of several legal impediments to children's testimony. The increased interaction between children and the legal system helped to create research interest in the area of children's eyewitness capabilities. Several sensational cases in the 1980s and 1990s in which children were interviewed with highly suggestive tactics, thus compromising their credibility, raised concerns about children's suggestibility and ability to provide accurate testimony. Compared to earlier turn-of-the-century studies on children's eyewitness ability, more recent studies, especially studies conducted in the last decade, rep-resent several advances in research methodology. These studies have identified both strengths and weaknesses in children's eyewitness testimony.

Keywords


Legal, Eyewitness

References